Blaming the victim

[kurupt87]

I'm not saying all sadists are rapists. I'm a bit of a sadist, more a dominant really, but I'm not a rapist.

You said rape is about power, well ok. Sadism is also about power. It's only about pain because that is something a person in a position of power inflicts upon someone in a position of no power.

A rapist who does it for the power trip is also an extreme sadist.

A woman who has "sexed it up" is not necessarily more confident than a woman who hasn't; even sexually. It is a strong visual indication though. Much like anyone else who dresses themselves, she'll put on what she thinks she looks good in. You don't dress yourself in clothes that you think you look bad in, not when 'going out' at any rate, and neither would she. Dressing in revealing clothes suggests a confidence in both body and sexuality to an onlooker without knowing anything at all about the person other than what they look like.

To an extreme sadist, more confidence means more to dominate or, in the case of rape, break about a person.

It's why people are so scared of the American prisoners who rape their fellow inmates. People just assume a man, a criminal at that, has more confidence and ability to fend off a rapist and finds the process even more horrible than a woman does/can. Yet it still happens and the rapist revels in it.

A lot of your ideas here should include the caveat "on paper," for they lack real world application.

The way you use sadist, especially to describe yourself, leans heavily toward role play in a consensual setting. A freaky fun person does not = a sadist outside of this context, that is a person who enjoys hurting other people. True sadism is indicative of a mental illness, the same sort that rapists have. As for freaky funtime sadism, no, it is not about power. Power is a means. That's why it's called role playing. Freaky funtime sadism is about the same thing as every other fetish in the world - it's about getting off, else it wouldn't be a sexual fetish. There are men who like to go in drag, but not for sexuality's sake and never merging the two worlds. Here, drag is not a fetish. But for people who like to do gender-bending in bed, regardless of whatever archetypal nerve that's hitting for them, the purpose is to get off and nothing more. You wouldn't argue that every woman who calls her lover "daddy" during sex actually has an Electra complex or incest tendencies, would you?

Some women wear scant clothes because they want to feel sexy and aren't afraid of their bodies, but sexy clothing almost never speaks to self confidence, and far more often speaks to its opposite. When was the last time you met a smart, self-aware girl who was well grounded and ambitious who had wording on the ass of her booty shorts? The two aren't mutually exclusive, but it's rare enough to be considered, in fairness, anomalous. You are unlikely to meet the woman of your dreams dressed in hot pants and a tube top that reads "tramp" across the boobridge. You may want to fuck her, and she may turn out to be both an interesting person and an interesting lay, but odds are if you're into a woman of any mental capacity you aren't going to find her dressed like an extra from a Britney Spears video.

And the fact remains: beyond the occasional serial killer who specifically targets hookers, most rapists, in fact most misogynistic criminals, do not target women based upon how they dress or how they look. Sexiness and self confidence are not factors.

Edit: And please stop quoting wrong so that it looks like we said each others' words. The text you quoted is all fucked up.

[sub]Don't know what happened with the quote, I'll edit it and sort it out. Realise I didn't do it on purpose; no need to be so combative, chap.[/sub]

Really? You're presuming to tell me why/what I enjoy sexually? That's an, interesting stance to take.

I'm well aware of what I enjoy and why I enjoy it, thanks though. Consensuality makes no difference, I will always want to indulge; consensuality just means I can.

Back to the issue. You seem to think that to be self confident you must also be intelligent. That is demonstratably not the case. In fact, you'll find that people are more likely to be overtly self confident when they're averagely intelligent or just below. You could argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is a superficial self confidence and/or that it acts partly as a defense mechanism but, it is still there.

The self confidence of the intelligent tends to be a much quieter, less noticeable affair. You have to actually talk to and know the person in order to make sure it's there. It's also less common; the scientific method is ingrained and teaches you to question everything, including yourself (which can cause self doubt and depression). You also can't claim conservatism in dress equates to self confidence. Conservatism in dress is first and foremost a desire to not stand out. However self confident that person may be and however little they care for their aesthetic appearance the way they choose to look says they don't want to be noticed; which, rightly or wrongly, speaks of a lack of confidence.

Also, the woman who dresses so provacatively has likely chosen to make that an important part of her character. Tell her she looks fugly, and mean it, and you've likely grievously insulted her. Tell me that and I'll laugh because it's not something I really care about. People invest in different things. The point I'm making here is that attractiveness and aesthetic appeal is a strength she has and so draws confidence from it.

As for rapists motivations, I can't claim to know them. Even the ones that have been discovered have to be handled with care, rapists tend not to be overly intelligent, articulate or self aware and have no real reason to be truthful.

To me, self confidence makes sense as a trait for a power tripping rapist's victim to have. The more resistant to something a person is (a confident person will resist more than an unconfident one) the more powerful the do'er feels when it's done despite that resistance; surely that makes sense to you?

 

[Lawyer105]

?Did you ? did you seriously just compare "When a woman says no, assume she means no" and "If a woman says stop, then stop" to "OMG LADIES NEVER LEAVE YOUR HOUSE"?

I?m starting to understand why you?re so worked up about "false" rape accusations.

Everyone else, take a knee and study Lawyer105's response to my post. See how it's perfectly reasonable to expect women to take responsibility for and curtail their behaviour lest they be raped, but the suggestion that men avoid sex with drunk, high and unconscious people lest they ACTUALLY COMMIT RAPE is greeted with ridicule.

To all the people insisting that rape victims bear some of the blame for "being stupid", I hope you realise you?re telling all the rapists who read this (and they?re out there; we have at least one clown who thinks it?s disgraceful that there?s a law saying "Hey fellas, if she tells you to stop and you keep going, that?s rape") that it?s acceptable to rape people as long as they are dressed a certain way or engaged in certain kinds of behaviour. "She deserves blame for being stupid" is semantic bullshit and you all know it.

... Did you - did you seriously just totally miss the massive hyperbole and utter facetiousness with which I ridiculed the ideas you were proposing?

I'm starting to understand why you've got so few posts.

Sure, you had some good ideas there, but a number of your suggestions were so massively over the top that I wasn't even sure my post did them justice.

Grow up a little, get over yourself, L2Interwebz and then maybe we'll talk.

 

[DrOswald]

I would like to point out one thing really quick. Just because something is less likely, statistically speaking, doesn't mean it does not exist. For example, One of the truths that keeps on getting mentioned is that most rapist are known to the victim. I looked around and saw numbers between 60% and 80%. And that is indeed most of the rapes occurring. But the remainder of the rapes are being committed by strangers. If we take the figure of 80%, that means 1 out of 5 rape victims did not know their attacker. That is a significant number that can't just be ignored because it is in the minority.

Other facts have been mentioned also:

Most rapes are not about sex.

Most rapes are committed in a familiar place.

Most rapes are not "aggravated" by provocative behavior immediately prior to the crime.

These statements are all true, but the important word in all these statements is most.

To summarize (and this is all I am saying, any "insinuation" you think I am making is not the case):

Caution is wise. Don't rely on statistical unlikeliness to protect you from violent crimes.

 

[kurupt87]

An accusation of any crime can ruin someone's life forever. But since you're so worried, it's actually quite easy to avoid being falsely accused of rape. Here are my tips:

1. Don't have sex with someone who's been drinking or taking drugs - even if they insist they're fine. You have no way of knowing how much they'll remember.
2. Don't have sex with total strangers.
3. Don't have sex with crazy people.
4. Don't get drunk/high at someone else's house if there's even an outside chance that later you'll crawl into a woman's bed and try to have sex with her.
5. If you are being chivalrous and are putting a drunk woman to bed, don't do it alone. Have one of her girlfriends go with you. When the woman's in bed, leave the room first.
6. Don't have sex with someone who's sleeping or unconscious, even as a sexy wakeup call.
7. If a woman says no, assume she means it.
8. Don't pester a woman until she gives up and lets you do what you want.
9. Listen for an enthusiastic "yes!", not just the absence of "no".
10. If she says stop, no matter how far along you are in the process, stop.
11. If she asks you to use a condom, use a condom.
12. In short - ONCE YOU'RE IN BED WITH SOMEBODY, DON'T ACT LIKE A FUCKING PIG.

Well... since you're going to take that approach, here's my tips for avoiding rape.

1. Don't dress like a whore.
2. Don't tease people into your bed and THEN say stop.
3. Don't walk around outside alone at night.
4. Don't invite friends over to your place.
5. Don't go visit friends at their place.
6. Don't go out to clubs or other social venues.
7. Don't drink something your best friend handed you 'cause it might be drugged.
8. Don't leave the house.

There we go. Break any of those AND YOU FUCKING HAD IT COMING!

How's that?

?Did you ? did you seriously just compare "When a woman says no, assume she means no" and "If a woman says stop, then stop" to "OMG LADIES NEVER LEAVE YOUR HOUSE"?

I?m starting to understand why you?re so worked up about "false" rape accusations.

Everyone else, take a knee and study Lawyer105's response to my post. See how it's perfectly reasonable to expect women to take responsibility for and curtail their behaviour lest they be raped, but the suggestion that men avoid sex with drunk, high and unconscious people lest they ACTUALLY COMMIT RAPE is greeted with ridicule.

To all the people insisting that rape victims bear some of the blame for "being stupid", I hope you realise you?re telling all the rapists who read this (and they?re out there; we have at least one clown who thinks it?s disgraceful that there?s a law saying "Hey fellas, if she tells you to stop and you keep going, that?s rape") that it?s acceptable to rape people as long as they are dressed a certain way or engaged in certain kinds of behaviour. "She deserves blame for being stupid" is semantic bullshit and you all know it.

You realise the post was sarcastic in tone, right?

Why should I not have sex with someone who has drank alcohol or taken drugs? Why should I not have sex with relative strangers? etc

Yours is a list of mainly unreasonable things you should do in order to avoid being charged with rape. His is a list of mainly unreasonable things that she could do to avoid being raped. Both lists are stupid; his was at least sarcastic.

 

[funguy2121]

[sub]Don't know what happened with the quote, I'll edit it and sort it out. Realise I didn't do it on purpose; no need to be so combative, chap.[/sub]

Perhaps you misinterpreted what I said, or perhaps I came on too strong. I've seen people do that on purpose before. Either way, thanks for addressing it.

Really? You're presuming to tell me why/what I enjoy sexually? That's an, interesting stance to take.

I'm well aware of what I enjoy and why I enjoy it, thanks though. Consensuality makes no difference, I will always want to indulge; consensuality just means I can.

No, I'm presuming to tell you that you enjoy things sexually for sexual purposes. There may be some deeply embedded archetypes that speak to what specifically gets you off, be it things from your past or reasons you can't identify, but probably most men, in addition to you and I, enjoy a woman who likes to play a submissive role in the sack. I don't spend too much time thinking about why (OK, I do - I just haven't come to a solid conclusion specific to me), but the end result is the same - it gets me off. I also don't like a submissive woman outside the sack, and both of these are true for quite a few men, so to say that the two are linked sounds arbitrary and and unfounded. Besides, would you really want to argue that you are more like a rapist? I certainly don't think you are.

Back to the issue. You seem to think that to be self confident you must also be intelligent. That is demonstratably not the case. In fact, you'll find that people are more likely to be overtly self confident when they're averagely intelligent or just below. You could argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is a superficial self confidence and/or that it acts partly as a defense mechanism but, it is still there.

I would agree that arrogance is most often an act put on by people who don't think highly of their selves, but I wouldn't limit this exclusively to simpler people, not at all. From your statements that I quoted, I thought we were both talking about the same thing: actual self confidence and not a ruse.

The self confidence of the intelligent tends to be a much quieter, less noticeable affair. You have to actually talk to and know the person in order to make sure it's there. It's also less common; the scientific method is ingrained and teaches you to question everything, including yourself (which can cause self doubt and depression).

I agree with the second part, but not with the first. Some quite intelligent people are hypersocial and very loud.

You also can't claim conservatism in dress equates to self confidence. Conservatism in dress is first and foremost a desire to not stand out. However self confident that person may be and however little they care for their aesthetic appearance the way they choose to look says they don't want to be noticed; which, rightly or wrongly, speaks of a lack of confidence.

I think you're using far too many sweeping blanket statements. "Conservatism in dress" can mean many things, and its purpose can mean many things. The cute indie girl at the coffee shop you frequent may know that she can pull off a polo shirt and loose jeans and still look cute without having to wear liquid latex. This doesn't mean that she's quiet or shy or has a low self worth. In fact, very often it means that, while she may not want to be alone, she doesn't want to be an STD collection plate either.

Also, the woman who dresses so provacatively has likely chosen to make that an important part of her character. Tell her she looks fugly, and mean it, and you've likely grievously insulted her. Tell me that and I'll laugh because it's not something I really care about. People invest in different things. The point I'm making here is that attractiveness and aesthetic appeal is a strength she has and so draws confidence from it.

Attractiveness and aesthetic appeal is something that just about any sexual being wants to be known for. Maybe the majority of us want to be known for more than just that, and for most of us it's enough that one person at a time finds us attractive, but I'd find it hard to believe if you told me that you wouldn't be bothered if no one in your life thought you were attractive.

As for rapists motivations, I can't claim to know them. Even the ones that have been discovered have to be handled with care, rapists tend not to be overly intelligent, articulate or self aware and have no real reason to be truthful.

That's not really true. Many of them are sociopaths and sociopaths tend to be extremely intelligent. Also, psychologists don't take what a patient says as gospel. They draw their own conclusions.

To me, self confidence makes sense as a trait for a power tripping rapist's victim to have. The more resistant to something a person is (a confident person will resist more than an unconfident one) the more powerful the do'er feels when it's done despite that resistance; surely that makes sense to you?

Well, I'm not an expert so in many cases that may be true. I know that usually predators look for easier targets because they also have to consider covering their tracks. But if it's self confidence they're looking for they're probably not going to go after the transparent sorority skank who looks like a porn star.

 

[kurupt87]

[sub]Don't know what happened with the quote, I'll edit it and sort it out. Realise I didn't do it on purpose; no need to be so combative, chap.[/sub]

Perhaps you misinterpreted what I said, or perhaps I came on too strong. I've seen people do that on purpose before. Either way, thanks for addressing it.

No worries.

As for the rest of this post, I'm being dissected! Bring it on.

Really? You're presuming to tell me why/what I enjoy sexually? That's an, interesting stance to take.

I'm well aware of what I enjoy and why I enjoy it, thanks though. Consensuality makes no difference, I will always want to indulge; consensuality just means I can.

No, I'm presuming to tell you that you enjoy things sexually for sexual purposes. There may be some deeply embedded archetypes that speak to what specifically gets you off, be it things from your past or reasons you can't identify, but probably most men, in addition to you and I, enjoy a woman who likes to play a submissive role in the sack. I don't spend too much time thinking about why (OK, I do - I just haven't come to a solid conclusion specific to me), but the end result is the same - it gets me off. I also don't like a submissive woman outside the sack, and both of these are true for quite a few men, so to say that the two are linked sounds arbitrary and and unfounded. Besides, would you really want to argue that you are more like a rapist? I certainly don't think you are.

Well aside from your "I certainly don't think you are" comment, which suggests I somehow gave the impression that I am in the first place, and that therefore my skills at articulating my thoughts are being called into serious question; lets talk.

Firstly, I like it when people listen to and obey me outside of sexual encounters. I suspect many people do enjoy this, I think you do too. What I don't do is expect to be obeyed or even listened to.

As for liking a person who does so, that depends entirely on the reason for them doing so. If it's a good reason, like I've explained something and they then agree with it, then it's good. If it's for a bad reason, say someone is afraid of my somewhat grim six five self, then that takes away from it and I lose respect for that person. Either way, being listened to and obeyed is nice. It's like winning, and winning is good.

Similarly, being ignored for a good reason is ok whilst being done so for a bad reason is infuriating. Neither makes you feel dandy but one is clearly better than the other.

As for outside the sack, I assume you also mean outside of a flirtatious situation as well. In which case, being female is irrelevant. In a social situation, as I've said above, it matters not about the person but the reason for listening or not.

Interestingly enough I am not at all dominant in social situations. I have been called criminally laid back by friends and authority figures alike. After an extensive period of self exploration I came to the conclusion that I apparently take the Golden Rule, or "don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself", extremely seriously. I despise being told what to do, so I don't do it to others. Ask and explain and I'm your man but, a quicker way to get me to sit down and tell someone to fuck off than to order me to do something does not exist.

Lastly for this paragraph, more or less like a rapist. Even if I were arguing so I'm not entirely sure that it matters, as long as I'm not a rapist. Surely that is the important part?

Back to the issue. You seem to think that to be self confident you must also be intelligent. That is demonstratably not the case. In fact, you'll find that people are more likely to be overtly self confident when they're averagely intelligent or just below. You could argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is a superficial self confidence and/or that it acts partly as a defense mechanism but, it is still there.

I would agree that arrogance is most often an act put on by people who don't think highly of their selves, but I wouldn't limit this exclusively to simpler people, not at all. From your statements that I quoted, I thought we were both talking about the same thing: actual self confidence and not a ruse.

Woah there, don't go putting words into my mouth. I sprinkled that point with perhaps's and rightly or wrongly's for a reason.

People are quite capable of being self confident and happy with who they are without meeting whatever arbitrary intelligence level you deem they require to be self respecting. They're right to do so.

What I mean is that you or I might have problems with aspects of individual characters but suggesting that they should not respect themsleves means that you believe they should be embarassed or regretful about the person who they are, purely because they don't meet a standard you've set. That is wrong and leads to a fascist's class view of people.

Judging people is fine, as is not respecting individuals, but don't suggest denying them self respect.

I sincerely doubt you meant that but slippery slopes are dangerous places to tread.

The self confidence of the intelligent tends to be a much quieter, less noticeable affair. You have to actually talk to and know the person in order to make sure it's there. It's also less common; the scientific method is ingrained and teaches you to question everything, including yourself (which can cause self doubt and depression).

I agree with the second part, but not with the first. Some quite intelligent people are hypersocial and very loud.

Heh, of course. And some murderers go on to help thousands. Exceptions are not the rule, they're the exception.

One point I'll suggest, the likelihood of happiness and confidence depends on the person's social background and experiences. Typically, upper class members are happier and more confident than the rest of us.

You also can't claim conservatism in dress equates to self confidence. Conservatism in dress is first and foremost a desire to not stand out. However self confident that person may be and however little they care for their aesthetic appearance the way they choose to look says they don't want to be noticed; which, rightly or wrongly, speaks of a lack of confidence.

I think you're using far too many sweeping blanket statements. "Conservatism in dress" can mean many things, and its purpose can mean many things. The cute indie girl at the coffee shop you frequent may know that she can pull off a polo shirt and loose jeans and still look cute without having to wear liquid latex. This doesn't mean that she's quiet or shy or has a low self worth. In fact, very often it means that, while she may not want to be alone, she doesn't want to be an STD collection plate either.

You dress to match your character. A Rugby player doesn't dress like a Games Club member. Even dressing up as someone else doesn't normally work, you have to have confidence in your ability to play that character too. You can tell a Tomboy in a dress a mile off, like you can tell a wannabe lad from a real one. And I am well aware of the attractiveness of unassuming indie girls, have no fear.

Wearing what is right for you gives you confidence, wearing what is wrong makes you unconfident. I'm almost suggesting confidence is provocative, and I guess it is. It's just that dressing and showing skin is so obvious.

You are right though, conservative dress isn't an easy concept to pin down. It's almost unique to each person. I guess it's a mix of clothes, attitude and body language.

As for dressing like a skank or however you put it, lol. It's enjoyable, so I'm told. To have heads turn after you, knowing it's lust, is a powerful feeling.

Also, the woman who dresses so provacatively has likely chosen to make that an important part of her character. Tell her she looks fugly, and mean it, and you've likely grievously insulted her. Tell me that and I'll laugh because it's not something I really care about. People invest in different things. The point I'm making here is that attractiveness and aesthetic appeal is a strength she has and so draws confidence from it.

Attractiveness and aesthetic appeal is something that just about any sexual being wants to be known for. Maybe the majority of us want to be known for more than just that, and for most of us it's enough that one person at a time finds us attractive, but I'd find it hard to believe if you told me that you wouldn't be bothered if no one in your life thought you were attractive.

I'm not really sure. I meant more that I don't find what I look like to be an important part of my character, attractive or not, and that looks are subjective anyway.

I really genuinly am not that bothered by how attractive people think I am. Maybe I'm suffering from confidence bringing contempt, I'm not sure.

As for rapists motivations, I can't claim to know them. Even the ones that have been discovered have to be handled with care, rapists tend not to be overly intelligent, articulate or self aware and have no real reason to be truthful.

That's not really true. Many of them are sociopaths and sociopaths tend to be extremely intelligent. Also, psychologists don't take what a patient says as gospel. They draw their own conclusions.

It's not that hard to fool psychologists. If I can do it and my step mum can do it, then sure as shit your sociopaths (possibly the most accomplished liars humanity has to offer) can do it. It depends on whether or not the psychologists diagnosing rapists are that much better at their jobs than the ones I've been told about than the sociopaths are that much better at lying than I and mine are.

To me, self confidence makes sense as a trait for a power tripping rapist's victim to have. The more resistant to something a person is (a confident person will resist more than an unconfident one) the more powerful the do'er feels when it's done despite that resistance; surely that makes sense to you?

Well, I'm not an expert so in many cases that may be true. I know that usually predators look for easier targets because they also have to consider covering their tracks. But if it's self confidence they're looking for they're probably not going to go after the transparent sorority skank who looks like a porn star.

Oh sure, self preservation is a powerful motivator. Power trip vs safety. A fighter is more likely to get DNA under fingertips or to cut the attacker and spill blood, giving an easy trail. Up to the rapist where the balance is made. Probably why child abuse and molestation is so comparatively common.

For your last point, does that suggest that dressing like your skank is the safer choice? And that dressing conservatively is more dangerous? I doubt it, rapes like those strike me as crimes of opportunity rather than planned, the victim is irrelevant. Whereas in the cases of a dressed to impress woman being raped it was that that marked her.

On a happier note, that's a long arse post.

 

[Cyberwulf]

a number of your suggestions were so massively over the top that I wasn't even sure my post did them justice.

Oh, please tell me what's massively over the top about not having sex with unconscious people.

Why should I not have sex with someone who has drank alcohol or taken drugs?

Because you have no goddamn clue what state of mind that person is in. You have no idea how much they'll remember or whether they're in a fit state to consent to anything.

Now you can insist till you're blue in the face that they got drunk/took drugs and it's their look-out. But try to think how you'd feel if you'd spent the evening relaxing with your buds, over-indulged a bit and blacked out. Then you woke up in the same bed as a male acquaintance, with a hangover and a sore arse. How the hell would you feel? How would you feel about your buddy, who decided his orgasm was more important than not freaking you out, not using you, not raping you? Is your orgasm so important that you'd do that to another person? Your dick won't fall off if you wait a couple of days till the person is sober.

Why should I not have sex with relative strangers?

Uhhhh because you have no idea if they're underage, if they're cheating on someone else with you, if they've got a disease, if they're crazy and are going to turn into a stalker, if they're videotaping it for kicks, if they're going to sabotage the condom, if they're going to decide halfway through that it'd be fun to start strangling you... You know, COMMON FUCKING SENSE. That applies to everyone, by the way, regardless of gender or orientation.

Yours is a list of mainly unreasonable things you should do in order to avoid being charged with rape.

Please tell me what's unreasonable about assuming that no means no and stop means stop.

 

[Cyberwulf]

Oh by the way, liking it when people obey you doesn't make you a sadist. Putting a plastic bag over your son's face because you get excited watching him change colour while he suffocates makes you a sadist.

 

[cobra_ky]

Wrong. No one willingly make themselves a rape victim. The cop's statement is also wrong, because women who dress conservatively still get raped.

The do, and I said she made herself a more appealing target. Go wear red pants in a battlefield to get my point.

This is just another variant of the "walking into traffic" metaphor, and it fails for the same reason. A battlefield is a place where people are supposed to shoot at each other. A busy road is a place where cars are supposed to be driven. There is no place on earth where women are supposed to be raped.

Pathetic. Anyone with any pride as man wouldn't give into peer pressure. Hey, here's some peer pressure for you: Don't rape people.

Agressively outspoken, too bad reality works differently. Re-read, as you appear to have missed entire points over multiple posts.

When I was a boy, there was plenty of social pressure on me to have sex. Then I grew up and became a man, and there was even more pressure on me. And yet, I never raped or assaulted anyone.

That is how reality works. Regardless of the circumstances, you do not commit rape because rape is objectively wrong. If you're living any differently, then your way of life is fundamentally broken.

You seem to have too much of an emotional investment in this for 'just a commentator.'

For your information, neither myself nor anyone close to me has ever been raped, as far as i know. I simply don't suffer weak-minded fools who refuse to take responsibility for ruining others' lives, and i have little patience for those who would defend and enable them.

Quit grasping at straws, especially if you're looking for rape victims to goad.

 

[Asehujiko]

Oh how very 'black and white'.

A person who would rape is probably a bad person anyway.
The last thing they need is to be provoked.
If you covored yourself in bacon, then got mauled by an animal, then alot of the blame does rest with you.

The analogy generally goes:
You are thinking about what you want for dinner.
You settle on salmon.
You go buy a fresh salmon from the local mark-SUDDENLY KODIAK.

"covering yourself in bacon" implies actively and knowingly provoke somebody and I don't file "being attractive" in that category.

 

[cobra_ky]

Oh by the way, liking it when people obey you doesn't make you a sadist. Putting a plastic bag over your son's face because you get excited watching him change colour while he suffocates makes you a sadist.

Deriving pleasure from inflicting pain or humiliation makes you a sadist, because that is what the word sadism means. The pleasure derived need not be sexual, and there are numerous circumstances under which such pain and humiliation may be inflicted consensually.

 

[funguy2121]

Wow. You said it, that was thorough. Sorry if you felt I was putting you under the lens.

Woah there, don't go putting words into my mouth. I sprinkled that point with perhaps's and rightly or wrongly's for a reason.

People are quite capable of being self confident and happy with who they are without meeting whatever arbitrary intelligence level you deem they require to be self respecting. They're right to do so.

What I mean is that you or I might have problems with aspects of individual characters but suggesting that they should not respect themsleves means that you believe they should be embarassed or regretful about the person who they are, purely because they don't meet a standard you've set. That is wrong and leads to a fascist's class view of people.

Judging people is fine, as is not respecting individuals, but don't suggest denying them self respect.

I sincerely doubt you meant that but slippery slopes are dangerous places to tread.

I didn't. I meant that you probably wouldn't reasonably expect to find a woman who meets your be-with-ability requirements dressed like a stripper. There are some overtly sexual people out there of both genders who have a sense of themselves. And there are some very intelligent people who meet every possible definition of slut: very prone to cheating or very sexually active in general or hypersexual for reasons involving money, attention or daddy issues. I read a study which showed that people who meet any of the above definitions come primarily from both ends of the intellectual bell curve. I'll source it if I can find it. I think we're both probably guilty of analyzing each other too much here. Either way, there are plenty of women who dress "to impress," be it in a very sexualized way or in a more elegant way, to project their self confidence, and there are a whole slew of women who dress like sluts because they have low self esteem.

Heh, of course. And some murderers go on to help thousands. Exceptions are not the rule, they're the exception.

One point I'll suggest, the likelihood of happiness and confidence depends on the person's social background and experiences. Typically, upper class members are happier and more confident than the rest of us.

I haven't found that the most intelligent people I've met have been the least confident or that the least intelligent people I've met have been the most. Sure, I've met plenty of dipshits who wouldn't shut the Hell up and told outlandish stories of their sexual escapades ad nauseum, but in general I've found the two to have little relation to each other.

I'm almost suggesting confidence is provocative, and I guess it is. It's just that dressing and showing skin is so obvious.

As for dressing like a skank or however you put it, lol. It's enjoyable, so I'm told. To have heads turn after you, knowing it's lust, is a powerful feeling.

I agree. Quiet and shy can be a turn-on, but normally I like a woman with a mouth, a strong set of convictions, and a thorough knowledge of who she is.

I'm not really sure. I meant more that I don't find what I look like to be an important part of my character, attractive or not, and that looks are subjective anyway.

I really genuinly am not that bothered by how attractive people think I am. Maybe I'm suffering from confidence bringing contempt, I'm not sure.

I must say, I am envious. Some people just really don't care, and others care less than I do.

Oh sure, self preservation is a powerful motivator. Power trip vs safety. A fighter is more likely to get DNA under fingertips or to cut the attacker and spill blood, giving an easy trail. Up to the rapist where the balance is made. Probably why child abuse and molestation is so comparatively common.

For your last point, does that suggest that dressing like your skank is the safer choice? And that dressing conservatively is more dangerous? I doubt it, rapes like those strike me as crimes of opportunity rather than planned, the victim is irrelevant. Whereas in the cases of a dressed to impress woman being raped it was that that marked her.

No, I'm saying that the only "safe bet" is for a woman to know her surroundings and not put herself in certain situations (and to know the best way to get out of them; for instance, going to location B almost always means the vic will be murdered, so that's a good time to fight like your life depends on it). It could be argued that provacative dress around the wrong individuals might spur them on, but I wouldn't encourage any young woman to live her life as if rape may be right around the corner - that wouldn't be very fun, now would it?

 

[Lawyer105]

a number of your suggestions were so massively over the top that I wasn't even sure my post did them justice.

Oh, please tell me what's massively over the top about not having sex with unconscious people.

1. Don't have sex with someone who's been drinking or taking drugs - even if they insist they're fine. You have no way of knowing how much they'll remember.
2. Don't have sex with total strangers.
4. Don't get drunk/high at someone else's house if there's even an outside chance that later you'll crawl into a woman's bed and try to have sex with her.

There you go.

 

[Kortney]

A person doesn't lock his car == somebody elses right to steal it?

No.

A woman dresses provocatively == somebody elses right to rape her?

Hell no!

And yet not locking the door of your Mercedes in South Central L.A would make you an idiot.

I think there is a middle ground. No, it's not the victims "fault" but they sure as hell can do a lot to provoke it.

If a man can't keep his d**k in his pants, that's his problem not the woman's, unless he then rapes her, and in that case, he's a cruel, misogynistic bastard.

Most rapes aren't done by random psychopaths who jump out of a dark alley and have sex with the stranger. They are committed by people who the victim knows. Usually there has been mutual flirting all night, lots of alcohol and then when it comes to go time someone changes their mind and the other person looses control and does it anyway.

I'm a big believer in the concept of "if you don't want to have sex with a guy, don't lead him on". As a female, I can vouch that girls do lead men on and girls do flirt with dangerous people. Is it their fault that they end up being raped? No, but they were acting like idiots and they did a lot to make it happen. Just because they were raped and rape is such a taboo subject doesn't change this.

Back in England, I had a friend who had been flirting with some idiot jock boy at a pub for about six hours. He was known to be a loose cannon and she had no real intention of having sex with him, yet she was doing everything in her power to flirt with him. They talked and flirted at the pub, then she went to his house willingly, got into the bedroom, made out with him, flirted some more, then when it got down to business she tried to make him stop. He raped her.

Now, yes, that guy is a bastard and it is his "fault". But she acted like a five year old and brought it upon herself. She showed no street smart, no common sense and no safety. It may sound cold to say this, but it's true. I'd be willing to wager that most rapes happen like this. I think the really tragic and violent rapes are somewhat of a rarity that are overblown by the media due to how horrible they are.

I guess what I'm trying to say is don't bring crime upon yourself. Don't hang around sleezy areas whilst flirting with dangerous men because you are bringing it upon yourself. It's the same reason why you don't walk around the ghetto at 2am dressed in a suit with your Ipad and designer wallet on show.

You make interesting points but it doesn't matter. There's no excuse for raping somebody. Nobody is EVER 'asking for it' because of the way they dress or flirt. Sex appeal is a natural part of human expression. Flirtation is a natural part of it too. Showing skin or being flirtatious is not a 'rape pass' for the disgruntalled man who misses out. To say otherwise, as you kind of did, is to imply 'sex entitlement' for men. That's a load of crap. There's no such entitlement, and it takes a rapist, a criminal, to rape, nothing more or less.

It is incredibly stupid, as this thread has been, to say that women provoke their own rapes in this way? Not only that, it is insulting to men, as it implies that men are such slaves to their hormones and drives that their intellect cannot get in the way when the boner is raging. Regardless, rape is probably never for the love of a woman. It's entirely self-gratification with a goal to put somebody into submission and use them in perhaps the cruelest of ways.

Nobody asks for that, and no man should suggest that sometimes its deserved or unavoidable.

I think you're dancing around the issue to appease some form of politeness.

I never suggested it's a "rape pass" nor did I excuse the actions of the men, but you have to be realistic. I think your line of thinking is incredibly idealist and you are countering my points with appeals to emotion.

You can't argue that if I went down town tomorrow night to the seediest district, dressed in a mini skirt and started flirting with incredibly dangerous men - brought them home with me and then at the last minute turned them down, i'd have a much higher chance of being raped than if I was out with friends and did nothing careless. In the first situation, if I was to be raped, was it my fault? Of course not. Did my carelessness attribute to the rape happening? Absolutely. Yes.

Some crimes, including rape, are brought upon because of carelessness from the victim. It's reality. It's a fact. No, I'm not saying the rapist is therefore less of a bastard, or that the rapist isn't to blame - I'm just saying the victim can very well bring situations upon themselves and we have to acknowledge this. We have to teach our children this - so they don't do it themselves. I think pretending that all crime is 100% because of the criminal and NOTHING provoked it is being unrealistic and it's dangerous to tell people this. People need to know that actions have consequences. The way you behave can determine whether or not you will be raped. Or bashed. Or mugged. Not always, but it can and sadly, it does. All the time. In every night, in every city. I think we have to acknowledge this and be able to discuss it without emotional intervention.

But I think ultimately we do agree on the same thing. You should never blame the victim.

 

[kurupt87]

Snip

Firstly, it's clear you've had to deal with some shit. Or that someone you love has. Or that you struggle with the temptation to rape people. Sorry, for what it's worth. Remember that this aint personal fella.

Why should I not have sex with someone who has drank alcohol or taken drugs?

Because you have no goddamn clue what state of mind that person is in. You have no idea how much they'll remember or whether they're in a fit state to consent to anything.

Now you can insist till you're blue in the face that they got drunk/took drugs and it's their look-out. But try to think how you'd feel if you'd spent the evening relaxing with your buds, over-indulged a bit and blacked out. Then you woke up in the same bed as a male acquaintance, with a hangover and a sore arse. How the hell would you feel? How would you feel about your buddy, who decided his orgasm was more important than not freaking you out, not using you, not raping you? Is your orgasm so important that you'd do that to another person? Your dick won't fall off if you wait a couple of days till the person is sober.

Realise I just took your first two points, they're not even your worst ones.

There's a law in Canada that goes something like your first rule. Horrifies me it does, just glad to see that Canadians ignore the fuck out of it.

I'm hesitant to suggest that your example is anecdotal but ok. Your suggesting that sleeping with someone who's drunk is equivalent to being anally raped by a male friend. As horrible as that situation is it is also absurb to suggest it is the norm.

Thinking it through, I would still be a virgin if I was not allowed to have sex whilst under the influence, or with someone who was, of alcohol. I've had sex whilst sober with a sober person of course, it's just that the first tends to be with a little liquid, social lubrication.

Even accepting your example as you describe it, it's bad. I'm an unashamedly straight man, to anyone that speaks to me where the subject of sex comes up I would assume it's pretty clear that I bat for the team that gets the girls. I'd have to be comatose, drugged or maliciously raped to be the taker when having sex with a man.

A better example would be waking up next to a bloke I'd shagged, rather than one who'd shagged me. There's at least some room for manoeuvre there. I have woken up next to a woman I most definitely wouldn't have shagged if I'd been in possession of my wits though. Similar situation. And I laughed, called her a manipulative ***** and left.

Your argument is that because one in however many hundreds or thousands of drunken couplings result in rape, you shouldn't have sex whilst drunk. Yeah ok that's fine if you want to avoid getting raped; but I assume you also don't want to be horribly mangled, right? If that's the case, why do you travel by car? Statistically that is one of the most dangerous thing you'll ever do and you'll do it nearly every week.

Oh actually, you're list is about avoiding raping people. Makes it even more absurd. Oh fuck it, I can't be bothered.

10 and 11 are your only points that are always true. 6, 13 and 7 are also mostly true, but not always. Not rules to ignore unless you know she likes otherwise.

Your list makes the assumption that men want to rape women. For the vast majority that isn't true.

Oh by the way, liking it when people obey you doesn't make you a sadist. Putting a plastic bag over your son's face because you get excited watching him change colour while he suffocates makes you a sadist.

As for your sadist point, I said I'm not really a sadist but more of a dominant. I enjoy spanking, slapping, choking and pinching but only lightly. It's more about the shock of me doing it than the pain it causes, for me at least. I'm more of a sadist in terms of embarassment, I enjoy that more. Even then I'm not huge on it. I've been asked to do things I was uncomfortable with. Did them, she wanted me too afterall, but I didn't enjoy it because I lost the illusion of power; I didn't want to do it, she did.

But, to qualify for the sadist title you have to enjoy causing pain. I do, to a point. Yeah, I'm a lily livered sadist the colour of washed out dirt but I still qualify.

 

[kurupt87]

Wow. You said it, that was thorough. Sorry if you felt I was putting you under the lens.

Don't worry about it, I enjoy these extended discussions. A good way to find out about yourself, have other people pose you questions/problems. I am though now a bit tired and a bit drunk, apologies if any of my points don't string together nicely.

Woah there, don't go putting words into my mouth. I sprinkled that point with perhaps's and rightly or wrongly's for a reason.

People are quite capable of being self confident and happy with who they are without meeting whatever arbitrary intelligence level you deem they require to be self respecting. They're right to do so.

What I mean is that you or I might have problems with aspects of individual characters but suggesting that they should not respect themsleves means that you believe they should be embarassed or regretful about the person who they are, purely because they don't meet a standard you've set. That is wrong and leads to a fascist's class view of people.

Judging people is fine, as is not respecting individuals, but don't suggest denying them self respect.

I sincerely doubt you meant that but slippery slopes are dangerous places to tread.

I didn't. I meant that you probably wouldn't reasonably expect to find a woman who meets your be-with-ability requirements dressed like a stripper. There are some overtly sexual people out there of both genders who have a sense of themselves. And there are some very intelligent people who meet every possible definition of slut: very prone to cheating or very sexually active in general or hypersexual for reasons involving money, attention or daddy issues. I read a study which showed that people who meet any of the above definitions come primarily from both ends of the intellectual bell curve. I'll source it if I can find it. I think we're both probably guilty of analyzing each other too much here. Either way, there are plenty of women who dress "to impress," be it in a very sexualized way or in a more elegant way, to project their self confidence, and there are a whole slew of women who dress like sluts because they have low self esteem.

Depends on what you mean by be-with-ability. To shag, I'm pretty damn certain I will. To date, less so.

Otherwise, yerp. It'd be nifty if you do find that study, I like sauce.

Heh, of course. And some murderers go on to help thousands. Exceptions are not the rule, they're the exception.

One point I'll suggest, the likelihood of happiness and confidence depends on the person's social background and experiences. Typically, upper class members are happier and more confident than the rest of us.

I haven't found that the most intelligent people I've met have been the least confident or that the least intelligent people I've met have been the most. Sure, I've met plenty of dipshits who wouldn't shut the Hell up and told outlandish stories of their sexual escapades ad nauseum, but in general I've found the two to have little relation to each other.

If I suggested that I meant the extremes then I've erred. No, I simply meant more inclined towards one or t'other.

I'm almost suggesting confidence is provocative, and I guess it is. It's just that dressing and showing skin is so obvious.

As for dressing like a skank or however you put it, lol. It's enjoyable, so I'm told. To have heads turn after you, knowing it's lust, is a powerful feeling.

I agree. Quiet and shy can be a turn-on, but normally I like a woman with a mouth, a strong set of convictions, and a thorough knowledge of who she is.

Ouch, I worded that really badly. What I meant was that confidence, in the case of a rapist marking their target, is provocative. And that the confidently flesh exposing outfits are the most obvious.

Confidence is an attractive trait.

Generally I prefer cute to sexy though, in a relationship. More likely to be friends with a sexy woman rather than lovers; one nighters are good here though.

I'm not really sure. I meant more that I don't find what I look like to be an important part of my character, attractive or not, and that looks are subjective anyway.

I really genuinly am not that bothered by how attractive people think I am. Maybe I'm suffering from confidence bringing contempt, I'm not sure.

I must say, I am envious. Some people just really don't care, and others care less than I do.

I suppose. I guess it's a worry I do without. It's just, looks are subjective. Like art. Why bother worrying?
Edit: It's also got fuck all to do with who you are, just saying.

Oh sure, self preservation is a powerful motivator. Power trip vs safety. A fighter is more likely to get DNA under fingertips or to cut the attacker and spill blood, giving an easy trail. Up to the rapist where the balance is made. Probably why child abuse and molestation is so comparatively common.

For your last point, does that suggest that dressing like your skank is the safer choice? And that dressing conservatively is more dangerous? I doubt it, rapes like those strike me as crimes of opportunity rather than planned, the victim is irrelevant. Whereas in the cases of a dressed to impress woman being raped it was that that marked her.

No, I'm saying that the only "safe bet" is for a woman to know her surroundings and not put herself in certain situations (and to know the best way to get out of them; for instance, going to location B almost always means the vic will be murdered, so that's a good time to fight like your life depends on it). It could be argued that provacative dress around the wrong individuals might spur them on, but I wouldn't encourage any young woman to live her life as if rape may be right around the corner - that wouldn't be very fun, now would it?

Indeed not. I'm not suggesting doing so either.

Best way to manage going out and getting your drink/drug on is to have at least one friend who does so to a lesser degree than the rest of you (edit: or drives! also known as wonderfriend). Oh, also that you always go out with at least one or two friends. That friend will be able to make a decision on how trolleyed you are through experience of you getting trolleyed, and then suggesting whether or not going off with that person is a good idea or not. Sure, the cheeky fucker may get fed up with you and let you learn your lesson through experience, the bugger, but that too is good.

 

[DoubleTime]

Worse is blaming a 11 year old of "Asking for it"

This case is more a racial issue. It's a black on white crime, and almost everyone sided with the kid is white, the siding of the rapists are black.

Sad but true, some odd idea that the victim is white, it's ok, and the poor innocent gang rapists are all good church going choir boys and the white man just demands a lynchin, to get away from the responsibilities of their crimes.

Yet the fact they cell phone taped the entire crime and pretty much recorded themselves doing the unforgivable act of raping a child....

It all comes down to being innocent based on skin color of the criminal and victim.

I find it disturbing we seem to give MORE protection to criminals, more legal aid, more benefit of the doubt to the criminals. I don't like the idea of innocents sent to jail, but if you filmed it, posted it on your face book, dna is found all over, and 13 other people saw you do it...

It's not alleged...you did it.

She's actually Hispanic, not white.

http://cofcc.org/2011/03/race-of-11-year-old-gang-rape-victim-revealed/

 

[Carlston]

Worse is blaming a 11 year old of "Asking for it"

This case is more a racial issue. It's a black on white crime, and almost everyone sided with the kid is white, the siding of the rapists are black.

Sad but true, some odd idea that the victim is white, it's ok, and the poor innocent gang rapists are all good church going choir boys and the white man just demands a lynchin, to get away from the responsibilities of their crimes.

Yet the fact they cell phone taped the entire crime and pretty much recorded themselves doing the unforgivable act of raping a child....

It all comes down to being innocent based on skin color of the criminal and victim.

I find it disturbing we seem to give MORE protection to criminals, more legal aid, more benefit of the doubt to the criminals. I don't like the idea of innocents sent to jail, but if you filmed it, posted it on your face book, dna is found all over, and 13 other people saw you do it...

It's not alleged...you did it.

She's actually Hispanic, not white.

http://cofcc.org/2011/03/race-of-11-year-old-gang-rape-victim-revealed/

Hmm warps the racial divide a tad. That or I'm thinking of the "other" little girl gang rape...

God is that what we come to when there are multiple instances to a point you can't recall which horrible event your trying to remember?

 

[matt87_50]

the simple fact of the matter is that if the girls DIDN'T get blind drunk, DIDN'T put them selves in stupid situations, and DIDN'T dress like whores, THEY WOULD REDUCE THEIR CHANCES OF GETTING RAPED!!!

Maybe fuckhead men should STOP RAPING DRUNK WOMEN AND THEN INVITING THEIR BUDDIES TO JOIN IN.

Funny how you don't mention them at all but decide to blame "feminists" for vilifying clowns like you whose "rape prevention advice" boils down to scolding women for their behaviour while letting men off the hook. Or equating them to predatory animals who operate purely on instinct. What a fine view you have of your own gender.

thank you, you are the exact moron I am talking about...

maybe there should be no rapists, no murderers, no world hunger, or disease, wouldn't it be great if we lived in a perfect world...

BUT WE DON'T!!

the FACT is that if you do those things, you INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF GETTING RAPED!!

it SHOULDN'T... BUT IT DOES!!!

if you had read all of my post... you would have SEEN that I said that men are in no way let off the hook for their actions!! and you would have seen me state that this is BLINDINGLY FUCKING OBVIOUS and doesn't need every feminist to /thread the debate by blurting out this OBVIOUS FACT!!!

YES! THAT IS PRETTY MUCH THE VIEW I HAVE OF SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF MY GENDER!! they should still be deterred at all costs, and be held fully responsible, in every possible way! but none of this will stop RAPE FROM OCCURRING!!!

IT IS THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE TRUTH that you increase your chances of getting raped if you act like that! and people constantly spouting "IT SHOULDN'T" WILL NOT STOP THIS FROM BEING TRUE!!

it isn't a productive statement, it doesn't add anything to the debate that leads to less women getting raped! all it does, if anything, is encourage women to "stand up in defiance" and act this way IN SPITE of the possible consequences!! which is why I say it is actually dangerous!


so by all means, go dress like a whore, get blind drunk, burst into a room full of footballers, get rapped, report it to the police, see that justice is served, they get the maximum penalty, get sent to jail for years, and they in turn get raped in the shower room - entirely what they deserve! which is great!! except... you still would have been raped...

personally I think they should get harsher treatment. and tougher penalties should be a focus, but even this will not stop rape... ultimately these preventative measures I mention are, and always will be a critical part too...

child abduction and crimes against children are usually the harshest punished crimes there are... but this still doesn't stop it from happening... which is why we teach our children preventative measures...


children aren't taught that it is "liberating" to take candy from a stranger...

 

[cobra_ky]

it isn't a productive statement, it doesn't add anything to the debate that leads to less women getting raped! all it does, if anything, is encourage women to "stand up in defiance" and act this way IN SPITE of the possible consequences!! which is why I say it is actually dangerous!

let's talk about what is and isn't a productive statement for a second here.

"These are precautions you can take to reduce your chances of being raped" is a productive statement. it conveys practical knowledge toward a desirable end.

"If you hadn't dressed like a whore, maybe he wouldn't have raped you" is completely unproductive. it's not going to help her retroactively not be raped any more. it's utterly useless as advice, too, because "like a whore" is a completely subjective term. it's not even remotely provable either, since women are raped all the time regardless of what they're wearing, whether they've been drinking or not. All this statement accomplishes is placing blame on the victim for something that is categorically not her fault.

children aren't taught that it is "liberating" to take candy from a stranger...

that's because it isn't liberating. being able to dress how you like in public without fear of being attacked over it is.