'Slut' Parade

[Trolldor]

Speaking as a woman: Simple fact of the matter is that if you dress in provocative and "slutty" ways, you encourage people to act in lewd and untoward matter towards you. Does it excuse rape? No, it doesn't. But on the other hand, you don't do yourself any favours by encouraging these kinds or people, either.

Speaking as a man how a woman dresses is irrelevant to how she ought to be treated by a man, and in no way does her manner of dress excuse the behaviour of boys.

 

[Lionsfan]

Does anyone else find this type of behavior ridiculous and shows how warped/hedonistic parts of Western society is becoming?

Nope, I don't see why it should be socially acceptable for men to sleep around, yet if a women does they're a "slut" or a "slag".

2 Reasons- 1: Being a slut is easy, just open your legs. Being a male stud is tough.
2- A key that opens a lot of doors is called a "Masterkey" and a door that gets opened with a lot of keys is called "A shitty lock"

Oh ha ha ha. That's so funny and original, I've never heard that before. /sarcasm

That's the worst reasoning out there. It's sexist and has no real weight in an argument, it's just an unfair double standard that get's thrown around

I personally get why women are upset. No one deserves to have a target painted on their heads because they happen to wear a certain thing.

However.

I'm a minority that happens to live near New York City. I remember when I was told what I could and couldn't wear in certain places for the very real reason of being jumped at best or being killed at worst. When I asked why, they asked me was it more important that I got to wear Red or Blue that day, or if I wanted to live?

The cop was wrong to say what he did. Plain and simple. However, it does not change the fact that some people will hone in to certain things. It's up to the individual with how much risk they are willing to incur on themselves vs their personal freedom.

A woman should be able to wear what she wants without having something horrible happen to them and being blamed for it. I and many people should be able to walk down Time Square and not look at every car and wonder if there's a bomb in there. People in the Middle East should be able to go to the damn Market and not be shot to pieces just because they wanted salad that night. We can not live in a world of 'shoulds' because that's not our world. We live in a very dangerous, sick place and we have to acknowledge it and act accordingly.

TLR version. Women, wear what you want, but don't be ignorant to the fact that most rapists are sick and will take almost ANYTHING as a provocation. Rational people do not rape, so thinking about it rationally will not save anyone.

That's all fine and dandy about the clothing, but like you said in your TLR; Rapists will take anything as provocation, and there isn't any proven link to apparel choice and rapes

 

[Kpt._Rob]

and rather then listening to advice on how to avoid rape, they want to protest?

The piece of "advice" you refer to, against which they are protesting, is a police officer telling them that "if they don't want to get raped, they shouldn't dress like sluts." That, incidentally, is not advice, it's sexism at its worst. It's blaming the victim. Honestly, it's not all that far from the passage in the bible where it says that if a woman gets raped in the city and doesn't scream loud enough she should be put to death because she should have screamed louder. It's the worst kind of patriarchal bullshit, and it's the kind of attitude that people do need to stand up against.

I don't know that attempting to "reclaim the word slut" is the right way to go about it, but nonetheless, it's important that people stand up and point out that saying things like that isn't going to be tolerated in a civilized society.

In a perfect world this would simply be taken in stride and not a person would care, sexism is only sexism long as you consider it that way. If you think man versus woman you shall see sexism if you don't, no sexism TA DAH!

To quote the old internet saying "LOL WUT?!" This is like saying "well yeah, if the slaves didn't notice that only black people were getting enslaved, it wouldn't have been racist." The idea that sexism exists only because we perceive its existence is the kind of dismissive conservative nonsense which has allowed its existence to continue. Sexism is the genuine gender inequalities which are present within our society.

Dealing with diversity, whether it be gender, racial, or any other sort is a difficult issue because while there are genuine differences between these groups (often these are sociological, but that doesn't mean they're not real), we still have to treat all the different groups as equal. To recognize and celebrate difference, but treat all entities the same, at times that's a seemingly paradoxical task. But that doesn't mean that it's unimportant, and ignoring or pretending it doesn't exist it is not the solution. The solution is to recognize difference but look past it to the core of who a person is.

When you say, however, that someone got raped because they were "dressed like a slut." You're not looking at that person as a person at all. You're just looking at them as a slut, and we don't use pejorative terms like "slut" against people who we intend to treat as people. It is sexist because it's treating a group of people (victims of a horrendous crime nonetheless) without the respect and love that they deserve on the basis of a sociologically imposed gender difference.

 

[DTWolfwood]

fine by me, remember "to each his own." Sorry if i like to follow societal norms instead of rebelling against it.

There is a distinct irony in you using posting that bearing the name and likeness of a gunslinging priest.

lol ah you caught me good sir! I follow societal norms in the outward appearance only

Lets just say i don't go getting the wrong kind of attention

I am reminded of Dave Chappelle's skit on a whore's uniform.

i don't mine them dressing to they way they do so long as they don't object to me treating them like a whore.

Meaning you walk up to them and ask how much for the night?

well you cant be that direct as soliciting is quite illegal, but yes more or less. Dont be mad if you get treated that way is all im saying.

Then you can't object to me treating you as I see fit based on what I think of you, no matter how insulting it might be.

if how im dress lets you think that, of course not. I was asking for it

Oh, that's not only what I'm going to judge you on.
Maybe I just don't like the way you walk. Or the sound of your voice. Maybe you have a lisp.
I love judging people for arbitrary reasons and taking a high road for it.

fine by me, remember "to each his own." Sorry if i like to follow societal norms instead of rebelling against it.

I know man! Aren't societal norms just the greatest?

Girl on the left is such a slut, right?

and exactly what is wrong with what the woman on the right is wearing compared to what the women on the left is wearing? Or the simple fact that they following their social norms has any bearing on how you live your life or your particular sensibilities?

you must live in a pretty idealized world if you think strangers don't pass judgement on you based solely on your outward appearance. Do you know what a first impression is?

You can dress as a skank if you want, and i'm all for it. But to believe any stranger will treat you as a classy lady doing so is pure naivete. I do believe in never judge a book by its cover, but if the cover is a naked woman, i'm going to expect it to have some naked women inside the book too.

watch the dave chappelle skit will ya?

I've seen it,I was unimpressed when I was teenager and I'm unimpressed by it now.
I've seen funnier, more intelligent ideas expressed by wood rot.
You must live in a fairly narrow world if you presume that your personal opinion is a 'societal norm'. I disagree with you, so do many other people on this thread. How many other people might we find in your society who disagree with you?
I find it hilarious that you assume your judgement should just be accepted.

Oh, and you completely failed to understand the point of the image, which doesn't surprise me.

at this point i've already lost track of what tangent your on but please enlighten me, what is the point of the image? and what does it have to do with what i originally said about sluts and there choice of clothing.

i really thought my message was very simple.

You want to dress like a slut, i'll assume and treat you like a slut. you don't want that kind of attention, don't dress like a slut/whore/skank.

exactly y is that such a foreign concept to you?

i'll repeat this a third time, I'm completely fine with how anyone, including you, perceives me. if i get attention that i don't want, i'll correct it. I don't just keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. I believe they call that insanity.

end of the day you and i have differing opinions, that is excellent, because to each his own [http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-to-each-his-own-mean.htm]

 

[Alorxico]

I love how people get up-in-arms about this topic. Here, let's try it this way.

If I walk out of the house in a long, flowing robe and a sari over my head, then people would say I am dressed like a Muslim. I am NOT a Muslim, I do not follow the believe system and have not been raised in that environment, BUT I would be DRESSED as one.

Now, if I go walking down the street, people are going to TREAT my like a Muslim because I am dressed that way. They are going to assume, wrongly, that I am something based on how I dress. This does NOT condone their treatment, especially if it is poor treatment, but that is the logic people follow when they don't have time to ask someone something.

Do you see what I am getting at here? It's a word. A word to describe something that exists in the world. A 'slut' is a promiscuous woman NOT a woman who dresses in hot-pants and bikini tops.

If you want to dress in clothes that might as well NOT be there, FINE! If you want to where low-cut see-through tops and shorts that on any other day are thongs, FINE! But do NOT call yourself SLUTS unless you fit the definition! You are NOT helping the issue by labeling yourself as a slut! You are making it WORSE by doing that!

People are trying to get AWAY from fashion statements being associated with promiscuity! And you are RE-INFORCING it! STOP! Just STOP!

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

Speaking as a man how a woman dresses is irrelevant to how she ought to be treated by a man, and in no way does her manner of dress excuse the behaviour of boys.

I agree, I honestly do. But if there are steps a person can take to protect themselves, and they choose not to take them, there's a lesson in that too.

It's like knowing you're going in a live fire area and refusing to wear kevlar body armour: its not your fault if someone else shoots you, but you still bear some responsibility for not having properly protected yourself.

 

[cobra_ky]

so if a drunk girl flirting with a guy can get raped, and a sober girl doing nothing at all can get raped, what makes one victim more or less responsible than the other?

Very true, but what good is it just to say that? These men still exist. They are still out there and still a danger, hence why the cop warned women as there is little he can do until it is too late. but of course these women did to stop to think about that before jumping into the feminist bandwagon.

he didn't say "don't get drunk and go home with drunk men", he said "don't dress like a slut". there's no good to saying that either, since how you dress has little to do with how likely you are to be raped.

Look at above example.
One person puts themselves in the position of danger through lack of thinking, and the other is just in the wrong place at the wrong time and only luck comes down to avoiding such a horrific crime.
From experience and examples I have read about, sluts are most likely the ones to take the risk of going home with a stranger after flirting with them all night. If the police can make women not dress as sluts, then this might have a domino effect and prevent other problems.

hey, and if police made women never leave the house, i bet they'd never get raped!

your argument is a complete non-sequitur. slutty clothing doesn't make people go out, it doesn't get them drunk, and it doesn't make them have sex with each other. revealing clothing doesn't make rape more likely, it just makes it easier for society to dismiss. Police resources are spent on more effective means of preventing rape.

 

[LondonBeer]

She spelt slut wrong.

While 'women should be allowed to dress how they want' reality means wearing revealing clothes provokes violence. Much like wearing football colours.

When violence ceases to exist sure ladies wear what you want. Until then dress in a reasonable manner please.

Define "reasonable manner".

I have yet to meet or see a woman who inspires me to rape, and no healthy human being would feel obliged to attack a woman because of how she was dressed.

You know alot of reasonable human beings do you ? Pyschologists, sociologists and anyone whos ever left their basement would disagree. By and large the mass of humanity is ratshit crazy. 60% beleive in angels, more beleive that invisible zombie carpenters are watching them & listen to their whispers.

Reality was the key word in my statement. Its nice to see you ignored that.

find me any reputable psychologist or sociologist who would say that any significant proportion of the male population is inclined to commit rape.

also, please define "reasonable manner".

Why people care about this is beyond me.

If they want to tempt fate, that's their own choice.

If they get raped, they shouldn't have gotten piss-drunk.

No sympathy for those, on my part.

nobody deserves to be raped, ever. it's that simple.

People don't call a girl a slut just because she's wearing revealing clothes or just because she is exceptionally flirty. They call a girl a slut because she does both of these things and more. The word slut gets thrown around a lot so some people don't really understand what a slut really is anymore.

Yes they do. That's why the word has been thrown around so much. Nobody really understands what 'slut' means, because people will use it against any woman they perceive as sexually immoral.

Ah, but well all know that a burka is over the top. However if you have a drunk guy and girl in the same room, and the girl has been flirting with him all night and has gone home with him.....not all drunk men could say no, which is the problem.

those men have no business drinking. you're still responsible for your actions while drunk, whether you can control them or not.

God you again. Again your argument is REDUNDANT. It doesnt require a large percentage of the population apparentelly it only requires a minority. Hence the figures we have in reality. When NO ONE is a sociopath or any other variant of nutter then women can dress in an unreasonable manner. As that is unlikely to happen mebbe people who dont want raped should avoid overt sexual imagery. You know like men do ?

Reasonable BTW would be defined as unable to tell the colour and type of her panties, The size of her nipples or whether shes an innie or an outie & I dont mean belly buttons.

 

[LondonBeer]

You completely missed the point. The parade was to support rape victims and tear down the whole "she dressed like a slut, she was asking for it" stance.

"Just because I look hungry doesn't mean I want random people showing sausages down my throat".

but if dressing like a slut increases your chances of getting raped and you don't want to get raped, then it's pretty obvious to not dress like a slut right?

and if i were a homeless person and was very hungry, i wouldn't mind random people giving me food. the metaphor isn't really as applicable.

You've twisted the metaphor. Being very hungry and looking hungry are completely different things. Just like dressing like a slut doesn't mean you want to get raped.

yes, i agree about the dressing part, in a perfect world everyone should be able to wear whatever they want. but if it actively increases your chances of getting raped by doing so, then it's a pretty small and easy step to wear something else instead. keep the sexy stuff at home for your partner.

How dare you. Rape is not about sex. Rape is about assault. How the woman dresses or does not dress has nothing to do with it. Fucking is not the fucking point. Don't you dare blame the victim of a crime for the actions of the criminal.

EDIT: suggesting that the manner of dress or the actions of the victim of a rape is the cause of the rape - even if only partially - is also to suggest that the rapist would be a fine, upstanding individual were it not for the woman's state of dress. It is to suggest that your house would not have been burglarized if not for your desire to have nice things. It is to suggest that the victim of murder would not have been murdered were it not for his desire to be alive.

ah internet, when will you ever learn to read?

if dressing like a slut increases your chances of getting raped

As people have told you, it doesn't. When will you learn to read?

then why would girls hold a slut parade as protest that women should be able to wear whatever they like without fear of getting raped?
did you even read the article?

and still you didn't READ. IF. IF it does, THEN.

High five dude . Agree & isnt it sad so few people can follow a logical arguement.

 

[LondonBeer]

You can't be an unintentional troll.

All you need is the mentality that whatever says to you, you're right. People agree with you? Because you're right. People disagree with you and ask for irritating little things like evidence and logic? It's because they can't handle the truth you know to be true.

yes, i agree about the dressing part, in a perfect world everyone should be able to wear whatever they want. but if it actively increases your chances of getting raped by doing so, then it's a pretty small and easy step to wear something else instead. keep the sexy stuff at home for your partner.

She spelt slut wrong.

While 'women should be allowed to dress how they want' reality means wearing revealing clothes provokes violence. Much like wearing football colours.

When violence ceases to exist sure ladies wear what you want. Until then dress in a reasonable manner please.

It doesn't, statistically. If there is any casality between clothing and rape, a woman is actually more likely to be raped for wearing demure clothing than sexy hawtness.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.282803.11101292

Your argument was that people don't rape for power, because they can get it legally. If that's true then people don't rape for sex as they can also get that legally.

Don't bother. He just keeps moving goalposts.

Your citation is :-
a) American therefore doesnt apply to other geographic locations.
b) 23 years old.
c) Adolescent rapists.

You wanna bring a little something newer and at least semi relevant? I find it hard to beleive that women dressing in psuedo lingerie dont make more than a few rapists 'activate' and begin their process to go rape someone. Just cause A didnt get raped doesnt mean A's behaviour and look didnt cause B to get raped. Worlds a little more complex than your tiny little viewpoint.

 

[Treblaine]

*snip*

I hope I had myself clear in my initial post but I agree with what you say and have done all along.


You seem to have misconstrued a LOT of what I have said.

 

[JonnWood]

Speaking as a man how a woman dresses is irrelevant to how she ought to be treated by a man, and in no way does her manner of dress excuse the behaviour of boys.

I agree, I honestly do. But if there are steps a person can take to protect themselves, and they choose not to take them, there's a lesson in that too.

It's like knowing you're going in a live fire area and refusing to wear kevlar body armour: its not your fault if someone else shoots you, but you still bear some responsibility for not having properly protected yourself.

Except that there's no correlation between dressing sexily and being raped. Most rapists said they couldn't even remember what the vic was wearing, which is odd if "she was asking for it".

then why would girls hold a slut parade as protest that women should be able to wear whatever they like without fear of getting raped?
did you even read the article?

They're protesting the popular conception that sexy clothes and/or sexual promiscuity causes, justifies or mollifies rape in some way.

and still you didn't READ. IF. IF it does, THEN.

I was informing you that it does not.

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

Except that there's no correlation between dressing sexily and being raped. Most rapists said they couldn't even remember what the vic was wearing, which is odd if "she was asking for it".

Except that until you can provide something more than ancedotal evidence, you're really just kind of speaking your opinion here. Which is fine, if you don't try to pass it off as fact. Which you are.

 

[JonnWood]

God you again. Again your argument is REDUNDANT. It doesnt require a large percentage of the population apparentelly it only requires a minority. Hence the figures we have in reality.

Which you have yet to produce.

When NO ONE is a sociopath or any other variant of nutter then women can dress in an unreasonable manner. As that is unlikely to happen mebbe people who dont want raped should avoid overt sexual imagery. You know like men do?

So women shouldn't dress how they want because they might set some nutjob off. Glad that's cleared up.

In all seriousness, you've moved to "all women" down to "woman who might be seen by sociopaths for which the sight of a little leg will drive them into a frenzy".

Reasonable BTW would be defined as unable to tell the colour and type of her panties, The size of her nipples or whether shes an innie or an outie & I dont mean belly buttons.

I love how you talk about "reasonable manner" as if it's universal. There are plenty of countries where a woman in long jeans and a t-shirt is considered scandalous.

By your logic, I shouldn't walk on the sidewalk because I could get hit by a car. It only requires a minority, right?

Your citation is :-
a) American therefore doesnt apply to other geographic locations.

I take it you looked up the report and found their sampling criteria, right? Or did you just base that conclusion off the title?

b) 23 years old.

Please, produce a newer one with contrary figures. I'd honestly like to see it.

c) Adolescent rapists.

No, the report that references it is talking about adolescent rape. If I'm writing a report on orange sales, and I include statistics for sales, the statistics could just as easily be talking about tangerine sales. Or orange sales in Portland alone. Or worldwide citrus fruit sales. What does the report say?

You wanna bring a little something newer and at least semi relevant?

You're the one making the claim that it's invalid. The burden of proof lies on you to produce contrary evidence.

I find it hard to beleive that women dressing in psuedo lingerie dont make more than a few rapists 'activate' and begin their process to go rape someone. Just cause A didnt get raped doesnt mean A's behaviour and look didnt cause B to get raped. Worlds a little more complex than your tiny little viewpoint.

Argument from incredulity, special pleading. Just because you can't believe it doesn't mean it's not true9ironic that you accuse me of having a small mind), and women are more likely to get raped wearing regular clothes then sexy clothes. The amount of men it "activates" is indicatively so small as to be not worth considering. Oh, and Ad Hominem.

 

[JonnWood]

You completely missed the point. The parade was to support rape victims and tear down the whole "she dressed like a slut, she was asking for it" stance.

"Just because I look hungry doesn't mean I want random people showing sausages down my throat".

but if dressing like a slut increases your chances of getting raped and you don't want to get raped, then it's pretty obvious to not dress like a slut right?

and if i were a homeless person and was very hungry, i wouldn't mind random people giving me food. the metaphor isn't really as applicable.

You've twisted the metaphor. Being very hungry and looking hungry are completely different things. Just like dressing like a slut doesn't mean you want to get raped.

yes, i agree about the dressing part, in a perfect world everyone should be able to wear whatever they want. but if it actively increases your chances of getting raped by doing so, then it's a pretty small and easy step to wear something else instead. keep the sexy stuff at home for your partner.

How dare you. Rape is not about sex. Rape is about assault. How the woman dresses or does not dress has nothing to do with it. Fucking is not the fucking point. Don't you dare blame the victim of a crime for the actions of the criminal.

EDIT: suggesting that the manner of dress or the actions of the victim of a rape is the cause of the rape - even if only partially - is also to suggest that the rapist would be a fine, upstanding individual were it not for the woman's state of dress. It is to suggest that your house would not have been burglarized if not for your desire to have nice things. It is to suggest that the victim of murder would not have been murdered were it not for his desire to be alive.

ah internet, when will you ever learn to read?

if dressing like a slut increases your chances of getting raped

As people have told you, it doesn't. When will you learn to read?

then why would girls hold a slut parade as protest that women should be able to wear whatever they like without fear of getting raped?
did you even read the article?

and still you didn't READ. IF. IF it does, THEN.

High five dude . Agree & isnt it sad so few people can follow a logical arguement.

I've been leaving a few minor logical holes in my posts and waiting for you to notice. You still haven't.

 

[JonnWood]

Except that there's no correlation between dressing sexily and being raped. Most rapists said they couldn't even remember what the vic was wearing, which is odd if "she was asking for it".

Except that until you can provide something more than ancedotal evidence, you're really just kind of speaking your opinion here. Which is fine, if you don't try to pass it off as fact. Which you are.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.282803-Slut-Parade?page=2#11101292

No. I ain't.

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

Except that there's no correlation between dressing sexily and being raped. Most rapists said they couldn't even remember what the vic was wearing, which is odd if "she was asking for it".

Except that until you can provide something more than ancedotal evidence, you're really just kind of speaking your opinion here. Which is fine, if you don't try to pass it off as fact. Which you are.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.282803-Slut-Parade?page=2#11101292

No. I ain't.

I can post links with excerpts of unverified sources too, its a common practice in politically and/or emotionally charged debates, the fact remains that unless you have a substantive body of evidence which proves which something taken as red is not true, then I'm still going to dismiss your opinions as the unfounded internet trolling that they are.

 

[JonnWood]

Except that there's no correlation between dressing sexily and being raped. Most rapists said they couldn't even remember what the vic was wearing, which is odd if "she was asking for it".

Except that until you can provide something more than ancedotal evidence, you're really just kind of speaking your opinion here. Which is fine, if you don't try to pass it off as fact. Which you are.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.282803-Slut-Parade?page=2#11101292

No. I ain't.

I can post links with excerpts of unverified sources too, its a common practice in politically and/or emotionally charged debates, the fact remains that unless you have a substantive body of evidence which proves which something taken as red is not true, then I'm still going to dismiss your opinions as the unfounded internet trolling that they are.

I'd honestly like to see a newer study with contrary numbers. I've asked for one repeatedly, and tried to find it myself. The report quoted exists, just Google. Until I have something newer, that's the best I've got.

 

[Treblaine]

...humans, on the other hand, are expected to be humane...

people who aren't mentally competent are a different matter.

people who can't handle that simple responsibility have no place in society and should be separated from the general public for the safety of all.
...

this is all well and good until rapists start carrying guns.

Sorry to cut down your response like that but that basically sums it up.

There are crazy people, insane people, evil people out there and to spite our best efforts they cannot be kept locked up forever nor even lock them up BEFORE they even attempt to commit a crime. Or at least not without turning into an oppressive police state.

I'm just being pragmatic, it's all well and good saying "you can't do that" but won't do much good if you are killed... or worse.

As to rapist with guns (assuming they don't ALREADY have weapons) Guns don't cancel each other out. A rapist with a gun tried to rape a woman with a gun, the result is not rape but a gunfight. Sounds shitty I know considering it may endanger the woman's life more but if may allow her to escape unharmed and in all likelihood the second the rapist sees his target is armed he'll run away.

Rapist want power and control, dodging bullets kinda ruins that. It's kinda like how no one would hunt deer if they could shoot back - not saying that hunters are rapist but that rapist see themselves as hunters.

I don't believe weapon prohibition works very well, especially for those with "inherent weapons" like how a man can easily be stronger than a woman. Or how the violently insane mind will always be able to arm themselves even if just a shard of broken glass.

 

[Treblaine]

you are 100% insane,

the law is not everywhere? yes it is. this is what gives the law its authority, the very fact that it is consistent and everywhere. hence: the rule of law.

men are not bears. men are men who are capable of controlling them selves, bears are animals who should not be poked.

there are no limits on your civil rights. there is no such thing as "practical rights"
rights are impractical, which is among the reasons why they are so imported.

the fact that humans are animals does not mean we have no humanity. we are communicating on computers, bears have no computers. we are self aware, bears are bears.

you don't understand what the word "animal" implies, you don't understand women rights, you don't understand law, you sound like an uneducated, black and white thinking; genetic-determinist.

one final thought; a gentleman will always call evil by its name. if you encounter a 501lb person (who would probably be a blob not a rock but anyway) who is raping a woman,the moral thing to do is call the cops. not just say "well, that's the way of the jungle". everyone knows this, which is why its the law.

you, sir, are no gentleman.

I'll have you know I have been in situations where the law may technically be valid but it is not and cannot be enforced. That is what I mean by "the law cannot be everywhere" as in the police cannot be everywhere.

A man who rapes gives into his inhuman animal instincts, certainly makes him less human.

"bears have no computers."

Hmm, I don't think you are understanding this analogy very well... or this is some kind of subtle trolling I haven't seen before.

"if you encounter a person raping a woman, the moral thing to do is call the cops. not just say "well, that's the way of the jungle"."

Who said I would do that? Why bring me personally into this analogy as a bystander and FUCKING DARE, HOW DARE YOU suggest I would just let it happen. I'll have you know I won't wait for the cops. Who the fuck could just call the cops and leave it at that? YOU!?! I'll grab him by the testicles and do to him what they did to Jeffrey Dahmer.

Fix your brain.