Associate
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 1,062
- Location
- Respawning...
I agree... and i also think that i dont care what they wear
I'm not talking about the Canadian policeman in particular, he simply said something stupid that happens to exemplify victim blaming in general. As for a person regarding a woman as an object - that's not just his problem. It's a problem for the woman too if he decides to act on it. The problem is not the woman dressing provocatively. The problem is this culture we have that deems it acceptable for men to objectify a woman who happens to dress provocatively.
Let me put it this way.
A man gets mugged in an alleyway. It was his own fault of course. I mean, what was he doing in that alleyway in the first place? And dressed up to the nines in an expensive suit, he was basically asking for it. Any mugger could tell he was carrying a lot of cash on him. He had "target" written all over him.
Why is this a less acceptable line of reasoning than blaming a raped woman for dressing provocatively or getting drunk? Hell, even if she wasn't raped, but merely made to feel uncomfortable and threatened by men leering at her? Why is that acceptable?
People make arguments about controlling risk all the time, indeed there are numerous campaigns about not flashing cash, leaving valuables in cars and being careful when you are out aimed at both sexes.
The disconnection is those trying to treat rape as an exception where this shouldn't matter...
Rape is already being treated as the exception. When the hypothetical man gets mugged, nobody asks what he was wearing or whether he was jingling his pockets. They set about finding the people who attacked him. When a woman is raped, people ask questions. What was she wearing? Why was she hanging out with those men? How short was her skirt? Did she say "no" assertively enough? They look for any reason they can dig up to prove that this particular rape case isn't really as bad as a "real" rape.
Well, except of course they actually don't...
And of course, you ignore the huge difference between a crime of property and a crime of consent. There are valid questions to be asked when trying to determine whether consent was given or implied, because the vast majority of rape cases are not comparable with a mugging in terms of context or evidence. They aren't about whether the act took place, but about the consent of the act, which gives a whole new aspect to consider.
As I've said before, it is entirely possible for two people in an identical situation to end up with completely different legitimate views about the events that occurred, and generally, there are no witnesses to help make a judgement about what position would be the reasonable one.
But hey, keep the axe grinding...
Last edited:
Yes you were. Would you like me to quote you? Or have you gone back and edited your post to remove the direct reference to him in particular in which you falsely accused him of saying something he didn't say?
Which you've just done again.
Then don't act on it.
My point is that it's you (and all the others like you) who talk about regarding women as objects. It's you lot who are doing it. You're wrong in assuming that everyone else is like you in that respect.
See above.
i) Considering that almost everyone regards the first scenario as a more acceptable line of reasoning, I conclude that you are not talking about reality. But I was fairly sure about that already.
ii) Would you explain which part of the following that you can't understand even after it's been repeated in various ways numerous times?
Acknowledging that there are things people can do to reduce the chance of them being the victim of a crime is not the same thing as blaming victims of those crimes.
Seriously, I want to know how anyone can fail to understand that those two very different ideas aren't identical.
I read that part of your post then my eyes flicked over to the left and seen "wise guy" under your nameI'm sure that's an error and a Don should look into it..
You explain to me therefore how a woman, equal in every aspect to a man other than gender and the fact she's biologically wired to want to have babies and thus take a year out, is as valuable and employable as the man? It might not be politically correct but it is correct.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,154
Kind of floating off topic but deserves an answer --
For One, not all women want or will have children.
Two, even if she does have a child and takes time off work, for the time she is working and doing her job she's potentialy doing it as good as any one else and should be paid the same.
But if the man decides he wants to take a few months of to do whatever the company can say fine your fired.
woman decides to have a child they have to keep paying her not to come to work, and hire a replacement to do the job she's not doing, so the woman represents a much bigger "risk".
Can't have it both ways.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,861
- Location
- Auckland
Jesus Christ, do any of you goons actually like women? There's a massive amount of misogyny and projecting going on this thread.
[FnG]magnolia;19384307 said:
You have been here almost 4 years and you did not realise this topic would bring out that kind of thing? This place is awful for these kind of subjects and indicative of the problems in society we face. It has improved some what and I have been pleasantly surprised by the amount of people disgusted but still, I would have thought a year if that would be enough to get a feel of the place.
FUNNY
Typical feminists bitching about non issues.
Yes in theory a women should be able to dress how she wants and not get raped. But dressing in a sexualy provocative manner will probably increase you chances of getting raped just like walking down the street wearing a £20k rolex will increase your chances of getting mugged. It's common sense.
Yes in theory a women should be able to dress how she wants and not get raped. But dressing in a sexualy provocative manner will probably increase you chances of getting raped just like walking down the street wearing a £20k rolex will increase your chances of getting mugged. It's common sense.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,861
- Location
- Auckland
You haven't read the thread, have you?
[FnG]magnolia;19384533 said:
Just because hurfdurf has nothing better to do than prattle on about it doesn't make it true.
There have been no statistics directly correlating or disproving correlation between provocative clothing and rape incidence.
Thus, we must go off a logical basis until the evidence is provided.
For the purposes of this argument, we will either ignore the 85% of (reported) rapes which occur between people who know each other, or assume that provocative clothing could still have an effect.
Before we can decide whether provocative clothing, we need to establish the effect it has and why rapists choose the targets they do:
1) Provocative clothing has the effect of revealing more flesh, thus being more sexually provocative (if not attractive due to social stigma)
2) Most rapists are not mentally ill, just lack self restraint and have strange morals. As they are not ill, we can apply normal logic to why they choose their targets:
Attractiveness
Vulnerability
Generally they will choose to rape before they go out if it's with strangers; the only difference is if you're going to be chosen as a target.
Why do I say they choose targets based on attractiveness?
80% of rapes happen to women aged 16-25 (i accept these are more likely to be out partying etc. but attractiveness is not a negligible part of this)
A woman aged under 30 is 3 more times likely to be raped
They are, by and large, not mentally ill, and as such aren't going to be raping for dominance as you might find in US prisons, but for their own gratification that they cannot find elsewhere.
When a man is aroused, the hormones increase his sexual aggression and dangerous behaviour. Note I am not saying every man turns into a sexual monster when they're aroused, just that arousal has an effect on a man's behaviour.
Ergo, when a rapist is choosing a target after deciding to rape, especially after drinking (64% of rapes involve a rapist who has been drinking), the 'beer goggles' mean that attractiveness of the person matters less than who's wearing less and thus looks more provocative and more vulnerable.
NB:
I'm not saying that clothing should be the focus of anti-rape measures; I'd put bracelets, whistles, security companies and common sense above clothing in a list of priorities. I just feel like debating the issue, regardless of the real world implications.
It might be that your logical basis is being a bit skewed because you are making a very typical mistake with regards to rape, it has very little to do with sex and much more to do with control.
I am going to assume here that you have again slipped off your logical basis unless you suggesting that the 64% of rapes involving alcohol also apply to the 15% of rapes where the victim does not know her attacker?
Isn't this making the assumption that what arouses a rapist is also what arouses an ordinary bloke? If rape is about control rather than sex then this is possibly quite a dangerous assumption to make.
Only if the clothing being worn actually makes a difference, which so far has not really been proven. What is the point of warning against doing something that may not have anything whatsoever to do with the crime in question? There seems to be little in the way of evidence that clothing has anything to do with it and if we are in favour of an evidence based approach that is what we should be looking for.
He represents celebrities who are the kinds of people that regularly get accused of rape, so he has to maintain a certain kind of image in the public, as it helps his cases. That said, I agree, he's a ****.
People seem to be missing the point. Rapists don't rape because they want to have sex with hot women. Rape is all about the control and power that the rapist have over the victim. It doesn't matter if the victim is attractive or not, the only thing that matters is that the rapist is in total control and domination of the woman.
This march is all about word claiming and empowerment of women, it's not about addressing the [wrong] idea that women in provocative clothing are justifiable targets.
This march is all about word claiming and empowerment of women, it's not about addressing the [wrong] idea that women in provocative clothing are justifiable targets.