NationStates Jolt Archive

Calling it the womens fault is bull shit. Total and complete bull shit.
SHE ASKS FOR IT! HER CLOTHES SIGNAL THAT SHE WANTS TO BE RAPED!!!!:rolleyes:

I've already presented evidence that discredits that. Can you please now cite yours.

Is this your bullshit about most rape being partner confusion? I thought I disavowed you of that earlier. I guess it's going to take a professional to do it, though.

SHE ASKS FOR IT! HER CLOTHES SIGNAL THAT SHE WANTS TO BE RAPED!!!!:rolleyes:
But as soon as she says NO that should signal that that is not what she wants. And my last GF dresses extremely modestly at all times. And her clothes signaled it? I relize I'm coming in on the middle of a converstation, but society tells her it was her fault, making it that much harder for her to recover... AND I"M PISSED OF!!

(Yes Branin has lost his temper, and no he doesn't care)

(Yes Branin has lost his temper)

where was the last place you had it?

But as soon as she says NO that should signal that that is not what she wants. And my last GF dresses extremely modestly at all times. And her clothes signaled it? I relize I'm coming in on the middle of a converstation, but society tells her it was her fault, making it that much harder for her to recover... AND I"M PISSED OF!!

(Yes Branin has lost his temper, and no he doesn't care)
No problem. It is enraging, I agree. Claiming your dress, or hairstyle, or perfume somehow makes you culpable, is pure fucking idiocy.

But some people enjoy being pure, fucking, idiots.

No problem. It is enraging, I agree. Claiming your dress, or hairstyle, or perfume somehow makes you culpable, is pure fucking idiocy.

Put some people enjoy being pure, fucking, idiots.
Aparantly...

No problem. It is enraging, I agree. Claiming your dress, or hairstyle, or perfume somehow makes you culpable, is pure fucking idiocy.

But some people enjoy being pure, fucking, idiots.

So, to clarify, are you saying that the victim should accept no degree of responsability if they take action that they know is going to increase the likelihood of them being raped?

So, to clarify, are you saying that the victim should accept no degree of responsability if they take action that they know is going to increase the likelihood of them being raped?
Such as?

So, to clarify, are you saying that the victim should accept no degree of responsability if they take action that they know is going to increase the likelihood of them being raped?
As soon as they say no (if they don't say specifficlly yes IMHO) it is rape. And someone should have the respect to stop. If they keep going after that it is no ones fault but their own. The womens perfume doesn't make them deaf. Come on, think for a second.

Such as?

FOr example: Since rape is completly wrong, and since no where can I egg on rapists or do anything to increase the likelyhood of me a women getting, clearly no. :rolleyes:

FOr example: Since rape is completly wrong, and since no where can I egg on rapists or do anything to increase the likelyhood of me a women getting, clearly no. :rolleyes:
Try forming a legiable senctence please....

Such as?

Well, say a woman gets drunk and walks home, on her own, through a badly lit area of some city or other, knowing that the area has a far higher number of rapes than an alternative route she could have taken. And yes, I know this is a highly fabricated scenario.

FOr example: Since rape is completly wrong, and since no where can I egg on rapists or do anything to increase the likelyhood of me a women getting, clearly no. :rolleyes:
Please edit this so it makes a shred of sense.

Well, say a woman gets drunk and walks home, on her own, through a badly lit area of some city or other, knowing that the area has a far higher number of rapes than an alternative route she could have taken. And yes, I know this is a highly fabricated scenario.
Yes, she put herself in a bad situation, but as soon as she screams, or says no, then it is out of her hands. How is it her fault if the rapist keeps going?

As soon as they say no (if they don't say specifficlly yes IMHO) it is rape. And someone should have the respect to stop. If they keep going after that it is no ones fault but their own. The womens perfume doesn't make them deaf. Come on, think for a second.

I agree with you on those points. I'm talking about before that, and largely cases where it's rape through lack of consent, not through refused consent (i.e. where the woman says neither yes nor no. which i agree is/should be still considered rape)

Well, say a woman gets drunk and walks home, on her own, through a badly lit area of some city or other, knowing that the area has a far higher number of rapes than an alternative route she could have taken. And yes, I know this is a highly fabricated scenario.
I'm sorry, but really. How are you going to
a) prove the woman KNEW her actions were 'more likely' to get her raped
b) assess every single case, deciding in which ones the victim should get some of the blame?

Because frankly, there is no formula for rape...there is no set criteria that you can avoid. What makes you safe in one situation, puts you in danger in another. So no. I do not think the victim, woman or otherwise, should be held in anyway responsible for the sick actions of a criminal.

Yes, she put herself in a bad situation, but as soon as she screams, or says no, then it is out of her hands. How is it her fault if the rapist keeps going?

it's not. I think she should accept some responsibility for putting herself in that position. It doesn't lessen the severity of the criminal act, or anything like that.

I agree with you on those points. I'm talking about before that, and largely cases where it's rape through lack of consent, not through refused consent (i.e. where the woman says neither yes nor no. which i agree is/should be still considered rape)
Rape through lack of consent?

I'm sorry, but really. How are you going to
a) prove the woman KNEW her actions were 'more likely' to get her raped
b) assess every single case, deciding in which ones the victim should get some of the blame?

Because frankly, there is no formula for rape...there is no set criteria that you can avoid. What makes you safe in one situation, puts you in danger in another. So no. I do not think the victim, woman or otherwise, should be held in anyway responsible for the sick actions of a criminal.

It isn't exactly necessary to prove it.

This belief of mine doesn't mean I think the rapist gets a lesser punishment. I just see a danger in removing all personal liability from the victim that people will forget that there are things they could and should do to help keep themselves safe.

it's not. I think she should accept some responsibility for putting herself in that position. It doesn't lessen the severity of the criminal act, or anything like that.
What position did she put herself in? Seriously? Not all women who are raped are drunk, in a dark alley by herself.

I agree with you on those points. I'm talking about before that, and largely cases where it's rape through lack of consent, not through refused consent (i.e. where the woman says neither yes nor no. which i agree is/should be still considered rape)
*tries to regain self-control*

I'm ranting and raving. Sorry. This is just a bit touchy for me right now. My GF never denied consent, she was on a perscription drug that put her to sleep. She was at a "freinds" house. Most rape is aquantance rape, and who ever expects that.? I'm just a bit pissy about the whole subject right now, and am going to stop posting in this thread until I am under control. Then I will come make the exact same points with a little more sanity, and a little less pissiness. Thank you....

It isn't exactly necessary to prove it.

This belief of mine doesn't mean I think the rapist gets a lesser punishment. I just see a danger in removing all personal liability from the victim that people will forget that there are things they could and should do to help keep themselves safe.
Well, if people could actually discuss this sort of thing without even 'unintentionally' BLAMING the victim, maybe that would be possible. But instead, you get idiots claiming that if the victim had simply done something different, it wouldn't have happened. Which is bullshit.

Rape through lack of consent?

I mean that as in if the woman says nothing (i.e. not yes, but not no, either)

I would contrast that with rape through denied consent (i.e. the woman says no, the man does it anyway)

What position did she put herself in? Seriously? Not all women who are raped are drunk, in a dark alley by herself.

This isn't about rape victims as a whole. I'm referring to a very small subset

This isn't about rape victims as a whole. I'm referring to a very small subset
The ones who have not explicitly denied consent?

I have to go now...but I'm glad that was finally made clear. I was starting to worry about you...

*tries to regain self-control*

I'm ranting and raving. Sorry. This ...

Thank you....

No worries, Branin.

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.
This is one boy who is agreeing with you completely, Ashmoria!

To those who are saying that women are partially resonsible for getting raped: you are implying that men can't control themselves once aroused. Do you really think that? If it was possible to be patriotic about one's sex, you guys would be turncoat traitors.

I've already presented evidence that discredits that. Can you please now cite yours.

Where have you cited such evidence? Please provide a link.

As for my information, here is the source of that exact quote.
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html

I can provide ample additional evidence, if necessary.

EDIT:

Here (http://www.usdoj.gov/ovw/docs/MFSexViol.pdf) is from the US Department of Justice
Here (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/The%20Truth%20About%20Rape%20Final.pdf) is from the Centers for Disease Control

EDIT2:

You are a liar. I re-read the entire thread. You have never posted any such evidence.

You posted a few links of anecdotal cases of false reports. (An issue I already dealt with in posts 376 and 405 -- false reports of rape are stastically extremely rare and no more common than for other crimes.)

You posted a link that said most rape is not by strangers. So? I agree. My evidence says the same thing. In fact, your last 2 links support my statements and contradict your position.

You have never posted evidence that contradicted my statement that:

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.

You have never posted evidence that rape is provoked by women and/or how they dress or any of the other myths you perpetrate.

No problem. It is enraging, I agree. Claiming your dress, or hairstyle, or perfume somehow makes you culpable, is pure fucking idiocy.

But some people enjoy being pure, fucking, idiots.

Amen.

I really don't know what else to say. There are some people that get it and some people don't. For the people that do get it, I congratulate you. Once one realizes that they are responsible for everything that happens to them, then they have full control over their life. When one accepts responsibility for their suffering, then one can take steps to overcome it.

For those of you that don't get it, I offer my condolences. If for every suffering in life, you find someone else to blame for it, your life is going to be an endless stream of suffering that you can do nothing about because someone else is to blame for it. Life is not fair and people don't do the right thing all the time. The next time you get mugged or raped, shout with great conviction "This isn't my fault!" and see if that causes you to stop being attacked.

This will all make sense eventually. My only hope is that you figure it out before you become too physically and emotionally scarred.

*snip*

If I ever find you reporting or complaining about a crime that occurs to you, I will label you a hypocrite and that will be that.

blah, blah, blah.

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.

I'm sorry to see that so many people around here don't have any concept of personal responsibility. While individual A does have a responsibility to take precautions to avoid hurting individual B when the two interact, they don't have the primary responsibility. Individual B has to take every reasonable precaution to make sure they don't get hurt, because more than anyone else individual B has to deal with the consequences. I'm not trying to discuss what the legal definition of rape is, we already know that so there would be nothing to talk about. What I'm saying is that it is a flawed definition.

In my own experience, I'll tell you, 'No' usually means 'You haven't turned me on enough yet'. Therefore, you keep trying to turn the woman on, in the hopes that when you try again she'll let you. At some point either she decides to have sex with you (which is rarely something spoken, it's body language or a lack of refusal when you try again), or she keeps saying 'No' and you figure out she doesn't really want to have sex with you and you've just wasted the last half-hour or so.

While admitly some ridiculously small chance exists that a woman might say something about 'rape' and have it be role-playing or some such, is it enough to give reasonable doubt? I'd say no. As many people have said in this thread, if you want to play games like that it needs to be with someone you trust, and you need to have a safe word. However, if you describe a situation to me, and tell me a woman said 'No' and after a little more kissing and caressing didn't object when you tryed again, so you never even suspected she felt it was rape, is that reasonable doubt? In my book, yes.

So as I said somewhere earlier in this thread, if you think rape is so bad (and who doesn't) then I'm sure you want to make sure it happens as infrequently as possible, and when it does, make sure it's punished. So, I'll ask this question to people again... Do you think that even one rape per year would be prevented if the woman said 'rape' instead of 'no'? If you do, then I am right and that should be the standard because anything that makes a rape less likely to happen is a good thing.

And since I'm as likely to be on a jury in a rape case as anyone else, and I've known 'No' to mean something other than 'No', you might not get a conviction with the 'No' means 'No' arguement. I have critical thinking skills. I know how to take contextual clues into account, unlike so many others around here. But I promise you no matter what the circumstance (outside the whole 'safe' word issue) if the woman said 'rape' it's a guilty vote from me. Do you think I'm the only person who thinks this way? If so, then you're incredibly naive. So wouldn't you want a standard that makes people like me more likely to convict? I'm assuming, yes, you want more convictions. That means once again I'm right, because no one can make a reasonable arguement that 'rape' means anything other than 'rape'.

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?

D A F U B S Land is a puppet of mine. I didn't realize I was logged in under that name until after I posted. Anyway...

The answer is no if...

If you go to a bar were you have no particular reason to think that you will be accosted and you mind your own business and drink a beer, it's not your fault if someone smacks you in the head. You did nothing to provoke it.

However, if you go to a bar and have a beer, then start going on in a loud voice about how everyone in the room are a bunch of assholes, then point out a guy and tell him about all the sexually deviant things you're going to do to his female relatives when you leave, and how much they'll love it because they're whores, yeah. It's kinda (and by kinda I mean almost entirely) your fault if he punches you in the face. You provoked it, you knew your actions would make it more likely. I'm not saying that legally you were wrong. I'm not saying the man shouldn't be prosecuted. We can't have people running around hitting each other over words, no one would ever be able to talk for fear of being beaten. But, am I going to tell you that you didn't invite it on yourself... Am I going to to feel sorry for you? No.

So, if a sexy woman in a skimpy outfit goes out drinking with her friends, and flirts with guys (without touching their groins - if you start grabbing my dick, I assume I can grab your tits and ass, and that we're probrably going to have sex), and then goes to the bathroom, some guy follows her in and rapes her, is she at fault? No. She didn't do anything that could reasonable be considered to be provoking that. Nobody in their right mind wants a world were women can't dress sexy and flirt with men.

However, same woman goes into a bar with her friends and has some drinks, works the room, presses her tits up against guys, maybe grabs a couple of guys through thier pants, brings one of the guys into the bathroom with her and starts making out with him, his dick comes out, her panties come down, and now she says 'stop', he won't and rapes her. It's partially her fault for putting herself in that situation. Am I saying that she's legally responsible? No. Am I saying that the man shouldn't be prosecuted? No. We need to have rules, so that woman can feel that they can go and enjoy themselves without getting raped. However, if you put yourself in a very questionable situation, with someone you don't know, and something terrible happens, I'll tell you the truth. You did something stupid. I don't feel sorry for you, because you knew those actions would put you in a position where you are more likely to get raped. We all know that there are rapists out there. If we don't take reasonable precautions to make sure we're not a victim, then we have to accept that we've made ourselves a more lkely target, and we have only ourselves to blame for that.

However, same woman goes into a bar with her friends and has some drinks, works the room, presses her tits up against guys, maybe grabs a couple of guys through thier pants, brings one of the guys into the bathroom with her and starts making out with him, his dick comes out, her panties come down, and now she says 'stop', he won't and rapes her. It's partially her fault for putting herself in that situation. Am I saying that she's legally responsible? No. Am I saying that the man shouldn't be prosecuted? No. We need to have rules, so that woman can feel that they can go and enjoy themselves without getting raped. However, if you put yourself in a very questionable situation, with someone you don't know, and something terrible happens, I'll tell you the truth. You did something stupid. I don't feel sorry for you, because you knew those actions would put you in a position where you are more likely to get raped. We all know that there are rapists out there. If we don't take reasonable precautions to make sure we're not a victim, then we have to accept that we've made ourselves a more lkely target, and we have only ourselves to blame for that.
when THAT case comes to court we'll all debate it.

until that time, why are you arguing a made up rape scenario that would be a vanishingly small percent of all rape cases?

fine, that woman would be an idiot. does that invalidate the experience of the other almost 100% of rape victims?

*snip*
Have I mentioned that I love you?

when THAT case comes to court we'll all debate it.

until that time, why are you arguing a made up rape scenario that would be a vanishingly small percent of all rape cases?


When I was doing basically the same thing, it was to illustrate the fallacy of blanket statements about the victim never having to take any blame/responsibility.

does that invalidate the experience of the other almost 100% of rape victims?

No. Duh.

I really don't know what else to say. There are some people that get it and some people don't. For the people that do get it, I congratulate you. Once one realizes that they are responsible for everything that happens to them, then they have full control over their life. When one accepts responsibility for their suffering, then one can take steps to overcome it.

For those of you that don't get it, I offer my condolences. If for every suffering in life, you find someone else to blame for it, your life is going to be an endless stream of suffering that you can do nothing about because someone else is to blame for it. Life is not fair and people don't do the right thing all the time. The next time you get mugged or raped, shout with great conviction "This isn't my fault!" and see if that causes you to stop being attacked.

This will all make sense eventually. My only hope is that you figure it out before you become too physically and emotionally scarred.

i dont know how you missed this while making it to an age old enough to post on the net

but

we dont have full control over our lives.

other people do things that we have utterly no control over and in some cases that includes a man bent on rape. to suggest that the victim is always somehow responsible for what happens to him or her is ignorant at best and utterly cruel at worst.

when THAT case comes to court we'll all debate it.

until that time, why are you arguing a made up rape scenario that would be a vanishingly small percent of all rape cases?

fine, that woman would be an idiot. does that invalidate the experience of the other almost 100% of rape victims?
No shit.

Jesus christ people. Stop making shit up.

Is this entire thread based on the faulty notion that rape (in the most forceful way) is about lust and not power?

Is this entire thread based on the faulty notion that rape (in the most forceful way) is about lust and not power?

Maybe you could read it. Just a thought.

Maybe you could read it. Just a thought.
36 pages while im on vacation...not happening. If you could be so kind to give a vague over view of the arguments that'd be great.

Is this entire thread based on the faulty notion that rape (in the most forceful way) is about lust and not power?
Yeah. And 'slutty' clothes being irresistible 'provocation'.

And Heron...the problem with making up scenarios to show how it is conceivable that one may not be totally absolved of responsibility is that people like PasturePastry (I've never heard that before, by the way...we just call them cow patties) are going to use that to mean you are at fault for everything that is done to you. There really isn't much point in discussing rare scenarios when talking about the issue as a whole. Most reasoning people can accept that there are certain situations where the fault can be shared...but there are plenty of non-reasoning people here who think that means there is now proof that women ask to be raped.

Yeah. And 'slutty' clothes being irresistible 'provocation'.

And Heron...the problem with making up scenarios to show how it is conceivable that one may not be totally absolved of responsibility is that people like PasturePastry (I've never heard that before, by the way...we just call them cow patties) are going to use that to mean you are at fault for everything that is done to you. There really isn't much point in discussing rare scenarios when talking about the issue as a whole. Most reasoning people can accept that there are certain situations where the fault can be shared...but there are plenty of non-reasoning people here who think that means there is now proof that women ask to be raped.

Fair point. Although most debates typically have morons on both sides, they do seem to exclusively be on the side arguing for apportioning responsibility on to the victim.

When I was doing basically the same thing, it was to illustrate the fallacy of blanket statements about the victim never having to take any blame/responsibility.


and women DO sometimes engage in risky behavior. especially young women who, like all young people, assume that nothing bad will ever happen to them. the same thought process that allows people to drag race down main street, try jumping off the motel roof into the pool, grabbing a bunch of pills from the medicine cabinet and taking a handful of various types, etc etc.

but dressing up to look her very best, going out to a bar or club, drinking and dancing with men that she hopes might one day become her boyfriend is NOT that risky behavior.

the risky part is ignoring the creepy feeling that one man gives off, not noticing that even after she has turned him down he is still paying too much attention to her, pushing down that fear as she goes to her car that she has parked in the far corner of the parking lot so it is less likely to get scratched.

its not that every man in that bar would rape her if he got the chance, its that maybe ONE man in that bar is looking for someone he can hurt and she might be the one he picked out. with safer behavior at the right time... asking the bouncer to walk her to her car for example, she might avoid getting raped by that one man. however if she escapes he'll target someone else until he finds a woman who is NOT paying attention. it wont be what that woman is wearing, but her vulnerability and the opportunity that makes her the actual victim. (for example, no matter how vulnerable she is, if a few other people leave at the same time as she does she might be skipped over as victim because of lack of opportunity)

do you see the difference? its really NOT a man driven to overwhelming lust that "causes" the rape, its the opportunity. the only "control" a woman has is to not be in the wrong place in the wrong time.

and ~~snip~~
do you see the difference? its really NOT a man driven to overwhelming lust that "causes" the rape, its the opportunity. the only "control" a woman has is to not be in the wrong place in the wrong time.

Yes, I see the difference. you're arguing basically the same point I was yesterday, but with more clarity.

Has anyone yet mentioned the distinction that must be made between rape and what's known here, I believe, as statutory rape? Fairly important difference there. While I agree that violent rape is unforgivable and the act entirely the responsibility of the perpetrator (though IMO the victim should, if applicable, be at least told in no uncertain terms if she did something stupid - for instance, you do not walk across Clapham Common at 2AM, alone, no matter who the hell you are, let alone a woman,who let's face it is not as able to defend herself as your average man. If you do decide to try this out and get raped, well, yes, it's the rapist who's going to get the summary machanical castration (none of this chemical sterilisation rubbish) but if you hadn't been stupid enough to walk throuhg a dangerously open, exposed space, alone, at two in the morning, the chances are you wouldn't have gotten raped. That doesn't remove the blame for the action from the rapist's shoulders, but it does perhaps remind people that in the real world, there are dangerous areas that ought to be avoided.

Regarding statutory rape, the case becomes far more grey. It's no good saying "the woman is never at fault" when she spent half the night leading some moron on as they became steadily more intoxicated - not under duress, but of their own free will - and then was so rat-arsed at a later point that she was in no position to give or refuse consent, a position she brought upon herself. Again, the man should be censured for having failed to control himself - what use is the law if it always bends to the low reality of life, after all - ; but, as it was recently pointed out, drunken consent is still consent, and the fact that you were intoxicated by your own hand doesn't change the fact that it was your intoxication that made you unable to prove that you refused or gave consent. Such cases should, I believe, be subject to what is termed (IIRC) "Contributory negligence", and should lead to a mitigated sentence for the "rapist" depending upon the evidence presented.

It seems to me that it is unjust for a man to be charged with rape, be sent to prison and have the rest of his days ruined because a woman with more money than sense couldn't keep control of herself; just as unjust, in fact, as a woman who genuinely was raped, for example while unconscious or drugged, being deprived of the satisfaction of seeing her assailant behind bars (or in my new regime, having his knackers lopped off with a blunt knife). Statutory rape is, like it or nt, a very much greyer area than the commonly-known violent rape, and one in which things like the way the woman behaves and dresses do play a part - for instance, a woman who's dressed as provocatively as possible and spent half of the night flirting with and leading on her eventual "rapist" is not as innocent as a woman who's walking home and jumped from the bushes. It may well be that such statutory rapes were the work of a man setting out to rape a woman, but it seems to me that the majorty of such cases are little more than drunken fumbles which occur with the mutual (if inebriated) consent of the parties involved. Such affairs are not rapes in the classical sense; in my parents' day, they were accepted as being the consequence of being too drunk to know what was going on, and to lead a man on and then turn on him at the last moment was to be a "prick-teaser", a term which can hardly be described as one of endearment and was it seems used as much by women as men; no "you're just a typical misogynistic chauvinist" speeches, please.

In the end, while I don't intend to disparage those women who have genuinely suffered the ordeal of rape - i.e. sex forced upon them by a man, by violence, drugging, etc. - I find it very hard to feel any pity for a woman who goes out "on the pull", manages to "pull" an Average Idiot™ while they're both pissed as newts and then complains the morning after when it's frankly as much her fault as her erstwhile partner's. Further, to lay down one hard-and-fast law governing all or nearly all "rapes" when said law ignores the many vagaries of statutory rape cases strikes me as a gross injustice; rape should be punished on a scale variable in both apportionment of blame and severity of sentencing if justice is truly to be served, and each case considered thorihgly before simply applying the stamp of "rapist" to a man who no more set out to commit rape than Lincoln set out to get shot while watching a play.

I'm sorry to see that so many people around here don't have any concept of personal responsibility. While individual A does have a responsibility to take precautions to avoid hurting individual B when the two interact, they don't have the primary responsibility. Individual B has to take every reasonable precaution to make sure they don't get hurt, because more than anyone else individual B has to deal with the consequences. I'm not trying to discuss what the legal definition of rape is, we already know that so there would be nothing to talk about. What I'm saying is that it is a flawed definition.
I disagree that it is a flawed definition. What is flawed is the treatment of the definition. The law doesnt recognise 'ignorance' as a legal defense, except in cases of rape. The law would work better if the same standard that applies to other crimes were applied to rape. The fact is if you own property and I cant prove I had your permission to take that property, or some other legal right, the fact that 'I didnt know you didnt want me to take your property' is not a legal defence to a charge of theft. The fact that one person doesnt know absolutely that another doesnt want them to touch their body shouldnt be a defence either.

In my own experience, I'll tell you, 'No' usually means 'You haven't turned me on enough yet'. Therefore, you keep trying to turn the woman on, in the hopes that when you try again she'll let you. At some point either she decides to have sex with you (which is rarely something spoken, it's body language or a lack of refusal when you try again), or she keeps saying 'No' and you figure out she doesn't really want to have sex with you and you've just wasted the last half-hour or so.
I really dont think it is appropriate for me to comment on the behaviour of your dates.

While admitly some ridiculously small chance exists that a woman might say something about 'rape' and have it be role-playing or some such, is it enough to give reasonable doubt? I'd say no. As many people have said in this thread, if you want to play games like that it needs to be with someone you trust, and you need to have a safe word. However, if you describe a situation to me, and tell me a woman said 'No' and after a little more kissing and caressing didn't object when you tryed again, so you never even suspected she felt it was rape, is that reasonable doubt? In my book, yes.
Reasonable doubt of rape if she claims it was rape? No. You'd have to prove she really didnt mean no or stopped meaning no at some point, otherwise based on a person having said no, and then complaining that she meant no and never gave consent, I'd convict.
So as I said somewhere earlier in this thread, if you think rape is so bad (and who doesn't) then I'm sure you want to make sure it happens as infrequently as possible, and when it does, make sure it's punished. So, I'll ask this question to people again... Do you think that even one rape per year would be prevented if the woman said 'rape' instead of 'no'? If you do, then I am right and that should be the standard because anything that makes a rape less likely to happen is a good thing.
I dont think there would be even one less rape. In fact I expect there very well might be more.
And since I'm as likely to be on a jury in a rape case as anyone else, and I've known 'No' to mean something other than 'No', you might not get a conviction with the 'No' means 'No' arguement. I have critical thinking skills. I know how to take contextual clues into account, unlike so many others around here. But I promise you no matter what the circumstance (outside the whole 'safe' word issue) if the woman said 'rape' it's a guilty vote from me. Do you think I'm the only person who thinks this way? If so, then you're incredibly naive. So wouldn't you want a standard that makes people like me more likely to convict? I'm assuming, yes, you want more convictions. That means once again I'm right, because no one can make a reasonable arguement that 'rape' means anything other than 'rape'.
What makes you think I wont be on the jury if you ever find that no really did mean no?
Frankly I have no idea why a person would want to take such a risk, much less why they'd want to get it on with someone who wants to put them in that situation. I cant think of any bigger turn off than risking harming myself through the knowledge that I recked someone's life over some sensations in my groin area...:confused:

Has anyone yet mentioned the distinction that must be made between rape and what's known here, I believe, as statutory rape?
Statutory rape is having sex with someone too young to give consent so basically statutory rape is child-rape.

Such affairs are not rapes in the classical sense; in my parents' day, they were accepted as being the consequence of being too drunk to know what was going on,
I doubt very much that any significant number of such cases result in rape convictions. I would convict if one partner were underage, or one partner could be demonstrated to have influenced the level of intoxication the other suffered, or if one partner could be shown to have been substantially less lucid than the other.

and to lead a man on and then turn on him at the last moment was to be a "prick-teaser", a term which can hardly be described as one of endearment and was it seems used as much by women as men; no "you're just a typical misogynistic chauvinist" speeches, please.
I dont care who used it. The term is highly offensive, it assumes that a person is not entitled to full bodily autonomy and that there comes a point when one person has sexual entitlement over another. I find the notion that any law abiding person is not entitled to decide the fate of their own body so far as humanly possible, to be absolutely offensive. Evidently I suspect in your parent's day they called the girls that didnt 'turn at the last minute' sluts, and the ones that didnt 'lead on' at all fridgid or lesbians, or fridgid lesbians...:rolleyes:

Has anyone yet mentioned the distinction that must be made between rape and what's known here, I believe, as statutory rape? Fairly important difference there. While I agree that violent rape is unforgivable and the act entirely the responsibility of the perpetrator (though IMO the victim should, if applicable, be at least told in no uncertain terms if she did something stupid - for instance, you do not walk across Clapham Common at 2AM, alone, no matter who the hell you are, let alone a woman,who let's face it is not as able to defend herself as your average man. If you do decide to try this out and get raped, well, yes, it's the rapist who's going to get the summary machanical castration (none of this chemical sterilisation rubbish) but if you hadn't been stupid enough to walk throuhg a dangerously open, exposed space, alone, at two in the morning, the chances are you wouldn't have gotten raped. That doesn't remove the blame for the action from the rapist's shoulders, but it does perhaps remind people that in the real world, there are dangerous areas that ought to be avoided.

Regarding statutory rape, the case becomes far more grey. It's no good saying "the woman is never at fault" when she spent half the night leading some moron on as they became steadily more intoxicated - not under duress, but of their own free will - and then was so rat-arsed at a later point that she was in no position to give or refuse consent, a position she brought upon herself. Again, the man should be censured for having failed to control himself - what use is the law if it always bends to the low reality of life, after all - ; but, as it was recently pointed out, drunken consent is still consent, and the fact that you were intoxicated by your own hand doesn't change the fact that it was your intoxication that made you unable to prove that you refused or gave consent. Such cases should, I believe, be subject to what is termed (IIRC) "Contributory negligence", and should lead to a mitigated sentence for the "rapist" depending upon the evidence presented.

It seems to me that it is unjust for a man to be charged with rape, be sent to prison and have the rest of his days ruined because a woman with more money than sense couldn't keep control of herself; just as unjust, in fact, as a woman who genuinely was raped, for example while unconscious or drugged, being deprived of the satisfaction of seeing her assailant behind bars (or in my new regime, having his knackers lopped off with a blunt knife). Statutory rape is, like it or nt, a very much greyer area than the commonly-known violent rape, and one in which things like the way the woman behaves and dresses do play a part - for instance, a woman who's dressed as provocatively as possible and spent half of the night flirting with and leading on her eventual "rapist" is not as innocent as a woman who's walking home and jumped from the bushes. It may well be that such statutory rapes were the work of a man setting out to rape a woman, but it seems to me that the majorty of such cases are little more than drunken fumbles which occur with the mutual (if inebriated) consent of the parties involved. Such affairs are not rapes in the classical sense; in my parents' day, they were accepted as being the consequence of being too drunk to know what was going on, and to lead a man on and then turn on him at the last moment was to be a "prick-teaser", a term which can hardly be described as one of endearment and was it seems used as much by women as men; no "you're just a typical misogynistic chauvinist" speeches, please.

In the end, while I don't intend to disparage those women who have genuinely suffered the ordeal of rape - i.e. sex forced upon them by a man, by violence, drugging, etc. - I find it very hard to feel any pity for a woman who goes out "on the pull", manages to "pull" an Average Idiot™ while they're both pissed as newts and then complains the morning after when it's frankly as much her fault as her erstwhile partner's. Further, to lay down one hard-and-fast law governing all or nearly all "rapes" when said law ignores the many vagaries of statutory rape cases strikes me as a gross injustice; rape should be punished on a scale variable in both apportionment of blame and severity of sentencing if justice is truly to be served, and each case considered thorihgly before simply applying the stamp of "rapist" to a man who no more set out to commit rape than Lincoln set out to get shot while watching a play.

Nice job of bundling together just about every MYTH about rape.

Almost all of your premises are wrong. You should read the following:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ovw/docs/MFSexViol.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/The%20Truth%20About%20Rape%20Final.pdf
http://www.ccasa.org/documents/Rape_Myths_&_Facts.pdf
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html
All Rape Is 'Real' Rape (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss.html) By Alice Vachss
The Charge of Rape, the Force of Myth (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss2.html) By Alice Vachss

its not that every man in that bar would rape her if he got the chance, its that maybe ONE man in that bar is looking for someone he can hurt and she might be the one he picked out.
Does it have to be about hurting?

Does it have to be about hurting?

Yes. Rape tends to hurt. Rape tends to be about hurting.

Any questions?

Yes. Rape tends to hurt. Rape tends to be about hurting.

Any questions?
I didnt ask about hurt.

I didnt ask about hurt.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Your post stated:

Does it have to be about hurting?

So, it appeared you did ask about hurting.

Would you like to clarify your question?

I don't know if this has been brought up; if it has, feel free to ignore it.

I know of several occasions where men have been found guilty of using ketamine to drug women before raping them. That requires preparation, since ketamine is not yet served at the bar (imo).

This behaviour seems addictive, because they tend to do it over and over again, making the behaviour seem more like that of a serial killer.

Would anyone care to argue how a victim of such 'drug-rape' could be considered at fault?

I really don't know what else to say. There are some people that get it and some people don't. For the people that do get it, I congratulate you. Once one realizes that they are responsible for everything that happens to them, then they have full control over their life. When one accepts responsibility for their suffering, then one can take steps to overcome it.

For those of you that don't get it, I offer my condolences. If for every suffering in life, you find someone else to blame for it, your life is going to be an endless stream of suffering that you can do nothing about because someone else is to blame for it. Life is not fair and people don't do the right thing all the time. The next time you get mugged or raped, shout with great conviction "This isn't my fault!" and see if that causes you to stop being attacked.

This will all make sense eventually. My only hope is that you figure it out before you become too physically and emotionally scarred. Ah, I didn't know I was in full control of everything that happened to me. When I get attacked by a bear or whatever, I'll be sure to use my powers to vanish him.

Would anyone care to argue how a victim of such 'drug-rape' could be considered at fault?

Well, once again it depends on the specifics of the situation. There are preventative measures that can be taken against date-rape drugs (drinking from bottles not glasses; keeping an eye on your drink or having a friend keep an eye on it; not letting random people touch your drink etc.) and failure to take those measures (which, let's face it, are far from groundbreaking) puts the victim partially at fault if something happens.

Well, once again it depends on the specifics of the situation. There are preventative measures that can be taken against date-rape drugs (drinking from bottles not glasses; keeping an eye on your drink or having a friend keep an eye on it; not letting random people touch your drink etc.) and failure to take those measures (which, let's face it, are far from groundbreaking) puts the victim partially at fault if something happens.

Do you do these things yourself? When you go to a bar do you ask your friends to watch your drink? When you go out to have a relaxing night of fun with your friends do you spend the entire time being paranoid, watching your back, making sure you're not about to be attacked the second you're not looking?

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't see why a woman should have to alter her lifestyle and conduct herself as though she could be raped at any second. Saying that a woman could be partially to blame for being raped simply because she did not live in fear knowing there are rapists out there is like saying a man who gets hit by a drunk driver is partially to blame because he got out of bed that morning. I mean after all he should have known there are drunk drivers out there!

When you remove blame from the criminal and place it on the victim you have begun to support the crime whether you realize it or not.

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



Actually, as long as they are both under the age of consent it is consensual behavior between minors.

Do you do these things yourself? When you go to a bar do you ask your friends to watch your drink? When you go out to have a relaxing night of fun with your friends do you spend the entire time being paranoid, watching your back, making sure you're not about to be attacked the second you're not looking?

I'm tempted to say yes just for the hell of it. However, I won't. But what I will say is this: there's a difference between paranoia and sensible caution. And I would keep an eye on my friends' drinks in case some random rapist tries to drug them the same as I would keep an eye on their bags or coats or whatever if they put them on the floor in a pub in case some random thief tries to take them.

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't see why a woman should have to alter her lifestyle and conduct herself as though she could be raped at any second. Saying that a woman could be partially to blame for being raped simply because she did not live in fear knowing there are rapists out there is like saying a man who gets hit by a drunk driver is partially to blame because he got out of bed that morning. I mean after all he should have known there are drunk drivers out there!


**sigh** it really can't be that difficult to see my point. I don't want people to "Live in fear" or conduct their entire lives based around the premise that they could be raped. But there are precautions I believe people can and should take in certain situations. Do you look both ways before crossing the street? If you had a one night stand, would you make the guy wear a condom? Are you paranoid about becoming road-kill or getting STDs?


When you remove blame from the criminal and place it on the victim you have begun to support the crime whether you realize it or not.

It doesn't remove blame from the criminal. It places blame on the victim, yes, to a small degree, but just because someone gives you the opportunity to drug and rape them does not give you the right to do it.

and failure to take those measures (which, let's face it, are far from groundbreaking) puts the victim partially at fault if something happens. Hands up anyone who's never done anything stupid before.

Hands up anyone who's never done anything stupid before.

Your point being?

Your point being? We've all not been as attentive as we should be. We've all not looked after our belongings at some point. We've all crossed the road in a daydream at some point. So surely if anything bad happens to us, we're to blame? Everyone does stupid things, if you're blaming people to any extent for things that happen to them because of a temporary lapse in judgement, you'd have to accept that you deserve it just as much.

We've all not been as attentive as we should be. We've all not looked after our belongings at some point. We've all crossed the road in a daydream at some point. So surely if anything bad happens to us, we're to blame? Everyone does stupid things, if you're blaming people to any extent for things that happen to them because of a temporary lapse in judgement, you'd have to accept that you deserve it just as much.

Of course. In almost all situations we're all at least partially responsible for everything that happens to us. So yes, all the bad stuff that's happened to me in the past because I did something stupid or stopped paying attention is partially my fault.

Of course. In almost all situations we're all at least partially responsible for everything that happens to us. So yes, all the bad stuff that's happened to me in the past because I did something stupid or stopped paying attention is partially my fault.

Wouldn't you say that those partially responsible for a crime are partial criminals?!?!

I'm tempted to say yes just for the hell of it. However, I won't. But what I will say is this: there's a difference between paranoia and sensible caution. And I would keep an eye on my friends' drinks in case some random rapist tries to drug them the same as I would keep an eye on their bags or coats or whatever if they put them on the floor in a pub in case some random thief tries to take them.

The whole problem with this is that a great percentages of rapists are known to the victim, in other words somebody she trusted. So even going along with your "precaution" theory that a girl could ask her friend to watch her drink for her, she is still taking the chance that her friend could be the one drugging her. Better to not have any friends, right? Then she can't be to blame.



**sigh** it really can't be that difficult to see my point. I don't want people to "Live in fear" or conduct their entire lives based around the premise that they could be raped. But there are precautions I believe people can and should take in certain situations. Do you look both ways before crossing the street? If you had a one night stand, would you make the guy wear a condom? Are you paranoid about becoming road-kill or getting STDs?

Sigh all you want, it really is difficult to see your point. A person cannot take a precaution to avoid a crime that is commited against them. If a person ran blindly into the street and got hit by a car, the person driving is usually not charged with a crime unless they were overly negligent themselves. Getting an STD is not a crime and condoms break, at least consensual sex was involved. Hint: Consensual means the person had a choice and consented.




It doesn't remove blame from the criminal. It places blame on the victim, yes, to a small degree, but just because someone gives you the opportunity to drug and rape them does not give you the right to do it.

Any blame that you place on the victim does remove blame from the criminal, even if it's just a small degree. Right or wrong on the criminal's part doesn't matter, is what you're implying because she "could have prevented it".

Wouldn't you say that those partially responsible for a crime are partial criminals?!?!

WTF? Partial criminals? Go away, please

The whole problem with this is that a great percentages of rapists are known to the victim, in other words somebody she trusted. So even going along with your "precaution" theory that a girl could ask her friend to watch her drink for her, she is still taking the chance that her friend could be the one drugging her. Better to not have any friends, right? Then she can't be to blame

Jesus. You're just being deliberately facetious. I mean, most burglaries are commited by people that don't live with you, so better to have everyone live in your house, right?


Sigh all you want, it really is difficult to see your point. A person cannot take a precaution to avoid a crime that is commited against them.

Locking the door of your house is not a precaution against burglary in your world? Keeping your money out of sight in your pocket and not your hand is not a precaution against being mugged?




Any blame that you place on the victim does remove blame from the criminal, even if it's just a small degree. Right or wrong on the criminal's part doesn't matter, is what you're implying because she "could have prevented it".

Yes, she could have prevented it, but it would have been a damn sight easier for the criminal to prevent it.

WTF? Partial criminals? Go away, please

I am a law student. I can't help it. Generally, those responsible for crimes are considered criminals. There is, I believe such a concept as 'partial criminal responsibility'. However there may be a different phrase for it in ewseean. Or ewcayan, for that matter.

I am a law student. I can't help it. Generally, those responsible for crimes are considered criminals. There is, I believe such a concept as 'partial criminal responsibility'. However there may be a different phrase for it in ewseean. Or ewcayan, for that matter.

But does having "partial criminal responsibility" make you a partial criminal? Does it make you any kind of criminal?

Jesus. You're just being deliberately facetious. I mean, most burglaries are commited by people that don't live with you, so better to have everyone live in your house, right?

Technically you could keep a better eye on them that way. Install a few video camereas, make sure no one's filching a thing, spend all day in the basement watching them.

Locking the door of your house is not a precaution against burglary in your world? Keeping your money out of sight in your pocket and not your hand is not a precaution against being mugged?

In my world vaginas don't come with locks. If they do in your world, I'll get in my little spaceship and zoom on over. Unfortunately women in my world got the bright concept of liberation from stifling conditions such as chastity belts.

Yes, she could have prevented it, but it would have been a damn sight easier for the criminal to prevent it.

This just makes me very sad. I know you can't possibly understand the many different ways a rape can occur. I moved from a city where grandmothers who were sleeping in their beds were being serial raped. If it were as simple as a woman just preventing rape, believe me, I'm sure no woman would ever be raped again.

But does having "partial criminal responsibility" make you a partial criminal? Does it make you any kind of criminal?

Perhaps there is a real lawyer around who can answer that (for free).

Ever consider that this disturbing trend has something to do with the magzines like Playboy?? I mean you have all those "articals" in them that say, "I did such and such and me and my boyfriend had such wonderful sex"...

It should hit someone right between the eyes that it tells a guy who reguarlly reads them that "hey these drunk women are getting drunk and wanting ME so bad...!!" (especially when their drunk)... These guys aren't thinking about their "significant others" yet only out for themselves and what pleasure/power/conquest... To them its like women are painting a bullseye on themselves and their hunting...

Technically you could keep a better eye on them that way. Install a few video camereas, make sure no one's filching a thing, spend all day in the basement watching them.

Yeah, okay, if you say so...

In my world vaginas don't come with locks. If they do in your world, I'll get in my little spaceship and zoom on over. Unfortunately women in my world got the bright concept of liberation from stifling conditions such as chastity belts.

I fail to follow. I was showing that the assertion that "A person cannot take a precaution to avoid a crime that is commited against them" is complete, total and utter moronic bullshit.

This just makes me very sad. I know you can't possibly understand the many different ways a rape can occur. I moved from a city where grandmothers who were sleeping in their beds were being serial raped. If it were as simple as a woman just preventing rape, believe me, I'm sure no woman would ever be raped again.

Right. So, because you can't prevent every possible way it could happen, you shouldn't bother to try and prevent any of them? That's fucking insane.

Man, times have changed.

People are defending RAPISTS now?

Canada City']Man, times have changed.

People are defending RAPISTS now?

No, just blaming their VICTIMS!

Canada City']Man, times have changed.



Back in the day, people accepted personality liability.

No, just blaming their VICTIMS!

Let me ask you a question:

if this thread was about burglary, not rape, and I was claiming you should take partial responsibility if you leave your front door open and someone robs you, would you be so adamantly opposed?

To be honest, the thought of rape sickens and disgusts me. If a "rapist" does not have the social skills of finding a partner, then it is time to go out and learn how to evolve into an individual that can become a member of the mostly rational everyday society. The ideas behind the reasons for rape to occur are irrelevant. It is both socially and morally wrong and is not an accepted practice in ANY society. It is also not my belief that these individuals should be "rehabilitated". If you do not have the ability to determine if your action is one that is acceptable or warranted, then you should not continue to have the ability to function within that society. Yes, it is a hardline stance. However, the individual that was raped does not have the ability to go back and change what has occurred, only that they must live with what has happened for the rest of their life. :mad:

Does it have to be about hurting?
yes it does

rape is about control, domination, pain, putting a woman in her place, showing her whos boss, getting back at her for rejecting you, etc etc

if it wasnt any of those things, why would a man force himself on an unwilling woman? its not "nice men getting too frisky" its a man who is forcing himself on a woman whose consent is irrelevant to him (or whose saying NO and trying to fight him off just makes him more determined)

Let me ask you a question:

if this thread was about burglary, not rape, and I was claiming you should take partial responsibility if you leave your front door open and someone robs you, would you be so adamantly opposed?

if the analogy is burglary, then i am at fault when i dont have bars on all my doors and windows, and a big vicious dog in my yard, and motion detector lights that sound an alarm when tripped, and a state of the art security system that calls the police when tripped.

if i one night forget to set the alarm when i go to bed and when i remember to go set it 15 minutes later, the burglar is already in the house, if THEN i am to blame for getting robbed, then your analogy works.

as Liskeinland points out, no one is vigilant 24/7. its just not the human way.

i ask you to watch my drink and someone slips a drug in while YOU are distracted looking at that hot chick in the skimpy clothing. is it then YOUR fault? i think not, i cant expect you to stop your good time to watch my drink constantly. you do your best but it only takes one lapse in attention for something bad to happen.

Let me ask you a question:

if this thread was about burglary, not rape, and I was claiming you should take partial responsibility if you leave your front door open and someone robs you, would you be so adamantly opposed?

A good question. Honestly, no. But a vast majority of front doors is never locked. Also, remember that stranger-rape is very rare. I think, however that stranger-robbery is the most common kind.

Rape is a crime of power, pure and simple. There is very little attraction involved in it. It is a crime to punish, to hurt, and to degrade. There is NO excuse for rape, no possible way to justify it. Do you really think that rapists choose victims they're attracted to? No. They select their victims with a thought for how they look (Madonna/whore complex--do they *deserve* to be put in their place), behave, if they live alone, if they are assertive--there isn't attraction at any level. Rapists choose victims that THEY WANT TO HURT, to DOMINATE, to HUMILIATE--period. It is the consequences of the act that slakes their lust, and that lust doesn't involve the object they are abusing.

Any argument that forwards the sad, oft-repeated opinion that victims are in some way responsible for the perpetrator's pre-established predilections is just wrong. :headbang: By the same token, it's also distressing to note that the *date rape* syndrome is still underdiscussed, and that someone was actually ill-informed enough to term it as statutory rape instead of what it is. Perhaps people should speak from the basis of knowledge instead of the desire to argue. Maybe then some of this bullshit will make sense.

if the analogy is burglary, then i am at fault when i dont have bars on all my doors and windows, and a big vicious dog in my yard, and motion detector lights that sound an alarm when tripped, and a state of the art security system that calls the police when tripped.

Well, not quite. You've suggested extreme precautions against burglary, whereas I'm just suggesting that all people should take small, sensible precautions. The equivalent to what you're suggesting would be hiring an armed bodyguard and wearing steel underwear with barbed wire on it.

if i one night forget to set the alarm when i go to bed and when i remember to go set it 15 minutes later, the burglar is already in the house, if THEN i am to blame for getting robbed, then your analogy works.

Then the analogy works.

Actually, that highlights a point I think has been forgotten. I'm guessing your turning the alarm on 15 minutes later is analogous to the woman saying "no". So, I blame the victim under certain circumstances for putting herself in the vulnerable position. But, of course, the fact that rape occurs is the rapists fault entirely.

as Liskeinland points out, no one is vigilant 24/7. its just not the human way.

I admitted as much.

i ask you to watch my drink and someone slips a drug in while YOU are distracted looking at that hot chick in the skimpy clothing. is it then YOUR fault? i think not, i cant expect you to stop your good time to watch my drink constantly. you do your best but it only takes one lapse in attention for something bad to happen.

Partially, yes. It's a very small degree, though, but it's the same degree as if you were watching your own drink.

I had a big, non-facetious reply for Heron, including my wish to respect his right to his opinion even though I disagree fully, but I have to log in everytime I post a comment, despite being logged in already. This time my response was lost and I am too tired to re-type it. I will simply never see an instance where a woman is to be blamed for her own rape. I have never said a woman shouldn't take precautions, but saying that being violated is even partially her fault is absurd. If I have not been clear in my comments, it is because I am running on no sleep, so to the point, I think rape is incomparable to any other crime and a woman should not be blamed for it even if she failed to take every possible precaution.

By the way, even if the windows are all open and my front door is unlocked and my security system isn't set, it is still NOT my responsibility if someone invades my privacy and the protection of my house with the intent to do harm. A criminal makes the decision to commit a crime; the victim doesn't make a decision to be a victim. The entire analogy is false because of the INTENT of the incident--a rapist intends to rape, a burglar intends to steal. A victim doesn't wake up one morning and say arbitrarily that *Oh, I think i want to be victimized today.* If the analogy is false, then all arguments in favor of it must be discarded.

I had a big, non-facetious reply for Heron, including my wish to respect his right to his opinion even though I disagree fully, but I have to log in everytime I post a comment, despite being logged in already. This time my response was lost and I am too tired to re-type it. I will simply never see an instance where a woman is to be blamed for her own rape. I have never said a woman shouldn't take precautions, but saying that being violated is even partially her fault is absurd. If I have not been clear in my comments, it is because I am running on no sleep, so to the point, I think rape is incomparable to any other crime and a woman should not be blamed for it even if she failed to take every possible precaution.

Fair enough. Do you believe the victim can be said to be at fault for putting herself in a vulnerable position, where her chances of being raped are increased? Therefore, not for the rape itself but for increasing the likelihood.

Fair enough. Do you believe the victim can be said to be at fault for putting herself in a vulnerable position, where her chances of being raped are increased? Therefore, not for the rape itself but for increasing the likelihood.

I can't. As hard as I have tried to understand your position and that of others with similar views, I simply do not feel that a woman should be blamed for the depravity of others no matter how ignorant she was.

I can't. As hard as I have tried to understand your position and that of others with similar views, I simply do not feel that a woman should be blamed for the depravity of others no matter how ignorant she was.

Well, I guess that's your call. And I think your experiences in the past have coloured your view on this. And I would also like to make it expressly clear that I would not attribute blame to you as the victim under the circumstances you spelled out in the other thread.

Well, I guess that's your call. And I think your experiences in the past have coloured your view on this. And I would also like to make it expressly clear that I would not attribute blame to you as the victim under the circumstances you spelled out in the other thread.

Thank you.

Well, I guess that's your call. And I think your experiences in the past have coloured your view on this. And I would also like to make it expressly clear that I would not attribute blame to you as the victim under the circumstances you spelled out in the other thread.

Why? Wouldn't you say she should have just gone away? Because of personal responsibility?

Why? Wouldn't you say she should have just gone away? Because of personal responsibility?

Read the other thread, have you?

Read the other thread, have you?
Voted on it, too.

Voted on it, too.

Cool. But no, I wouldn't say that, because there is a wider issue than just "I am being raped, I will go away." Sometimes, though, or perhaps nearly all the time, it's not as simple as that. For one thing, there's the question of "go where?"

Cool. But no, I wouldn't say that, because there is a wider issue than just "I am being raped, I will go away." Sometimes, though, or perhaps nearly all the time, it's not as simple as that. For one thing, there's the question of "go where?"

To some non-rapists, perhaps? You're the one advocating personal responsibility.

the simple question of *go where*---hmmph! there are two places for a rape victim to *go*--and neither of them are pleasant. Until this crime focuses upon the perpetrators and not the victims, it will continue to be *accepted* by otherwise intelligent, reasonable people.:mad:

There's far too many posts for me to read through right now, so instead, I am going to offer the following state ment and then two links to websites which deal with rape and the myths surrounding it. Moderators and Admins: Please don't delete them or this posts as I feel that the best way of answering any ill-informed views is to direct people to organisations who are very much experienced in dealing with victims of rape, so therefore when they state something on their websites, they're pretty dam certain about it. Thanks.

In no order:

1. Rape is NEVER O.K. It is a violent attack, plain and simple. If a person does something to someone that they did not want to happen, and it was apparent that did not, or may not, want it to happen, the only person to blame, in the case of any crim, including rape, is the perpertrator.

2. The excuses such as "she was asking for it are stupid for 2 reasons: one, that's like saying some guy wearing shorts in hot weather is asking to be raped, or like saying someone who walks down a dar street is asking to be murdered, and 2, if she said no, OR backed away, OR looked frightened, she CLEARLY was not asking for it. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that if someone looks frightened, whether they actually say the word "no" or not, does not want whatever is about to happen to them actually happening to them.

3. Rape is as bad for a man as it is for a woman. Sexual Assault and other illegal sexual acts can be just as bad for males and females, even if males SEEM to have enjoyed it in the case of women attacking them (after all, how often do guys show their true feelings?) or even if females don't seem to have been bothered in the case of women attacking them (after all, if they show how they really feel, they may be treated bad by society for supposedly being "weird" or whatever for feeling violated - a feeling that they OBVIOUSLY can not help). Incidentally, I'm generally an easy-to-talk to person (as evidenced by the amount of people who have opened up to me about stuff) so some people have told me stuff that they would never tell other people, and, as a result, I have heard stories off both males and females, confirming what I just wrote in this paragraph.

4. If you are so drunk that you can not control your actions properly or/and your thoughts properly, you are clearly not capable of freely giving willing consent. As far as I'm aware, despite a judge who should be fired throwing out a case because he considered drunken consent to be consent, it's actually illegal under English Law to have sex with someone while they are drunk. This is because they are considered to be under the influence of a drug - it's similar to date-raping them, except that they may be fully conscious (but not fully in control). Of course, it may be considered to be not as bad if the other person was drunk, but, at least in cases where women are victims, even a lot of the general public still consider it to be at the very least "taking advantage" if one person is drunk and the other is sober or not as drunk.

For more info, please don't bother arguing with me because I can't really say everything I want to say until I've read all the posts under this thread, so please visit these websites instead:

http://www.rapecrisis.co.uk
and
http://www.safehaven-uk.org

and please look especially at the myths and facts sections on each site. Thanks.

This opinion pole done by AI has now actually been examined by the Spectator and it seems that the headlines have exagerated the data and even directly misrepresented it. See here

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=6974&page=1

My mother's friend's daughter was raped AT A MALL and is now pregnant. She's a sophmore in highschool. The bastard who did that needs to dieeeee!

This opinion pole done by AI has now actually been examined by the Spectator and it seems that the headlines have exagerated the data and even directly misrepresented it. See here

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=6974&page=1

I said that this "study" was idiotic towards the start of this thread, and was essentially abused for it. Nice to see I'm right.

My mother's friend's daughter was raped AT A MALL and is now pregnant. She's a sophmore in highschool. The bastard who did that needs to dieeeee!

No, he needs to be arested, imprisoned and reformed

People who hold your opinions are the problem.

I said that this "study" was idiotic towards the start of this thread, and was essentially abused for it. Nice to see I'm right.
yeah theres not evidence on THIS thread that anyone ever holds women responsible for being raped

where do they get this rubbish??

This opinion pole done by AI has now actually been examined by the Spectator and it seems that the headlines have exagerated the data and even directly misrepresented it. See here

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=6974&page=1

and this examination is shoddy and does not address the data at all, nor does it present evidence of misrepresentation.

So now we have airlines who wont let men (any man) sit next to unaccompanied children. They see this as a 'reasonable precaution' against child abuse. However it seems that a very large number of people (including many men) feel this is unjustified, unreasonable, and that it unfairly denigrates demeans and vilifies them. The essence of most arguments against this policy is that it assumes men are likely to be sex offenders and apparently that is a bad thing to do.

Children are more vulnerable than grown women. So if in the case of children it is bad and wrong to assume that 'all men are potential sex offenders' even though children are at greater risk than grown women, how do those who suggest women behave as though every man is a potential sex offender feel about airlines actually taking their suggestion up and implementing it as a official policy?

Well, once again it depends on the specifics of the situation. There are preventative measures that can be taken against date-rape drugs (drinking from bottles not glasses; keeping an eye on your drink or having a friend keep an eye on it; not letting random people touch your drink etc.) and failure to take those measures (which, let's face it, are far from groundbreaking) puts the victim partially at fault if something happens.
I’m tagging this quote as a clear, convenient example of the line of argument I want to challenge and which several people have used here. So this post is open to anyone who wants to address it.

I understand the point HMW is trying to make about being responsible for being careful and alert, but I think the problem with it is that it assumes either (1) that taking such care WILL prevent violent crime from happening and, therefore, the woman who gets raped had control over the situation beforehand and chose not to exercise it, or (2) that the woman should have been able to predict that such and such a scenario would leave her vulnerable to rape, and that such scenario was avoidable, and that she chose not to avoid it. Neither of those is a realistic assumption to make. Neither is fair, either.

Precautions cannot stop an attacker with intent, or who is physically stronger than you, or whom you just didn’t see coming. Precautions can only help a person make choices about their actions BEFORE danger arises (hence the “pre-”) based on speculation about what might happen, maybe. It is simply impossible to predict, recognize, be prepared for all possible dangers all the time, so even if you are the most cautious person in the world, you still face dangers you cannot control.

Also, real life often doesn’t give us a safe route to take. Like the time I came home from a date alone via taxi and a friend who was a security guy scolded me for getting into a cab alone at night. "What if that cabbie had been a bad guy?”, he said, “You should have made your date bring you home.” “Yeah,” said I, “except my date was such a creep, I didn’t want him to know where I live.” How many times have you found yourself only able to choose between getting on a train alone, or standing on a street full of drunks and hookers trying to hail a cab, or taking a ride from a stranger or friend too drunk to drive, let alone trust? And aside from the out-at-night scenario – how many times have you had to work or study late? Were you alone in the building? Were you sure? How about on the way to your car? How many times have you had to walk your dog? Do you jog? Have you ever found yourself unexpectedly alone in the park? Are you sure you’re alone? Etc., etc., etc. These aren’t just rape scenarios. They’re also robbery, murder, and accidental injury scenarios.

Precautions are valuable, but chiefly for making us aware of potential danger. But they cannot, and do not, give us control over external circumstances. They do not prevent others from acting on their impulses.

And finally, what constitutes sufficient precaution? How much precaution is enough precaution to say the woman bears no responsibility? Victims of crime often are haunted by self-recrimination – could they have prevented it; did they do the wrong thing; etc? There is no answer to that, so to hold it up as a standard for allotting responsibility is simply cruel.

Fair enough. Do you believe the victim can be said to be at fault for putting herself in a vulnerable position, where her chances of being raped are increased? Therefore, not for the rape itself but for increasing the likelihood.
My problem with this question is that we've seen right here in this thread many examples of people saying that a woman is increasing the likelihood of rape if she is attractive.

I mentioned this before, and I'll say it again here -- when you really parse out the ways some people think women are responsible for causing or failing to prevent rape, when you collected all the arguments together and strip away superficial details to find the bedrock issue, it always comes down in the end to the mere fact that they are women. I realize this is not what you are trying to say, but it is what you are actually saying, without meaning to.

I understand the point HMW is trying to make about being responsible for being careful and alert, but I think the problem with it is that it assumes either (1) that taking such care WILL prevent violent crime from happening and, therefore, the woman who gets raped had control over the situation beforehand and chose not to exercise it, or (2) that the woman should have been able to predict that such and such a scenario would leave her vulnerable to rape, and that such scenario was avoidable, and that she chose not to avoid it. Neither of those is a realistic assumption to make. Neither is fair, either.


About number 2

I'm not sure it's unfair under certain circumstances to say the woman should have known what she was doing was stupid and dangerous.

What I will say, though, as a result of this thread and discussions with other people started because of this thread, is that I have changed my opinion. The percentage of cases where the woman should, IMO, be held partially responsible, and the degree of that responsibility, are both so miniscule that they can basically be said to not exist for the purposes of a discussion on rape. Unless one of those cases arises, I no longer believe women should be held accountable/ held responsible/ blamed for being raped.

About number 2

I'm not sure it's unfair under certain circumstances to say the woman should have known what she was doing was stupid and dangerous.

What I will say, though, as a result of this thread and discussions with other people started because of this thread, is that I have changed my opinion. The percentage of cases where the woman should, IMO, be held partially responsible, and the degree of that responsibility, are both so miniscule that they can basically be said to not exist for the purposes of a discussion on rape. Unless one of those cases arises, I no longer believe women should be held accountable/ held responsible/ blamed for being raped.
Wow. That is so cool.

Wait, I gotta run out and buy a golden award to send you.

The Saving Faith in Humanity Award 2005!!!

(PS: I'm serious. You knocked me over with that. :D )

Wow. That is so cool.

Wait, I gotta run out and buy a golden award to send you.

The Saving Faith in Humanity Award 2005!!!

(PS: I'm serious. You knocked me over with that. :D )

hehehe. You just want my address, don't you?;)

Seriously, though, sometimes this place does good things.

*skips from page 5 to page 41*
my complaint is not with women getting raped, but women calling rape. fair enough, if a woman gets legitamatly raped, she isnt to blame. i think it was stated before, if you go out looking like a sex object, get drunk, go home with a drunk guy, then wake up in the morning and realise you dont like the guy, you shouldnt call rape. and as for 'the history shouldnt be relevent' argument, i disagree. it would take a case of where the rapist didnt know about the victims previous sexual promiscuity for me to seriously concider rape, cause if someone is sexually promiscuous(sp?), then, unless there are witnesses to the contrary, i would have some serious doubts about the legitamacy of the rape.

. it would take a case of where the rapist didnt know about the victims previous sexual promiscuity for me to seriously concider rape, cause if someone is sexually promiscuous(sp?), then, unless there are witnesses to the contrary, i would have some serious doubts about the legitamacy of the rape.
What the hell does promiscuity have to do with being a liar??? That makes NO sense. There is no link between screwing many people and lying. A friggin' virgin is just as likely to 'call rape' as a woman who's been around. Where do you people get this idea that women who have many partners, are automatically immoral...(fine, you consider promiscuity immoral perhaps...but that doesn't mean she is immoral in every way.)

I've had plenty of partners. You could probably say I've been promiscous. I've never accused someone of raping me. So you know what? Sexual history makes no bloody difference...a history of LYING ABOUT RAPE MIGHT. But these are NOT the same things.

Sexual history makes no bloody difference...a history of LYING ABOUT RAPE MIGHT. But these are NOT the same things.

Glad you said that before I did, or I'd have lost the point under a mountain of confusion.

Glad you said that before I did, or I'd have lost the point under a mountain of confusion.
It's come up many times, and I could never really understand why people thought it was so damn important...or unfair that sexual history is generally omitted now as NOT BEING RELEVANT. That decision was made for a reason. Just because I shag 30 men, doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to accuse number 31 of rape.

*skips from page 5 to page 41*
my complaint is not with women getting raped, but women calling rape. fair enough, if a woman gets legitamatly raped, she isnt to blame.

Women don't "call rape." They are brutally, violently victimized. A very small portion report it to the police.

Unfortunately attitudees like yours prevent more "real" rapes from being reported because the woman can count on being called a liar, nut, or slut.

i think it was stated before, if you go out looking like a sex object, get drunk, go home with a drunk guy, then wake up in the morning and realise you dont like the guy, you shouldnt call rape.

This is simply a canard. It doesn't happen like that.

I already proved this was not true with multiple sources.

and as for 'the history shouldnt be relevent' argument, i disagree. it would take a case of where the rapist didnt know about the victims previous sexual promiscuity for me to seriously concider rape, cause if someone is sexually promiscuous(sp?), then, unless there are witnesses to the contrary, i would have some serious doubts about the legitamacy of the rape.

Sinuhue already explained the flaw in this neanderthal thinking.

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

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

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

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

It's a matter of common sense.

But there is a reason that some women choose to dress like that.

When I go out to a bar or a club, I might go out in hopes of meeting a guy (well actually I probably wouldn't, but for this example let's pretend that i would), and if that is the case I would want to look my best. In Western Society, a woman looking her best means that she would need to look sexy. I might wear a skirt a little shorter than I normally would, or a shirt with a lower neckline. Hell, I might even where both at once. If I find a nice, attractive man that I wish to go home with, then my mission is accomplished. The sex is consensual and the fact that I wore what I wanted helped me. But say I didn't meet mr. right that night, but some "sad, perverted psycho" followed me outside for a smoke, raped me, and left me in a dumpster until the woman working the morning shift at the local bodega found me in the morning. Do I really deserve to be blamed because I did exactly what I have been socialized to do?

Night clubs are meant for people to find other people to have sex with. That is really, basically, what they are understood as. But the difference between finding someone and having a one-night stand, and being raped is that the one was consensual and the other was not. Women don't strap on high heels boots trying to attract attention from preverts lurking in allys, they are trying to have a good time and maybe get a nice, consensual roll in the hay.

Yes, some women do dress provactively in order to gain sexualized attention, but that does not mean that when that attention turns to forced intercourse or a violent attack that it is their fault. Women aren't invited perverts to violate them, they are inviting men at the bar to buy them a drink, chat them up, and maybe, IF THEY AGREE, go home with.

That being said, there are certain things a woman can do to lower her risk of being attacked. Such as, dress more conservatively (although that really only helps in cases of acquiantence or date rape, because a creepy guy hiding in the bush will rape just about any woman who walks by because its not about sex, its about power), avoid certain areas, remain in groups, carry her car keys between her fingers like wolverine on x-men. But if she doesn't do these things, it doesn't make it her fault.

I don't carry pepper spray, so am I asking for it?

But there is a reason that some women choose to dress like that.

When I go out to a bar or a club, I might go out in hopes of meeting a guy (well actually I probably wouldn't, but for this example let's pretend that i would), and if that is the case I would want to look my best. In Western Society, a woman looking her best means that she would need to look sexy. I might wear a skirt a little shorter than I normally would, or a shirt with a lower neckline. Hell, I might even where both at once. If I find a nice, attractive man that I wish to go home with, then my mission is accomplished. The sex is consensual and the fact that I wore what I wanted helped me. But say I didn't meet mr. right that night, but some "sad, perverted psycho" followed me outside for a smoke, raped me, and left me in a dumpster until the woman working the morning shift at the local bodega found me in the morning. Do I really deserve to be blamed because I did exactly what I have been socialized to do?

Night clubs are meant for people to find other people to have sex with. That is really, basically, what they are understood as. But the difference between finding someone and having a one-night stand, and being raped is that the one was consensual and the other was not. Women don't strap on high heels boots trying to attract attention from preverts lurking in allys, they are trying to have a good time and maybe get a nice, consensual roll in the hay.

Yes, some women do dress provactively in order to gain sexualized attention, but that does not mean that when that attention turns to forced intercourse or a violent attack that it is their fault. Women aren't invited perverts to violate them, they are inviting men at the bar to buy them a drink, chat them up, and maybe, IF THEY AGREE, go home with.

That being said, there are certain things a woman can do to lower her risk of being attacked. Such as, dress more conservatively (although that really only helps in cases of acquiantence or date rape, because a creepy guy hiding in the bush will rape just about any woman who walks by because its not about sex, its about power), avoid certain areas, remain in groups, carry her car keys between her fingers like wolverine on x-men. But if she doesn't do these things, it doesn't make it her fault.

I don't carry pepper spray, so am I asking for it?

Well said.

Studies have shown, however, that victims are not picked on the basis of how they are dressed. So that bit of advice about dressing conservatively is erroneous.

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

are you completely stupid???? (to mods: I'm not insulting, I'm asking)

how can someone be to blame for (and look closely) SOMETHING BEING FORCED ON THEM?!?!?!

there's a difference between rape (which is where a person forces sex on a woman - regardless of whether violence is used, the only relevant thing in the matter is whether she wanted it to happen or not - and if she didn't, it's rape) and having consensual sex then pretending you were raped later. You're confusing the too.

Deviltrainee, supposing, just supposing (I'm male btw) I raped you. Forget about whether I would or wouldn't do it due to my morals, and forget about whether I would or wouldn't be able to do it due to your strenght (I could always use a weapon or get people to help), just suppose I raped you, for no reason other than the fact I wanted to exert power over you. Would that be your fault? No? Then how is it any different if a woman is raped? It isn't.

Kspinaria, if a guy walks around in shorts, is it his fault if another guy rapes him? no, then what's the difference in raping a women who's not wearing much?

Everyone, regardless of gender, has a right to wear what they feel comfortable in. That does not mean they want or deserve to be violently attacked in any way, including rape. It simply means they are expressing themselves and/or just wearing what makes them feel comfortable.

For all those people out there who keep using excuses to try to put the blame for violent attacks (because that is what rape is, not sex, a violent attack that happens to include forced sex as part of it, but it's more about power and violence) on women, go through each excuse then relate it to a man being the victim and see if it still makes sense to you. If it doesn't, then the excuse is completely stupid.

No, he needs to be arested, imprisoned and reformed

People who hold your opinions are the problem.

No, people who try to justify rape are the problem.

I find this thread to be more humorous all the time, in the sense that people think that pointing fingers actually accomplishes anything. So, in some places in the world, women are blamed for rape. In here, many people are claiming that women are not to blame for rape. So really, there is one question left: who is going to step forward and accept responsibility for preventing rape? What? No takers? Well, guess what? You now have a problem that will not go away.

...that is what rape is, not sex, a violent attack that happens to include forced sex as part of it, but it's more about power and violence

I previously addressed this notion here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9970436&postcount=77) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9970626&postcount=99).

Saying that a woman is to blame for wearing skimpy clothes is like saying a man is to blame if he gets beaten up for wearing nice clothes. It's really really really really really dumb.

A victim of SOMETHING FORCED is not to blame.

That being said, there are certain things a woman can do to lower her risk of being attacked. Such as, dress more conservatively (although that really only helps in cases of acquiantence or date rape, because a creepy guy hiding in the bush will rape just about any woman who walks by because its not about sex, its about power), avoid certain areas, remain in groups, carry her car keys between her fingers like wolverine on x-men. But if she doesn't do these things, it doesn't make it her fault.

I don't carry pepper spray, so am I asking for it?

It is not her fault. However, at the end of the day who cares whos fault it is? If a woman puts herself into a position where the chance of rape is high (goes to a club and drinks anything shoved under her nose etc) it is not her fault for being raped but regardless of blame shes still raped and theres nothing anyone can do about it after the act. If she hadn't put herself in that possition she may not have been raped, maybe she would've anyway but it would be less likely. If you always look both ways before crossing the street you're less likely to be hit by a car than if you just step out. If the person who looks both ways gets hit he/shes unlucky, regardless of if he/she gets hit the person who just steps out is an idiot.

I find this thread to be more humorous all the time, in the sense that people think that pointing fingers actually accomplishes anything. So, in some places in the world, women are blamed for rape. In here, many people are claiming that women are not to blame for rape. So really, there is one question left: who is going to step forward and accept responsibility for preventing rape? What? No takers? Well, guess what? You now have a problem that will not go away.
Society has already taken responsible steps by passing laws classifying rape as a crime. Citizens take responsible steps by lobbying their governments to increase penalties for rape to the level of deterrant and by lobbying and demonstrating for women's rights. Individuals take responsible steps by trying to protect themselves as well as they can against the unknown.

But none of that is a 100% guaranty that rape won't be committed because none of them can eliminate the impulse to commit rape out of some people's brains. Rape is a crime. Any time a person tries to lay blame for a crime on anyone other than the criminal who committed it, they are really just trying to say it's okay to commit this crime.

Are you sure you want to be making that argument?

It is not her fault. However, at the end of the day who cares whos fault it is? If a woman puts herself into a position where the chance of rape is high (goes to a club and drinks anything shoved under her nose etc) it is not her fault for being raped but regardless of blame shes still raped and theres nothing anyone can do about it after the act. If she hadn't put herself in that possition she may not have been raped, maybe she would've anyway but it would be less likely. If you always look both ways before crossing the street you're less likely to be hit by a car than if you just step out. If the person who looks both ways gets hit he/shes unlucky, regardless of if he/she gets hit the person who just steps out is an idiot.
The law cares whose fault it is. It is presumed to be the fault of the rapist, because rape is a crime and crime is a choice.

However, if you start equivocating about, oh maybe she led him on, maybe she failed to prevent it, maybe she did this or shouldn't have done that, then you're creating circumstances under which it may be okay to force sex on another person -- in other words, you are saying that rape may not be a crime after all.

Lots of people here make that argument. I wonder if they don't realize that's what they're saying, or if they do realize it.

No, people who try to justify rape are the problem.

I'm not trying to justify rape. No one here is. What we are saying is that there are things that can cause rape.

However, if you start equivocating about, oh maybe she led him on, maybe she failed to prevent it, maybe she did this or shouldn't have done that, then you're creating circumstances under which it may be okay to force sex on another person -- in other words, you are saying that rape may not be a crime after all.
Granted it is the raper who is at fault, that does not mean the one who is raped should always be absolved of any responsibility in part for how it occurred. Just like the a white guy who wears nice clothes while strolling through the ghetto is a dumbass...

It is not her fault. However, at the end of the day who cares whos fault it is? If a woman puts herself into a position where the chance of rape is high (goes to a club and drinks anything shoved under her nose etc) it is not her fault for being raped but regardless of blame shes still raped and theres nothing anyone can do about it after the act. If she hadn't put herself in that possition she may not have been raped, maybe she would've anyway but it would be less likely. If you always look both ways before crossing the street you're less likely to be hit by a car than if you just step out. If the person who looks both ways gets hit he/shes unlucky, regardless of if he/she gets hit the person who just steps out is an idiot.
which would be an excellent point (one i have to use with my husband now and then to remind him that even if he has the right of way on the highway, it wont matter much once the semi crushes him) IF going to a club were in fact highly dangerous. its not. millions of women go to clubs on any given weekend. few are raped at the club or by men they turned down flat at that club. most women take reasonable precautions. sometimes those reasonable precautions fail.

Granted it is the raper who is at fault, that does not mean the one who is raped should always be absolved of any responsibility in part for how it occurred. Just like the a white guy who wears nice clothes while strolling through the ghetto is a dumbass...
You can legally wear nice clothes anywhere you want to. That guy, while maybe not thinking out his plan of extended living too clearly, is still not at fault for being a snappy dresser in the wrong place.

You can legally wear nice clothes anywhere you want to. That guy, while maybe not thinking out his plan of extended living too clearly, is still not at fault for being a snappy dresser in the wrong place.
And you prove my point. Not thinking when doing something dumb does not absolve people of all responsibity for any consequences. If they did, there would be alot less people in jail.

And you prove my point. Not thinking when doing something dumb does not absolve people of all responsibity for any consequences. If they did, there would be alot less people in jail.
No, actually it does absolve you. You can be as stupid as you like. The full blame goes on the one who does the crime. The victim, if they did something dumb to get treated that way, is already punished for it. There is no need to punish them further.

No, actually it does absolve you. You can be as stupid as you like. The full blame goes on the one who does the crime. The victim, if they did something dumb to get treated that way, is already punished for it. There is no need to punish them further. I think your signature gets it about right… seriously, how can a woman be "asking for it" - how can you be asking for something that is by its very nature AGAINST YOUR WILL?

Last time I checked, it was only chavs who said "asking for it".

No, actually it does absolve you. You can be as stupid as you like. The full blame goes on the one who does the crime. The victim, if they did something dumb to get treated that way, is already punished for it. There is no need to punish them further.
No one is suggesting they be punished but you. I ask they be recognized as the foolish people they are in a situation where they are such.

No one is suggesting they be punished but you. I ask they be recognized as the foolish people they are in a situation where they are such.
Recognized by what? A court? Should the perpetrator be given a leaner sentence because he took advantage of a situation?

Recognized by what? A court? Should the perpetrator be given a leaner sentence because he took advantage of a situation?
You keep making my point and never realizing it. In some cases, yes. Not in the upper majority.You skirt around what I am saying like Muhammad Ali while making jabs at things I am not even talking about.

This is disgusting. Rape is not the victim's fault in any circumstances. Drunkenness doesn't mean you deserve getting raped or that you shouldn't complain, and dressing provocatively doesnt make it okay for people to rape you. Maybe being drunk and dressing that way could be bad judgment, but thats not the crime, rape IS. Not to mention, rape isnt about sex for the most part... its about power. If someone has it in them to rape somebody because it makes them feel in control and that they're in some position of power and demand, it wont matter what the next victim is wearing.

Forty-three pages and this thread is still more pointless than a religious debate of God's existance.

You keep making my point and never realizing it. In some cases, yes. Not in the upper majority.You skirt around what I am saying like Muhammad Ali while making jabs at things I am not even talking about.
you mean that if a well dressed man thoughtlessly wandered in "the ghetto" and got beaten up and robbed, the perpetrators should be given a lighter sentence because of it?

what? they are different from the rest of us and unable to control themselves around well dressed men and thus should be let off lightly when one walks by???

Granted it is the raper who is at fault, that does not mean the one who is raped should always be absolved of any responsibility in part for how it occurred. Just like the a white guy who wears nice clothes while strolling through the ghetto is a dumbass...
You prove my point: A well-dressed white guy becomes a legitimate target if he strolls into the wrong street; therefore, it's not a crime to attack a man, as long as he's white, well-dressed, and in a poor, presumably non-white neighborhood? Therefore, under certain circumstances, it is not a crime to attack another person who is not attacking you? Under what circumstances, other than his blundering presence in a neighborhood populated by poor non-whites? Does the mere sight of him constitute a provocation? What about when the poor non-whites leave their neighborhoods to go to work? Can they claim provocation at the sight of a well-dressed white guy on any street? Follow this road, and soon you end up with open season on well-dressed white guys, no matter what the circumstances.

You keep making my point and never realizing it. In some cases, yes. Not in the upper majority.You skirt around what I am saying like Muhammad Ali while making jabs at things I am not even talking about.
Not in any case. Period.

You prove my point: A well-dressed white guy becomes a legitimate target if he strolls into the wrong street; therefore, it's not a crime to attack a man, as long as he's white, well-dressed, and in a poor, presumably non-white neighborhood? Therefore, under certain circumstances, it is not a crime to attack another person who is not attacking you? Under what circumstances, other than his blundering presence in a neighborhood populated by poor non-whites? Does the mere sight of him constitute a provocation? What about when the poor non-whites leave their neighborhoods to go to work? Can they claim provocation at the sight of a well-dressed white guy on any street? Follow this road, and soon you end up with open season on well-dressed white guys, no matter what the circumstances.
excellent parallel

with women it would start with "ohmygod she is drunk in a bar wearing low cut skirt, cropped top and a belly ring" and end up at "did you see the bonnet that slut was wearing?? what was she doing at church ALONE on a saturday evening??!!"

excellent parallel

with women it would start with "ohmygod she is drunk in a bar wearing low cut skirt, cropped top and a belly ring" and end up at "did you see the bonnet that slut was wearing?? what was she doing at church ALONE on a saturday evening??!!"
Thanks. :)

These arguments that lay blame/responsibility on the victim or otherwise say the victim could have prevented it somehow, all fall apart when we get down to the fact that the crimes are committed not because of what the victim DOES but because of what the victim IS. In the example, the white guy is attacked because he is white, something he can't help. In rape, the victim is attacked because she is female and/or because she or he is perceived by the attacker to be weak (i.e. attack-able). Neither of these things can be helped or prevented, neither is a choice made by the victim, and neither is a provocation that gives an excuse to the attacker. If you make women responsible for PREVENTING attacks against them that are committed only because they are women, then the only way they can do this will be to stop existing, or else never to let themselves be seen. Welcome to burkha-ville, population: not me.

One thing I think that needs to be said... it's a long thread, so it may have been said before. "No" can be uttered at any time. A guy could be in the middle of penetrating a woman and she may have second thoughts. Rape is sex without consent. That's all it is. No matter how she's dressed, if she's dressed, or how much she tells you that she wants it; the decision to stop must be respected at all times. There are no gray areas.

The law cares whose fault it is. It is presumed to be the fault of the rapist, because rape is a crime and crime is a choice.

However, if you start equivocating about, oh maybe she led him on, maybe she failed to prevent it, maybe she did this or shouldn't have done that, then you're creating circumstances under which it may be okay to force sex on another person -- in other words, you are saying that rape may not be a crime after all.

Lots of people here make that argument. I wonder if they don't realize that's what they're saying, or if they do realize it.

Wow you managed to completely miss my point. Aslo I thought I specificly said that it wasn't the womans fault, yep "It is not her fault." there it is. To clear it up any further it is the rapists fault. Also most of the end of your argument seems to assume you know what I mean more than I do, you pretty much specificly put words in my mouth.

which would be an excellent point (one i have to use with my husband now and then to remind him that even if he has the right of way on the highway, it wont matter much once the semi crushes him) IF going to a club were in fact highly dangerous. its not. millions of women go to clubs on any given weekend. few are raped at the club or by men they turned down flat at that club. most women take reasonable precautions. sometimes those reasonable precautions fail.

See ashmoria got it. Yes I understand its not highly dangerous but there are still some common sense things people shoud do, and there are some very very dodgy places best avoided. And yes I understand that those fail sometimes, life is unfortunatly cruel, you just have to try and make that as unlikely as possible and pray.

You prove my point: A well-dressed white guy becomes a legitimate target if he strolls into the wrong street; therefore, it's not a crime to attack a man, as long as he's white, well-dressed, and in a poor, presumably non-white neighborhood? Therefore, under certain circumstances, it is not a crime to attack another person who is not attacking you? Under what circumstances, other than his blundering presence in a neighborhood populated by poor non-whites? Does the mere sight of him constitute a provocation? What about when the poor non-whites leave their neighborhoods to go to work? Can they claim provocation at the sight of a well-dressed white guy on any street? Follow this road, and soon you end up with open season on well-dressed white guys, no matter what the circumstances.
All assertions are your own, not mine.

excellent parallel
No, it's not. He/she/ET is using a slippery slope in order to ignore the whole point.

This thread should have been closed ages ago. Any attempt at actual discussion is immediately met with "zomg, the one who got raped should never be blamed for anything because they were raped and anyone accused of rape is always guilty and is the antichrist."

All assertions are your own, not mine.


No, it's not. He/she/ET is using a slippery slope in order to ignore the whole point.

This thread should have been closed ages ago. Any attempt at actual discussion is immediately met with "zomg, the one who got raped should never be blamed for anything because they were raped and anyone accused of rape is always guilty and is the antichrist."

It must be hard to be right and idiotic at the same time.

We are assuming a rape happened. Therefore, yes, the accused is guilty.

The question posed is whether the victim is also partially responsible. You are right that this shouldn't have required so much discussion as the answer is obviously "no."

It must be hard to be right and idiotic at the same time.

We are assuming a rape happened. Therefore, yes, the accused is guilty.

The question posed is whether the victim is also partially responsible. You are right that this shouldn't have required so much discussion as the answer is obviously "no."
I hold anyone who does something stupid is at least partially responsible, even if only minutely, for any outcome. This does not apply to all situations, only the ones where people are being stupid. I am not going to mince words and sideline opinions because everyone thinks all rape victims should be put on a pedestal and the stupid ones absolved of any responsibility for being a dumbass.
If you are a white/black/asian/wizard guy and you walk through the ghetto at most any time in a business suit, you know you are lucky if you walk out without a bullet/knife hole in your way too expensive jacket.

I hold anyone who does something stupid is at least partially responsible, even if only minutely, for any outcome. This does not apply to all situations, only the ones where people are being stupid. I am not going to mince words and sideline opinions because everyone thinks all rape victims should be put on a pedestal and the stupid ones absolved of any responsibility for being a dumbass.
If you are a white/black/asian/wizard guy and you walk through the ghetto at most any time in a business suit, you know you are lucky if you walk out without a bullet/knife hole in your way too expensive jacket.
So its alright to have complete freedom of speech, but freedom of movement and expression are under attack then? :rolleyes:

So its alright to have complete freedom of speech, but freedom of movement and expression are under attack then? :rolleyes:
You have the right to not be a dumbass. In cases when you choose to wave that right, you have the right to not be absolved of any responsibility.

I hold anyone who does something stupid is at least partially responsible, even if only minutely, for any outcome. This does not apply to all situations, only the ones where people are being stupid. I am not going to mince words and sideline opinions because everyone thinks all rape victims should be put on a pedestal and the stupid ones absolved of any responsibility for being a dumbass.
If you are a white/black/asian/wizard guy and you walk through the ghetto at most any time in a business suit, you know you are lucky if you walk out without a bullet/knife hole in your way too expensive jacket.

The problem with your analogy is that the things you call "stupid" in hindsight are not actually behavior likely to cause one to be raped. You rely on myths about rape rather than reality.

The problem with your analogy is that the things you call "stupid" in hindsight are not actually behavior likely to cause one to be raped. You rely on myths about rape rather than reality.
Not that I have listed anything as to what I am basing my analogy on, but how about you share some reality?

Not that I have listed anything as to what I am basing my analogy on, but how about you share some reality?

I've listed a dozen or so links in this thread. Here are two again:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ovw/docs/MFSexViol.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/The%20Truth%20About%20Rape%20Final.pdf

I've listed a dozen or so links in this thread. Here are two again:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ovw/docs/MFSexViol.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/The%20Truth%20About%20Rape%20Final.pdf
Still.
"Here stranger, watch my drink while I go use the restroom."
"Oh, I think I will go to some new random bar/anywhere else with such an atmosphere by myself instead of with a friend or some sort of aquaintance."

And like it said, "Going into dark alleys may not be prudent [...]." No, it isn't, you are a dumbass.

You have the right to not be a dumbass. In cases when you choose to wave that right, you have the right to not be absolved of any responsibility.
So its alright to simply let people take advantage of others? As a matter of public policy, this is something most courts would disagree with, as would I.

Still.
"Here stranger, watch my drink while I go use the restroom."
"Oh, I think I will go to some new random bar/anywhere else with such an atmosphere by myself instead of with a friend or some sort of aquaintance."

And like it said, "Going into dark alleys may not be prudent [...]." No, it isn't, you are a dumbass.

So, because you know cars are dangerous, you are a dumbass that deserved it if you get in an accident?

So, because you know cars are dangerous, you are a dumbass that deserved it if you get in an accident?
No. You are a dumbass if you get in an accident because you are drinking, smoking, eating, playing with the stereo, talking on your cellphone, or *insert any other distracting thing you could be doing while driving a car*.

And you assert I believe they deserve it. I am getting tired of all this bullshit knee-jerk defensive. If you, inclusive you, can't think things through and stop throwing around words I "said" but you made up, don't reply to my posts.

No. You are a dumbass if you get in an accident because you are drinking, smoking, eating, playing with the stereo, talking on your cellphone, or *insert any other distracting thing you could be doing while driving a car*.

And you assert I believe they deserve it. I am getting tired of all this bullshit knee-jerk defensive. If you, inclusive you, can't think things through and stop throwing around words I "said" but you made up, don't reply to my posts.

I'm glad you don't think that someone deserves something bad (like rape) merely because they were a dumbass.

Back to rape myths:

myth 4: The best way for a woman to protect herself from sexual assault is to avoid being alone at night in dark, deserted places such as alleys or parking lots.
reality: Most assaults occur in a private home (60%) and the largest percentage of these occur in the victim's home(38%). (D. Kinnon, "Report on Sexual Assault in Canada," Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Ottawa, 1981.)

myth 5: Women who are sexually assaulted "ask for it" by the way they dress or act.
reality: Reports show that there is a lot of diversity in the way women who are assaulted act and dress. Any woman of any age and physical type, in almost any situation can be sexually assaulted. The number one thing convicted rapists report looking for in a victim is vulnerability, not appearance. This myth takes the responsibility of the rape away from the rapist and shifts it to the victim. No one asks to be hurt in this way.

http://www.wavaw.ca/informed_myths.php

myth 4: The best way for a woman to protect herself from sexual assault is to avoid being alone at night in dark, deserted places such as alleys or parking lots.
reality: Most assaults occur in a private home (60%) and the largest percentage of these occur in the victim's home(38%). (D. Kinnon, "Report on Sexual Assault in Canada," Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Ottawa, 1981.)
I read that. I would think that you, if no one else, would understand how that is irrelevant to what I am saying.

myth 5: Women who are sexually assaulted "ask for it" by the way they dress or act.
reality: Reports show that there is a lot of diversity in the way women who are assaulted act and dress. Any woman of any age and physical type, in almost any situation can be sexually assaulted. The number one thing convicted rapists report looking for in a victim is vulnerability, not appearance. This myth takes the responsibility of the rape away from the rapist and shifts it to the victim. No one asks to be hurt in this way.
Maybe I am just wrong on the former part because you insist on putting words in my mouth. And that actually supports what I said in the post you quoted previous. Here, I will highlight it for you.

Let me reiterate, despite everyone's inability to pay any attention to it, the fact that I am not saying they are "asking for it" or "deserve it." I am saying if they do something stupid, they are not absolved of any responsibility for any actions that come from being stupid, even if those actions result in a crime against them. Just because some one is a victim does not mean they are a saint or intelligent.

There is an important point to be made here. That point is the diffrence between the number of rape cases brought to the courts and the number of people found guilty of rape. When considering the number of people found guilty of rape, most of those cases are the attacks at night in dark alleys etc, however the majority of cases brought before a court (at least in Britain) are issues useally between married couples or cohabiting partners regarding an issue over whether the woman wanted sex or she refused and was mixed messages, confusion of wants etc.

I read that. I would think that you, if no one else, would understand how that is irrelevant to what I am saying.


Maybe I am just wrong on the former part because you insist on putting words in my mouth. And that actually supports what I said in the post you quoted previous. Here, I will highlight it for you.

The few things you have pointed to so far as being "dumbass" actions by rape victims are not things that are linked to being raped.

Do you have a list of do's and don'ts for rape victims or do you just like hiding behind "don't put words in my mouth"?

There is an important point to be made here. That point is the diffrence between the number of rape cases brought to the courts and the number of people found guilty of rape. When considering the number of people found guilty of rape, most of those cases are the attacks at night in dark alleys etc, however the majority of cases brought before a court (at least in Britain) are issues useally between married couples or cohabiting partners regarding an issue over whether the woman wanted sex or she refused and was mixed messages, confusion of wants etc.

Your premise that acquaintence rape is about "mixed messages, confusion of wants etc" is a typical myth and is sickening.

The few things you have pointed to so far as being "dumbass" actions by rape victims are not things that are linked to being raped.
Oh, you mean things like this arn't linked?

Still.
"Here stranger, watch my drink while I go use the restroom."
"Oh, I think I will go to some new random bar/anywhere else with such an atmosphere by myself instead of with a friend or some sort of aquaintance."

And like it said, "Going into dark alleys may not be prudent [...]." No, it isn't, you are a dumbass.
I think you might want to go over what I highlighted for you.

I will reiterate something else for the benefit of the brickwall I am conversing with next to my computer chair. None of my opinions are a blanket statement for all victims of rape or any other crime.
It seems you, and alot of the posters in this thread, would have a tizzy about the series "It takes a Thief."

Oh, you mean things like this arn't linked?

I think you might want to go over what I highlighted for you.

I will reiterate something else for the benefit of the brickwall I am conversing with next to my computer chair. None of my opinions are a blanket statement for all victims of rape or any other crime.

I think it is pointless to discuss this with you further. Good night.

I think it is pointless to discuss this with you further. Good night.
Concession accepted.

I despise rapists. Bring up the firing squads.

Concession accepted.
She hardly conceded. I think she realised that brick walls can't be swayed. :rolleyes:

She hardly conceded. I think she realised that brick walls can't be swayed. :rolleyes:
I doubt Cat conceded, but I see they wern't reading, as is no one else.
And you might want to tell that to tornadoes and hurricanes and the like. But no, I will not submit to your beliefs or even to what you believe my opinions are.

Concession accepted.

All I have conceded is that it is pointless to discuss this with you. :headbang:

All I have conceded is that it is pointless to discuss this with you. :headbang:
I was pointless to discuss this with you after you proved you didn't even read something you had quoted me saying.

If you leave you drink unattended, or even better, unattended with a stranger, you are a dumbass. This does not absolve the person of any responsibility or crime if they slip you something and rape you. However, it does not absolve you of any responsbility that comes with being a dumbass. Victims, especially of rape, get hoisted around on shoulders once they admit it and those carrying them around attack any one who goes "Why did you do x?" if they did anything.

Date rape is bullshit and the culprits should be castrated, or publically humiliated, or both. But sometimes, if you do something stupid, you are stupid.

I was pointless to discuss this with you after you proved you didn't even read something you had quoted me saying.

*sigh*

I read it. We apparently are each taking different meanings from it.

(BTW, the first time you said you'd already read it wasn't true, because those quotes hadn't been posted before.)

I was pointless to discuss this with you after you proved you didn't even read something you had quoted me saying.

If you leave you drink unattended, or even better, unattended with a stranger, you are a dumbass. This does not absolve the person of any responsibility or crime if they slip you something and rape you. However, it does not absolve you of any responsbility that comes with being a dumbass. Victims, especially of rape, get hoisted around on shoulders once they admit it and those carrying them around attack any one who goes "Why did you do x?"

You have no idea what you are talking about. Spend some time at a rape crisis center.

(I can't believe I keep getting dragged back into this.)

*sigh*

I read it. We apparently are each taking different meanings from it.

(BTW, the first time you said you'd already read it wasn't true, because those quotes hadn't been posted before.)
Which quotes? The ones where I flesh out the opinions I have been referring to? No, I had never fleshed it out before that point, despite your statement to the contrary. If you mean the quote of me making those quotes, you quoted them yourself and replied to the post (somehow without reading it because you later demanded I give examples).

Honestly, end the discussion. This is not a court. After 45 pages all possible arguments have been made and probably countered.

Honestly, end the discussion. This is not a court. After 45 pages all possible arguments have been made and probably countered.
Oh yes, not like I didn't say this three pages ago.

'Improving conviction rates'? I thought the court of law is suppose to decide on the TRUTH of occurance on a case-by-case basis, not convinct every man who's accused of rape.

'Improving conviction rates'? I thought the court of law is suppose to decide on the TRUTH of occurance on a case-by-case basis, not convinct every man who's accused of rape.
Exactly. No one wants to question the "victim" for fear of being accused of supporting rape or some equally stupid shit.

'Improving conviction rates'? I thought the court of law is suppose to decide on the TRUTH of occurance on a case-by-case basis, not convinct every man who's accused of rape.

For every 100 rapes that actually occur, one rapist is convicted.

Don't you think it would be good to improve that conviction rate?

Society has already taken responsible steps by passing laws classifying rape as a crime. Citizens take responsible steps by lobbying their governments to increase penalties for rape to the level of deterrant and by lobbying and demonstrating for women's rights. Individuals take responsible steps by trying to protect themselves as well as they can against the unknown.

But none of that is a 100% guaranty that rape won't be committed because none of them can eliminate the impulse to commit rape out of some people's brains. Rape is a crime. Any time a person tries to lay blame for a crime on anyone other than the criminal who committed it, they are really just trying to say it's okay to commit this crime.

Are you sure you want to be making that argument?

False dilemma. Making attempts to hold others accountable for their actions does not absolve one of responsibility for their own actions. How many times does one have to be attacked before one accepts responsibility for defending themself? As long as one believes that they are helpless, defenseless, and can do nothing to change their lot in life, then they truly are.

For every 100 rapes that actually occur, one rapist is convicted.

Don't you think it would be good to improve that conviction rate?

Oh Sh*t. I actually agree with you on that point. How the hell did THAT happen?

I was pointless to discuss this with you after you proved you didn't even read something you had quoted me saying.

If you leave you drink unattended, or even better, unattended with a stranger, you are a dumbass. This does not absolve the person of any responsibility or crime if they slip you something and rape you. However, it does not absolve you of any responsbility that comes with being a dumbass. Victims, especially of rape, get hoisted around on shoulders once they admit it and those carrying them around attack any one who goes "Why did you do x?" if they did anything.

Date rape is bullshit and the culprits should be castrated, or publically humiliated, or both. But sometimes, if you do something stupid, you are stupid.

Whilst doing something stupid like throwing a Christmas tree around the house makes it, in my opinion, reasonably fair to put the blame on you if the result of that stupidity is that pine needles are strewn about the floor, doing something supposedly stupid like leaving your drink unattended does NOT make ANOTHER PERSON'S decision to put something in your drink as a result of that supposed stupidity fair to put the blame on you - it was THEIR decision, regardless of whatever you did that was stupid, and THEY had been planning it. THEIR fault. NOT the victim's. Just like if you had swung a Christmas tree around, dropped it, and as a result of that stupidity SOMEONE ELSE decided to deliberately stand on it because it was on the floor, thus crushing all the baubles - it may be your fault it was on the floor, but NOT your fault that as a result of your stupidity of chucking it on the floor that SOMEONE ELSE decided to stand on it and crush the baubles in doing so.

Your fault the tree ended up on the floor: yes. Your fault the baubles on the tree got DELIBERATELY crushed due to a decision of SOMEONE ELSE: No.

Your fault you left the drink unattended: Maybe, depending on the cirumstances. Your fault your drink was DELIBERATELY spiked due to a decision of SOMEONE ELSE: No.

Now can all the sickos on here go get some psychiatric help instead of making dumbass excuses for rapists?

Your premise that acquaintence rape is about "mixed messages, confusion of wants etc" is a typical myth and is sickening.

Its true. The majority of rape cases that go up before the courts in Britain are like this. The diffrence is that the majority of these cases do not get much publicity and very rarely get a sucsefull prosecution. I had a discussion with my dad about this previously, who is a barrister

Whilst doing something stupid like throwing a Christmas tree around the house makes it, in my opinion, reasonably fair to put the blame on you if the result of that stupidity is that pine needles are strewn about the floor, doing something supposedly stupid like leaving your drink unattended does NOT make ANOTHER PERSON'S decision to put something in your drink as a result of that supposed stupidity fair to put the blame on you - it was THEIR decision, regardless of whatever you did that was stupid, and THEY had been planning it. THEIR fault. NOT the victim's. Just like if you had swung a Christmas tree around, dropped it, and as a result of that stupidity SOMEONE ELSE decided to deliberately stand on it because it was on the floor, thus crushing all the baubles - it may be your fault it was on the floor, but NOT your fault that as a result of your stupidity of chucking it on the floor that SOMEONE ELSE decided to stand on it and crush the baubles in doing so.


I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying. Of course it is entirely the rapeists fault for the rape itself, but all the same women still should be very careful about their drinks on a night out. Should that absolve the rapist of any kind of responsablity. No of course not. But should it mean that the woman and indeed all women be more careful about their drinks at clubs. Yes.

Whilst doing something stupid like throwing a Christmas tree around the house makes it, in my opinion, reasonably fair to put the blame on you if the result of that stupidity is that pine needles are strewn about the floor, doing something supposedly stupid like leaving your drink unattended does NOT make ANOTHER PERSON'S decision to put something in your drink as a result of that supposed stupidity fair to put the blame on you - it was THEIR decision, regardless of whatever you did that was stupid, and THEY had been planning it. THEIR fault. NOT the victim's. Just like if you had swung a Christmas tree around, dropped it, and as a result of that stupidity SOMEONE ELSE decided to deliberately stand on it because it was on the floor, thus crushing all the baubles - it may be your fault it was on the floor, but NOT your fault that as a result of your stupidity of chucking it on the floor that SOMEONE ELSE decided to stand on it and crush the baubles in doing so.

Your fault the tree ended up on the floor: yes. Your fault the baubles on the tree got DELIBERATELY crushed due to a decision of SOMEONE ELSE: No.

Your fault you left the drink unattended: Maybe, depending on the cirumstances. Your fault your drink was DELIBERATELY spiked due to a decision of SOMEONE ELSE: No.

Now can all the sickos on here go get some psychiatric help instead of making dumbass excuses for rapists?
Ignoring the point to dismiss any blame for the rape victim. It was not her fault she was raped; however, being raped doesn't make her less of a dumbass. If she had not left the drink unattended/with a stranger, the chance of her being raped in hypothetical situation is greatly reduced.

Your fault you left the drink unattended: Maybe, depending on the cirumstances. Your fault your drink was DELIBERATELY spiked due to a decision of SOMEONE ELSE: No.

Now can all the sickos on here go get some psychiatric help instead of making dumbass excuses for rapists?

He's not making excuses for rapists. He is saying its stupid for women to leave their drinks unwatched or to be looked after by a stranger. That doesnt absolve any blame from the rapeist but the woman is still silly for having done it. Does that make her any less desreving of sympathy? No. Does it make her any less deserving of full justice? No. Does it mean though she should have been more careful? Yes.

Wow you managed to completely miss my point. Aslo I thought I specificly said that it wasn't the womans fault, yep "It is not her fault." there it is. To clear it up any further it is the rapists fault. Also most of the end of your argument seems to assume you know what I mean more than I do, you pretty much specificly put words in my mouth.



See ashmoria got it. Yes I understand its not highly dangerous but there are still some common sense things people shoud do, and there are some very very dodgy places best avoided. And yes I understand that those fail sometimes, life is unfortunatly cruel, you just have to try and make that as unlikely as possible and pray.
If you were not suggesting that women bear responsibility for the actions of rapists, then I apologize for misinterpreting you. I was reacting to the following from your earlier post:

"...If a woman puts herself into a position where the chance of rape is high (goes to a club and drinks anything shoved under her nose etc) it is not her fault for being raped but regardless of blame shes still raped and theres nothing anyone can do about it after the act. If she hadn't put herself in that possition she may not have been raped, maybe she would've anyway but it would be less likely. If you always look both ways before crossing the street you're less likely to be hit by a car than if you just step out. ..."

Phrases like this have been used throughout this thread to put responsibility for preventing rape onto women, with the either implied or expressed message that if she doesn't prevent it then she's responsible for it somehow.

If that was not your message, then please pardon me.

We live in a world where a guy can walk around half naked, can get as drunk as he likes, and if he gets mugged it's the fault of the mugger.

Meanwhile, if we smile at a guy, it's a comeone. If we wear a tank top in the summer, it's because we're showing off our bodies, not that we're too hot to wear other clothes.

No is no. To any guy who thinks otherwise, what if a guy was to get drunk, and other guys would think it's fun to stick stuff up his bum? Would that not be a form of rape? Would it be pleasent at all? Would it matter if a guy was drunk, or wearing "revealing" clothes?

How violated would you feel? Then, imagine wanting to press charges. Going to a hospital where strangers, will then take VERY close up pictures of your privates... poke and prod you where you were just violated, have you go over in details what happened... over, and over, and over, and over again.

I was lucky, I wasn't raped per-se, but something did happen with a friend of the family who I knew since I was 9. Everything I went through, if he didn't confess there wasn't much farther I would have been willing to go. (Was friends with the couple, and I had fallen asleep on their couch in a rather large t-shirt and a pair of jeans. Perhaps that was me "flaunting" myself?)

How hard is it to believe no is no? What right does ANYONE have touching another person in ANY way when they don't want it? I don't care how they dress, it's their bodies, it's their right to choose who gets to touch it.

If I, for some strange reason, wanted to get laid and went to a bar, I'd only want a guy I was attracted to. I wouldn't want to just be grabbed and forced. Imagine a guy, dressed to the nines, and the fattest, ugliest, most diseased looking woman decides to hold him down and have her way with him. Would that be his fault?

And for the record, I've only been with one guy- same guy I fell in love with during Highschool, and we've been together for 10 years. I'm not someone who takes dating or relationships lightly, and do believe in being dedicated to someone before sleeping with them. (Though not neccesarily married).

False dilemma. Making attempts to hold others accountable for their actions does not absolve one of responsibility for their own actions. How many times does one have to be attacked before one accepts responsibility for defending themself? As long as one believes that they are helpless, defenseless, and can do nothing to change their lot in life, then they truly are.
I was a target of that rare creature, the stranger tries to grab you off the street for a quick rape scenario (broad daylight; me just walking along the street on an errand, going past a city park). I didn't get raped because it turns out I can hit really hard. I bring it up because I don't think I'm helpless or weak or can do nothing about my lot in life. In fact, I'm kind of an ass-kicking bitch who never backed down from a challenge in her life. But my attacker had no way of knowing that. To him, because I was female, only 5 feet tall, and was alone at the time, I looked vulnerable. So he took a run at me and was proved wrong. But what if he had been bigger, stronger, or less surprised by my response? I'd have been in big frigging trouble, through no fault of my own and not because of any victim mentality of my own, either.

My point is, you can't control the perceptions of others. Sure, there are obvious things we can do to avoid giving off victim signals, but we can't know what's going through the heads of would-be attackers who may be drunk or high or caught up in their own mental problems. Haven't you ever known a guy who, when he got drunk enough, would pick the biggest, toughest-looking man in the room and say "I could kick his ass", even if he was a skinny little weakling himself?

My whole argument is that rapists have their own motives for attacking that are completely unrelated to what a given woman may be doing or not doing at any time. How can anyone then be sure their behavior will prevent an attack? How can you know what is motivating it? The idea is simply not realistic.

But I would like to point out again that this line of argument carries with it the implication that, since the woman can prevent rape (according to this argument) then she is responsible if she gets raped because, clearly she didn't prevent it. I cannot accept this as a valid argument.

Its true. The majority of rape cases that go up before the courts in Britain are like this. The diffrence is that the majority of these cases do not get much publicity and very rarely get a sucsefull prosecution. I had a discussion with my dad about this previously, who is a barrister

That is utter bullshit.

I don't care what daddy told you. I happen to be an attorney myself. Your appeal to authority falls flat.

Sure, in most case where the defendant cannot claim that he/she did not have sex with the victim, the defendant will claim the sex is consensual. It is a common defense --- regardless of how untrue it is.

On the other hand, I already provided evidence that acquaintence rape is usually just as violent and obviously non-consensual as stranger rape.

In fact, when you were last posting here you challenged me to provide such evidence saying you had provided evidence to the contrary. I provided evidence; I showed that I had already provided evidence; and I showed that you had never provided any evidence that supported your claims.

Finally, I presented evidence in this thread that part of the reason it is difficult to convict actual rapists is because of the misguided views of individuals such as yourself.

EDIT: I again urge you to read the following from a prominent sex crimes expert and former sex crimes prosecutor:
All Rape Is 'Real' Rape (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss.html)
The Charge of Rape, the Force of Myth (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss2.html)
Outlook: Rape and Myth (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss2a.html)

Also these from the DOJ, CDC, and other reliable sources:
http://www.aaets.org/arts/art13.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/ovw/docs/MFSexViol.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/The%20Truth%20About%20Rape%20Final.pdf
http://smartersex.org/date_rape/facts_myths.asp
http://mirecc.stanford.edu/content/ptsd/myth1.htm

False dilemma. Making attempts to hold others accountable for their actions does not absolve one of responsibility for their own actions. How many times does one have to be attacked before one accepts responsibility for defending themself? As long as one believes that they are helpless, defenseless, and can do nothing to change their lot in life, then they truly are.

No one would disagree with your assertion that women can be pro-active and help protect themselves, except you throw in a lot false assumptions and repulsive ideas in with that.

1. You keep making this assetion that assumes the same women get raped over and over again because they make the same "mistakes." That is ridiculous.

2. No one said victims are always helpless, defenseless, and can do nothing to change their lot in life. Sometimes when the actual rape occurs this is true, however.

3. Your assumptions about what a woman can do to "accept responsibility" largely rely on rape myths about what causes rape.

4. Just because a woman in hindsight might have been able to do something differently and avoid getting raped does not mean she made an error for which she deserves blame after the fact.

5. Rape prevention is different than rape response. The last thing a rape victim needs is someone like you or others on here going back and deciding she is "responsible" for her own rape. That helps no one.

Excellent points.

Cat, just to avoided making any mistakes, are you female or male? I keep on referring to you as "she", and you haven't corrected me so far, so just want to make sure.

Cat, just to avoided making any mistakes, are you female or male? I keep on referring to you as "she", and you haven't corrected me so far, so just want to make sure.

Actually, I am male. But I take no offense at the confusion. I hadn't noticed you misindentifying me or I would have corrected you, however.

Phrases like this have been used throughout this thread to put responsibility for preventing rape onto women, with the either implied or expressed message that if she doesn't prevent it then she's responsible for it somehow.
The responsibility to prevent rape is primarily on women, like the responsibility to prevent getting hit by a car is primarily on the guy trying to cross the street.

But I would like to point out again that this line of argument carries with it the implication that, since the woman can prevent rape (according to this argument) then she is responsible if she gets raped because, clearly she didn't prevent it. I cannot accept this as a valid argument.
Which is why this thread should have been closed the day it is made. Any attempt made to assert that women have any sort of responsibility is met with sentiments like the one quoted, that is, that the person making the assertion that women should be responsible is somehow laying blame on the woman.

The responsibility to prevent rape is primarily on women, like the responsibility to prevent getting hit by a car is primarily on the guy trying to cross the street.
In other words none. Furthermore, a car does not intend to hit the pedestrian. A rapist intends to rape the woman. Herein lies the difference. Arguably, is it not easier to avoid a car than it is to avoid a rapist? The parallel you draw is illogical.

The responsibility to prevent rape is primarily on women, like the responsibility to prevent getting hit by a car is primarily on the guy trying to cross the street.

The responsibility to obey the law and not harm others lies with the perpetrator -- whether it be a rapist or a driver.

In other words none. Furthermore, a car does not intend to hit the pedestrian. A rapist intends to rape the woman. Herein lies the difference. Arguably, is it not easier to avoid a car than it is to avoid a rapist? The parallel you draw is illogical.
Parallel is fully logical in context, see the edit to my post. There are situations that people cannot prevent no matter what, and there are siituations where responsibility prevents alot. That's it.

I believe I should ask this thread be closed.

Which is why this thread should have been closed the day it is made. Any attempt made to assert that women have any sort of responsibility is met with sentiments like the one quoted, that is, that the person making the assertion that women should be responsible is somehow laying blame on the woman.

Please explain the difference between saying a woman is responsible for her being raped and blaming a woman for being raped.

No is no. To any guy who thinks otherwise, what if a guy was to get drunk, and other guys would think it's fun to stick stuff up his bum? Would that not be a form of rape? Would it be pleasent at all? Would it matter if a guy was drunk, or wearing "revealing" clothes?


I'll say, all those guys(because let's face it, it's almost always guys) who pretend like it's a woman's fault she gets raped need to have some sense knocked into their heads.

I propose a good old fashionned gay assrape of those guys whenever they, for example, smile on the bus or otherwise remove their shirt during summer. Then they can patiently explain to the police it's their own fault they got anally assaulted by a desperate gay guy; after all, they weren't hiding all their skin, and it's perfectly understandable how, under those circumstances, someone couldn't resist jumping them.

I believe I should ask this thread be closed.

You are not the original poster and there are no rule violations going on here. You are unlikely to succeed in getting the thread closed.

I'd like your side of the debate to wise up or go away, but I'd defend your right to continue arguing that women are (at least sometimes) responsible for being raped.

Just because you are frustrated does not justify closing a thread.

I'll say, all those guys(because let's face it, it's almost always guys) who pretend like it's a woman's fault she gets raped need to have some sense knocked into their heads.

I propose a good old fashionned gay assrape of those guys whenever they, for example, smile on the bus or otherwise remove their shirt during summer. Then they can patiently explain to the police it's their own fault they got anally assaulted by a desperate gay guy; after all, they weren't hiding all their skin, and it's perfectly understandable how, under those circumstances, someone couldn't resist jumping them.
It would seem though most men are incapable of lateral thinking. I doubt that those raped would learn anything.

I'll say, all those guys(because let's face it, it's almost always guys) who pretend like it's a woman's fault she gets raped need to have some sense knocked into their heads.

I propose a good old fashionned gay assrape of those guys whenever they, for example, smile on the bus or otherwise remove their shirt during summer. Then they can patiently explain to the police it's their own fault they got anally assaulted by a desperate gay guy; after all, they weren't hiding all their skin, and it's perfectly understandable how, under those circumstances, someone couldn't resist jumping them.

Although I would never wish that anyone be raped, I can't help but sympathizing with your sentiment.

Although I would never wish that anyone be raped, I can't help but sympathizing with your sentiment.
Do you think it would teach them ANYTHING though? I wonder...they would probably become homophobic (if they aren't already) and preaching that homosexuals are an abomination of God. If anything, they would blame, not correlate their experience to what a woman would feel in an analogous situation.

It would seem though most men are incapable of lateral thinking. I doubt that those raped would learn anything.
Heh, at least it would give us desperate gay men some distractions :p :D

Heh, at least it would give us desperate gay men some distractions :p :D
I am not that desperate...:p

Do you think it would teach them ANYTHING though? I wonder...they would probably become homophobic (if they aren't already) and preaching that homosexuals are an abomination of God. If anything, they would blame, not correlate their experience to what a woman would feel in an analogous situation.
Well, that probably wouldn't change much from what's going on right now.

I have empirical evidence that men who aren't homophobic tend to be more empathic, thus reducing the chances that they'd blame a rape victim for her own rape.

As for whether they would learn anything or not... There's only one way to find out, now is there? :D But seriously, they'd have to be *very* deluded to deny the correlation between this and female rape, as it's essentially the same: someone forcing himself on you sexually against your will. With all the humiliation and powerlessness that comes with it.

I am not that desperate...:p
Lucky you ;)

I'd like your side of the debate to wise up or go away, but I'd defend your right to continue arguing that women are (at least sometimes) responsible for being raped.
Exactly why this thread should be closed. I am not going to go into this further with you or anyone else who insists upon words in my mouth and intentions in my statements which were never there.

And to just help me along, you have all descended within the last page into wishing ill upon not rapists or rapist supporters but upon anyone who makes an argument similar to mine.

Good day.

Well, that probably wouldn't change much from what's going on right now.

I have empirical evidence that men who aren't homophobic tend to be more empathic, thus reducing the chances that they'd blame a rape victim for her own rape.

As for whether they would learn anything or not... There's only one way to find out, now is there? :D But seriously, they'd have to be *very* deluded to deny the correlation between this and female rape, as it's essentially the same: someone forcing himself on you sexually against your will. With all the humiliation and powerlessness that comes with it.
Many are very deluded though, aren't they?

Lucky you ;)
Lets just say I am way too picky and I like being hit on rather than...ahem...forcing myself on guys. :rolleyes:

Exactly why this thread should be closed. I am not going to go into this further with you or anyone else who insists upon words in my mouth and intentions in my statements which were never there.

And to just help me along, you have all descended within the last page into wishing ill upon not rapists or rapist supporters but upon anyone who makes an argument similar to mine.

Good day.

I can see why you would refuse to answer posts like this one:

Which is why this thread should have been closed the day it is made. Any attempt made to assert that women have any sort of responsibility is met with sentiments like the one quoted, that is, that the person making the assertion that women should be responsible is somehow laying blame on the woman.

Please explain the difference between saying a woman is responsible for her being raped and blaming a woman for being raped.

Many are very deluded though, aren't they?

Including about the fact that every thing they are saying about female rape victims also applies to them.

About 400,000 men are raped each year in the U.S.

I can see why you would refuse to answer posts like this one:
I would, but you wouldn't listen and I said good day.

I would, but you wouldn't listen and I said good day.

LOL.

Nice dodge. If you can't answer the question just say so. Otherwise just go away.

If you were not suggesting that women bear responsibility for the actions of rapists, then I apologize for misinterpreting you. I was reacting to the following from your earlier post:

"...If a woman puts herself into a position where the chance of rape is high If she hadn't put herself in that possition she may not have been raped, maybe she would've anyway but it would be less likely.

Phrases like this have been used throughout this thread to put responsibility for preventing rape onto women, with the either implied or expressed message that if she doesn't prevent it then she's responsible for it somehow.

If that was not your message, then please pardon me.

I understand I could probably have stated it better. Let me clarify, the rapist is completely responsible for that rape, I am no way implying that the woman being drunk etc etc is any excuse (both moral and legal), he should be punished to the full extent of the law. She is not responsible for it, however for her sake wouldn't it be better if she is able to prevent it? also people (male and female) who spend the majority of their time drunk etc are idiots and more so if its with strangers they cant trust.

Blaming a woman for being raped is the same as blaming a person because their house was robbed.
About 10 years ago my apartment was broken into while i was at work, was that MY fault? my fault for leaving the apartment to go to work? or for having a TV and vcr and movies etc...?
Breaking into my apartment or a woman’s pants, either way it is the criminals fault and no one else.

And to just help me along, you have all descended within the last page into wishing ill upon not rapists or rapist supporters but upon anyone who makes an argument similar to mine.


For the record, I very specifically said I did NOT wish ill upon those with your view, but merely sympathized with the notion that your view would be different if you were a rape victim yourself.

Including about the fact that every thing they are saying about female rape victims also applies to them.

About 400,000 men are raped each year in the U.S.
People just never seem to learn. Makes me happy to be born gay sometimes, it forces me to think more laterally.

I understand I could probably have stated it better. Let me clarify, the rapist is completely responsible for that rape, I am no way implying that the woman being drunk etc etc is any excuse (both moral and legal), he should be punished to the full extent of the law. She is not responsible for it, however for her sake wouldn't it be better if she is able to prevent it? also people (male and female) who spend the majority of their time drunk etc are idiots and more so if its with strangers they cant trust.

But most rapists aren't strangers.

Again, you are buying into rape myths.

I understand I could probably have stated it better. Let me clarify, the rapist is completely responsible for that rape, I am no way implying that the woman being drunk etc etc is any excuse (both moral and legal), he should be punished to the full extent of the law. She is not responsible for it, however for her sake wouldn't it be better if she is able to prevent it? also people (male and female) who spend the majority of their time drunk etc are idiots and more so if its with strangers they cant trust.
I agree on these points. It would be much better if women could indeed prevent being raped.

But most rapists aren't strangers.

Again, you are buying into rape myths.
I think he is referring to the most commonly publicised type of rape. Marital/relationship rape is not something you hear a lot about.

I think he is referring to the most commonly publicised type of rape. Marital/relationship rape is not something you hear a lot about.

Which is buying into a myth about how rape happens.

In 2000, about 8 in 10 rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender
was a boyfriend or girlfriend, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance.

Which is buying into a myth about how rape happens.

In 2000, about 8 in 10 rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender
was a boyfriend or girlfriend, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance.
A fact which is inadequately publicised. Most people have no idea as to what the extent of non-stranger rape truly is.

Lets just say I am way too picky and I like being hit on rather than...ahem...forcing myself on guys. :rolleyes:
Well, like I said, all you have to do to be hit on is come wander around my neighbourhood. Granted that you're neither horribly disfigured and/or totally loony, I'm all ready to hit on you.

And, for the benefit of those other readers who might not have caught on that my previous comments regarding intended assrape of men blaming women for getting raped were sarcastic:

My previous comments regarding intended assrape of men blaming women for getting raped were sarcastic and by no means reflected real intent of my part to rape men without provocation. You may now sleep soundly and peacefully again at night. :rolleyes:

Which is buying into a myth about how rape happens.

In 2000, about 8 in 10 rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender
was a boyfriend or girlfriend, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance.

I was using what is commonly refered to as an example. Also just because it is a less likely type of rape does that mean you should go and get pissed with a bunch of strangers?

Breaking into my apartment or a woman’s pants

I somehow found that statement strangely poetic...

I was using what is commonly refered to as an example. Also just because it is a less likely type of rape does that mean you should go and get pissed with a bunch of strangers?

I'm sorry to have jumped down your throat, but there are these invidious myths and they must be stopped.

Well, like I said, all you have to do to be hit on is come wander around my neighbourhood. Granted that you're neither horribly disfigured and/or totally loony, I'm all ready to hit on you.

Now why would I be walking alone around seedy, shady neighborhoods of ill repute late at night? :p

Now why would I be walking alone around seedy, shady neighborhoods of ill repute late at night? :p
Because you're obviously trying to have someone sexually assault you on purpose, wearing revealing clothing and smiling at everyone!

You're certainly not there just to enjoy a nice, quiet walk before going to bed. :rolleyes:

Edit: I actually live in a nice, quiet suburb area, thank you very much. Criminality is nearly nonexistent here (It's Canada, remember?). It's really depressing, I go through great lenght in order to have someone rape me, but to no avail :(

I'm sorry to have jumped down your throat, but there are these invidious myths and they must be stopped.

I'm sorry to have reacted so much.

Edit: I actually live in a nice, quiet suburb area, thank you very much. Criminality is nearly nonexistent here (It's Canada, remember?). It's really depressing, I go through great lenght in order to have someone rape me, but to no avail :(
If you were cute enough, I'd do it consentually :p

I'm sorry to have reacted so much.


:fluffle:

If you were cute enough, I'd do it consentually :p
Careful, I might hold you to that! ;)

I may not be model material, but I am ruggedly handsome enough, if I do say so myself :p

Edit: Careful now, admitting you *might* be willing to have consensual sex with me might be enough to justify my raping you according to some of the posters on this thread.

Careful, I might hold you to that! ;)

I may not be model material, but I am ruggedly handsome enough, if I do say so myself :p

Edit: Careful now, admitting you *might* be willing to have consensual sex with me might be enough to justify my raping you according to some of the posters on this thread.
Heh, then look out for me when I come by your neighborhood ;)

Heh, then look out for me when I come by your neighborhood ;)
I sure will. So, when are you visiting Quebec city?

Rape rates are depressingly low here. It's almost as if those women aren't trying as hard as everywhere else to be assaulted. :D

I sure will. So, when are you visiting Quebec city?

Rape rates are depressingly low here. It's almost as if those women aren't trying as hard as everywhere else to be assaulted. :D
Its not really a joking matter.

Its not really a joking matter.
Mea culpa

Blaming a woman for being raped is the same as blaming a person because their house was robbed.
About 10 years ago my apartment was broken into while i was at work, was that MY fault? my fault for leaving the apartment to go to work? or for having a TV and vcr and movies etc...?
Breaking into my apartment or a woman’s pants, either way it is the criminals fault and no one else.

Amen.

Please explain the difference between saying a woman is responsible for her being raped and blaming a woman for being raped.

Well I'll take a stab at it though I can't know exactly what TPH meant.

I think he was saying that women are responcible for being raped in that their behavior was a factual cause of the rape. But they shouldn't be blamed for rape because they haven't committed a morally culpable act.

I kind of see the factual cause argument, but it's pretty much wrong. Such an argument ignores the criminal as an independent force that actually caused the rape. Whatever results would occur from, let's say, a woman dressing a ceratin way, being in a certain place, etc. that causal chain is broken by the action of the rapist. A rape victim is neither the cause in fact nor the legal cause of the rape.

Hope I haven't repeated anything buried in the 50 pages of this thread...

Well I'll take a stab at it though I can't know exactly what TPH meant.

I think he was saying that women are responcible for being raped in that their behavior was a factual cause of the rape. But they shouldn't be blamed for rape because they haven't committed a morally culpable act.


Actually I think you'll find what he's saying (and what I've been saying too) is that women are responable for the actions that lead to the possiblity of them being raped (IE leaving drinks in the company of a stanger etc) and that in itself is stupid. That does not mean they are to blame for the rape itself, but just that they should be careful when it comes to these things.

Well I'll take a stab at it though I can't know exactly what TPH meant.

I think he was saying that women are responcible for being raped in that their behavior was a factual cause of the rape. But they shouldn't be blamed for rape because they haven't committed a morally culpable act.

I kind of see the factual cause argument, but it's pretty much wrong. Such an argument ignores the criminal as an independent force that actually caused the rape. Whatever results would occur from, let's say, a woman dressing a ceratin way, being in a certain place, etc. that causal chain is broken by the action of the rapist. A rape victim is neither the cause in fact nor the legal cause of the rape.

Hope I haven't repeated anything buried in the 50 pages of this thread...
Well put.

The argument in this thread seems to spin around the concept of 'blame'. Indeed, someone might minimize the chances of coming to harm generally by going to lengths. A rape victim can never be 'to blame'. Or 'partially responsible'. Least of all 'guilty'. Her/his decisions up to the event may however be part of that causal chain. Causality being a part of the concept of responsibility, yet not the part that decides 'to blame' or not.

....just that they should be careful when it comes to these things.
They should. But failure does not lead to responsibility or blame.

Actually I think you'll find what he's saying (and what I've been saying too) is that women are responable for the actions that lead to the possiblity of them being raped (IE leaving drinks in the company of a stanger etc) and that in itself is stupid. That does not mean they are to blame for the rape itself, but just that they should be careful when it comes to these things.

But namecalling -- i.e., saying a rape victim was "stupid" -- doesn't help anything.

Well I'll take a stab at it though I can't know exactly what TPH meant.

I think he was saying that women are responcible for being raped in that their behavior was a factual cause of the rape. But they shouldn't be blamed for rape because they haven't committed a morally culpable act.

I kind of see the factual cause argument, but it's pretty much wrong. Such an argument ignores the criminal as an independent force that actually caused the rape. Whatever results would occur from, let's say, a woman dressing a ceratin way, being in a certain place, etc. that causal chain is broken by the action of the rapist. A rape victim is neither the cause in fact nor the legal cause of the rape.

Hope I haven't repeated anything buried in the 50 pages of this thread...
i think that is exactly the point.

if you look BACK on a particular crime you can say "gee she shoulda not gone to the bar" or "that was an unwise choice of clothing"

the thing is, it wasnt her going out or dressing a certain way that was the deciding factor in the rape. it was, in essence, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. coming to the notice of a rapist at a time when the crime can be successfully committed.

its really hard to know just when you will make that mistake (of being in the wrong place at the wrong time). most women will avoid the most obvious mistakes--dating a convicted rapist who is on parole, perhaps.

but most rape scenarios are not all that obvious. how do you know when the boy you have decided to go on a date with is a creep who will force himself on you? especially when you havent gone on very many dates. how do you know that when you leave the mall you are being followed by a rapist? how do you know that your next door neighbor is having rape fantasies about you? how do you decide between staying with the date who is giving you the creeps and walking home by yourself late at night? how do you know which frat party is a bunch of nice boys who just want to meet new girls and which one is the bunch of boys who think nothing of getting girls extremely drunk and raping them when they pass out??

no one is saying that women shouldnt be careful. most women try to be careful. all we are saying that when being careful isnt enough, its not the victims fault that a criminal chose her for his crime.

But namecalling -- i.e., saying a rape victim was "stupid" -- doesn't help anything.

This isnt namecalling. The point being made is that women have to be aware of dangers of certian actions. To not be aware is to do something quite stupid.

i think that is exactly the point.

if you look BACK on a particular crime you can say "gee she shoulda not gone to the bar" or "that was an unwise choice of clothing"

the thing is, it wasnt her going out or dressing a certain way that was the deciding factor in the rape. it was, in essence, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. coming to the notice of a rapist at a time when the crime can be successfully committed.

its really hard to know just when you will make that mistake (of being in the wrong place at the wrong time). most women will avoid the most obvious mistakes--dating a convicted rapist who is on parole, perhaps.

but most rape scenarios are not all that obvious. how do you know when the boy you have decided to go on a date with is a creep who will force himself on you? especially when you havent gone on very many dates. how do you know that when you leave the mall you are being followed by a rapist? how do you know that your next door neighbor is having rape fantasies about you? how do you decide between staying with the date who is giving you the creeps and walking home by yourself late at night? how do you know which frat party is a bunch of nice boys who just want to meet new girls and which one is the bunch of boys who think nothing of getting girls extremely drunk and raping them when they pass out??

no one is saying that women shouldnt be careful. most women try to be careful. all we are saying that when being careful isnt enough, its not the victims fault that a criminal chose her for his crime.

Extremely well put. Thanks.

They should. But failure does not lead to responsibility or blame.

Indeed not. I dont think anyone has seriously suggested this. But in the same way that when a man leaves his house unlocked and he is considered unwise if it is broken into, so a woman should be considered unwise if she leaves her drink unattended.

Indeed not. I dont think anyone has seriously suggested this. But in the same way that when a man leaves his house unlocked and he is considered unwise if it is broken into, so a woman should be considered unwise if she leaves her drink unattended.
Unwise, but not blameworthy ;)

Indeed not. I dont think anyone has seriously suggested this. But in the same way that when a man leaves his house unlocked and he is considered unwise if it is broken into, so a woman should be considered unwise if she leaves her drink unattended.

The drink unattended is the best example you have. Most of the rest of the suggested "unwise" behavior is based on rape myths.

I would admit that a woman that left her drink unattended was unwise, however, that does not make her responsible if she gets raped.

Indeed not. I dont think anyone has seriously suggested this. But in the same way that when a man leaves his house unlocked and he is considered unwise if it is broken into, so a woman should be considered unwise if she leaves her drink unattended.
all it takes is 3 seconds of inattention to allow a criminal to drop something into your "unattended" drink. some women never pay 3 seconds of attention at a time to their drinks all night and nothing bad happens.

the difference between getting something dropped into your drink and not is in the hands of the person doping drinks. if you want to do it bad enough, there will be a chance. no one is attentive 100% of the time.

in the same way, if someone want to get into your house while you are gone, they will find a way. no one lives in a constantly guarded fortress.

all it takes is 3 seconds of inattention to allow a criminal to drop something into your "unattended" drink. some women never pay 3 seconds of attention at a time to their drinks all night and nothing bad happens.

the difference between getting something dropped into your drink and not is in the hands of the person doping drinks. if you want to do it bad enough, there will be a chance. no one is attentive 100% of the time.

in the same way, if someone want to get into your house while you are gone, they will find a way. no one lives in a constantly guarded fortress.

Again, great points.

all it takes is 3 seconds of inattention to allow a criminal to drop something into your "unattended" drink. some women never pay 3 seconds of attention at a time to their drinks all night and nothing bad happens.

the difference between getting something dropped into your drink and not is in the hands of the person doping drinks. if you want to do it bad enough, there will be a chance. no one is attentive 100% of the time.

in the same way, if someone want to get into your house while you are gone, they will find a way. no one lives in a constantly guarded fortress.

Agreed, but at the same time if you go to the toliet and ask a random stranger to watch your drink, or worse just leave your drink on the table for several minutes while your dancing/in the toliet/talking to someone etc then your rather foolish. What I am saying is that women should be careful. Obviously if they are not then they are not to blame for what happens to them, only that they should be told to be more careful if there was an obvious lapse on their part.

But again, the kind of rape cases we are discussing (attacks, date rapes etc) are not the most common sort of rape. The most common rape case brought before a court (at least in the UK) is one useally where the male partener of a relationship is being prosecuted (often in a marriage) when there was a confusion between partners about what was wanted, what was allowed, whether or not there was a refusal etc. Its just that these cases are very hard to sucsessfuly prosecute and hence most juries will have substansial doubt and thus will give a not guilty verdict