Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 19, 2010 at 9:05 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: Says a man who thinks it's a woman's fault if she gets raped while wearing sexy clothing. e_e
She is at fault, but to a lesser extent than the rapist themself. IE: the person who made the gun likely did not do so with the intent of murdering an individual who was murdered... but that is not to suggest that the gun used in the murder (and hence its maker as well) was not responsible in some way for the events that occurred. Indeed, it is quite reasonable to suggest that had the gun not been available, the murder victim would not have been shot.
So also is it true... that the woman who appears more vulnerable and attractive is more likely to be raped. It is a contributing factor to the rape... and your disbelief in such I find ridiculous. If attractiveness did not enter into the equation... then I should think a hole would be the most vulnerable target... I mean: why bother going after a moving hole, attached to a woman who will make the sex more difficult (or annoying, if she cries)... when one might obtain a simple hole of proper size quite easily? More to the point... why bother going for a hole at all: does one not have a hand or three?
Understand that sexual attractiveness is perhaps the single most important aspect of why a rape occurs... else why would the vulnerability matter? Vulnerable targets are all well and good... but they still do not warrant notice (or especially action) unless vulnerability would aid the action intended by the being with intent
(May 19, 2010 at 9:15 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: No, there's not a difference. You are suggesting that some of the blame lies with the victim for a crime perpetrated against her.
It does.
Quote:It's the same victim blaming bile I have heard before. A man who raped a woman was let off because she was wearing skinny jeans!
Well isn't that silly? The jeans didn't rape her... though they might have contributed to the raping.
Blame is not a 100% thing. It is a thing spread between all contributing factors. One does not suggest that the cheese is solely responsible for making the pizza, because the pizza is created by a number of 'factors', from the breads to the sauce to the person who made the damn thing. Try not to involke arguments about where 'justice' is not served... that doesn't read as anything other than "people are stupid" to me
Quote:You know, I don't have a problem with women using their body as they wish. I support legal prostitution, I've been to strip joints. My point about objectifying women is the standard by which woman are judged pretty. Busty tall bombshells with vacant answers to political questions. I have a problem with the idea that to be pretty you need to be model thin.
And why should we not do this? No matter how you slice it... words are meant to distinguish ideas from one another. How do you define 'woman'? Perhaps as simple as 'adult human female'? If so: you just excluded "transexuals/transgendered individuals", other species, and children. There is no way to not objectify women... or indeed anything. Women are objects, insomuch as I am aware an object is defined (a material thing that can be seen and touched)... and as such, they have already been objectified.
Or are women not objects now? Different people define "beauty" in different ways... 'tis why I believe 'abstract philosophy' (if one cares to call it such) is ridiculous at its roots (though I once thought otherwise). There is no clear-cut definition of either 'woman' or 'beautiful' or really anything (as everything is defined by the individual, regardless of how similar that definition be to other individual's definitions).
Quote:You think woman are beautiful works of art that should have the right to show what they got? I don't disagree with you. But then don't go to on to say that woman who "show what they got" are partially to blame if they are raped.
I think women can be beautiful works of art, and that "have the right" is a confusing ideal. I will, however, go on to say that women who "who what they got" are fucking partially to blame for getting fucking raped. And there is really no good argument against it, lest a single cause (this might happen at times, I will discuss those if you should like) be responsible for the entirety of the space-time 'continuum' that surrounds it.
I'm going to throw my two cents into the ring. First of all... men are sexually aroused by visual stimuli. If a sexually attractive woman is dressed in suggestive, provocative, or just plain skimpy clothing, a heterosexual man is going to find himself turned on by nothing more than the sight of her. That is simply a fact.
There are people out there that will commit rape. That is also a fact.
Should a woman be able to walk around all the time in nothing more than a thong bikini without having to worry about being raped? Of course. Ideally. But there is a difference between 'ideally' and 'really'. The fact of the matter is, no matter how much right a woman has to look any way she may wish, there are people out there that might rape her. So then, if the woman in the thong bikini is raped, is it her fault? Of course not. Would dressing more conservatively have prevented the rape. Perhaps. Although the rapist would have ended raping someone, so not really.
If I were a woman, I'd want to look sexy sometimes and dress provocatively on occasion, but I know that there are rapists out there, so... I'd have to be very aware of that. Still, in the end, it is the rapist that is at fault. At most, the woman may have made herself an attractive target for the rapist, but she did not make him cross that line. He did that.
Something being voluntary(ie Playboy models, strippers) doesn't neccessarily make it OK.
A lot of women voluntarily objectify themselves. A lot of people also voluntarily kill other people for money or fun. Fred Phelps voluntarily protests the funerals of dead soldiers.
These people might be posing in Playboy and they might feel great about it, but that doesn't mean it has a positve effect of the rest of the world's view of women. I'm not neccessarily arguing one way or the other, just throwing it out there.
(May 20, 2010 at 5:38 pm)Meatball Wrote: Something being voluntary(ie Playboy models, strippers) doesn't neccessarily make it OK.
A lot of women voluntarily objectify themselves. A lot of people also voluntarily kill other people for money or fun. Fred Phelps voluntarily protests the funerals of dead soldiers.
These people might be posing in Playboy and they might feel great about it, but that doesn't mean it has a positve effect of the rest of the world's view of women. I'm not neccessarily arguing one way or the other, just throwing it out there.
I certainly agree that being voluntary doesn't make something okay. That's obvious. And perhaps women that objectify themselves do nothing positive for the world's view of women... but I don't think their right to objectify themselves should be taken from them. Perhaps that's because I am a heterosexual man that enjoys looking at scantily clad women, or perhaps it's because I think people should be allowed to do anything they wish to their own image. Both, I think.
(May 20, 2010 at 5:38 pm)Meatball Wrote: A lot of women voluntarily objectify themselves. A lot of people also voluntarily kill other people for money or fun. Fred Phelps voluntarily protests the funerals of dead soldiers.
There is a big difference though. Voluntary 'objectification' harms no one. Murder does harm, as the victim is not consenting. Phelps also harms in that the people who are holding the event are being bullied.
(May 20, 2010 at 10:28 am)Scented Nectar Wrote: That includes going topless. Get used to it world. My body comes with tits. ....I had no reason or desire to wear a bra, so I don't.
...we have the legal right to go topless now. ...soon as it's not seen as any weirder than a male going topless, I'm there!!! .
Kudo'ed for the above statements. for some reason everytime I read & reread the post these were the only things that registered.
Go figure.....
I used to tell a lot of religious jokes. Not any more, I'm a registered sects offender.
---------------
...the least christian thing a person can do is to become a christian. ~Chuck
--------------- NO MA'AM
May 20, 2010 at 7:30 pm (This post was last modified: May 20, 2010 at 7:57 pm by Dotard.)
(May 20, 2010 at 11:35 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: Whole buncha psyco-babble
What is Victim Blaming? It's when you hold the person who had a crime perpetrated against that responsible, or at least partially responsible for the crime. As Wikipedia says:
Victim blaming (or blaming the victim) is holding the victims of a crime, an accident, or any type of abusive maltreatment to be entirely or partially responsible for the unfortunate incident that has occurred in their life. Historically victim-blaming is the trait most often exhibited by the criminally insane and has traditionally emerged in racist and sexist forms.[1] It is also about blaming individuals for their personal distress or for social difficulties, rather than the other parties involved or the overarching social system in place
It's interesting to get behind why people blame victims to understand why it is wrong and should not be done to rape victims. There are two theories that feed into victim blaming is the Just World Theory and Assumptive World Theory.
The just-world phenomenon, also called the just-world theory, just-world fallacy, just-world effect, or just-world hypothesis, refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is just so strongly that when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.
Essentially, it's the idea common belief that good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people, so a rape victim must have done something to get raped. This also feeds into the idea that people can do "common sense" things to avoid bad things happen to them. They can lock their doors, dress appropriately, etc... to avoid having crimes perpetrated against them. This feeds into the Assumptive World Theory.
Rape victims are a glaring reminder of our own vulnerability. No one likes to think they could lose control over their own body or life. By deciding a rape victim did something concrete to deserve the assault the observer creates a false sense of safety. If they can avoid doing that particular thing or action then they create the illusion of invulnerability for themselves. Creating a firm boundary between ourselves and accussers or rape victims (us v/s them) also creates the illusion of invulnerability.
Quote:Essentially, the idea that me walking outside late at night, maybe with some sexy looking outfit makes me more likely to get raped is fallacious.
I'm guessing, according to your logic, the idea that me walking outside late at night, maybe with some expensive watch, gold rings and an Armani suitmakes me more likely to get robbed would also be fallacious.
Quote:Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare. Over two thirds of all rapes occur in someone's home. 30.9% occur in the perpetrators' homes, 26.6% in the victims' homes and 10.1% in homes shared by the victim and perpetrator. 7.2% occur at parties, 7.2% in vehicles, 3.6% outdoors and 2.2% in bars.[29]
So? Listing the locations where violent crimes occur does nothing to support your arguments.
Quote:However, even if this was the case, a if that did happen to a woman, it's still not her fault. The blame lies 100% with the person who decided to rape the woman. Rape is a crime, and nothing a woman does justifies what has been done to her.
Agreed.
I can "do the right" things and I still have just as much chance as being robbed of my money as the next person. Unless that 'next person' is wearing an expensive watch, gold rings and an Armani suit. Then I'm placing my bets on the 'next person' being the victim.
Quote: I'm more likely to be raped by someone I know, in my own home.
So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Quote:Shall I live in a bubble because of that risk?
No one is asking you to "live in a bubble". I'm stating if you "do the right things" you will decrease the likelihood of a crime being committed against you. Drive your Porche down into the crack-house district late at night if you wish to increase the chances of having it car-jacked from you. Would you agree with that statement?
Quote:Blaming rape victims for walking around alone as night is akin to the over-hyped stranger danger, when the truth is more children are kidnapped and murdered by people they know.
Mentioning kidnapped and murdered children is sure to get you the emotional response and sympathy vote. Congrats.
Quote:When a rapist blames his victims, we’re appalled. When we do it, we’re just being “realistic,” “concerned,” “protective,” “responsible.” Why are we outraged when rapists blame their victims, but not when we blame them? Because while it’s unseemly to blatantly support the sorry excuses of a convicted rapist, we’re still invested in supporting a culture of victim-blaming that shifts the responsibility of eliminating rape away from society as a whole, and onto individual victims. When Katsnelson tells his victims to “lock their doors,” he’s shifting the responsibility for the rape off of the rapist.
Blah blah blah waa waa waa.... If the fucking rapist is basicly telling you if the doors were locked he would have moved on and if you do lock your doors he will move on, then WTF more do you want?!
You want to tell him "we shouldn't have to lock our doors! We shouldn't have to protect ourselves!"?! Of course we shouldn't have to, but this is reality. This is earth we live on. You have to if you want any measure of protection.
Quote:When the G.W. community tells victims to do the same thing, it similarly excuses the campus of taking any meaningful action against sexual assault.
So they shouldn't offer any crime prevention tips? Telling people to lock their cars, get an alarm or lose valuables it is an excuse not to take any meaningful action against vehicle break ins?
But when rapists start using the same victim-blaming arguments we do, it makes it a lot harder for us to keep up the narrative of blame without being identified as rape apologists. One solution to this problem is to tell those rapists to shut up, because it’s making us look bad. So we call out a rapist for revealing himself to be—gee, who would have thought!—a rape apologist, and we draw a line in the sand that helps to protect our own right to victim-blame. We use the same tactic to excuse our own casual homophobia and racism. Our homophobic slurs and racist jokes are just “ironic” and “anti-PC” and “social commentary,” but when a gay basher or a white supremacist uses the same words, well, that’s just socially unacceptable. The reason we are allowed to use these words, we tell ourselves, is because we are not truly homophobes, or racists, or rape apologists.
Psyco-babble.
Quote:In other words, the only people who are allowed to blame rape victims are people who don’t really, truly believe in their heart of hearts that the victim is at fault. This clever little set-up helps keep victim-blaming alive while preventing any victim-blamer from actually being identified as a bad person. It’s also inspired the use of the very popular construction, “I’m not blaming the victim, but [enter victim-blaming sentiment here].”
In other words, the only people who are allowed to deny God's existance are people who don’t really, truly believe in their heart of hearts that there is no God. This clever little set-up helps keep atheism alive while preventing any atheist from actually being identified as a bad person. It’s also inspired the use of the very popular construction, “I’m not blaming God, but [enter any 'just no evidence' sentiment here]
Did you see what I did there?
Quote:So you may think it's logical to assume that a woman walking around late at night is partly to blame. It's safe to think that, it means people have some modicum of control over what bad things happen to him, but the fact is that anyone can get raped for any reason. If a woman has a miniskirt, that does not make them partly to blame. The person who raped them is ALWAYS 100% to blame for the act that THEY perpetrated against someone else.
Agreed. always 100% at fault for the act. Is Ms. Mini-skirt patially to blame for the attack? No. Was she at all responsible? No. Was the likelihood of the crime increased because of the skirt and maybe other circumstances (alone, drunk, too trusting, etc)? Yes.
Quote:If you still think a victim is partially to blame for their rape depending on "whatever late at night, sexy clothes scenario" you can think of,...
I don't, never did. I don't blame them, I maintain they are increasing the likelihood.
Should have to, no.
Have to, yes.
Quote:...remember that the majority of rape cases are not reported.
If they are not reported, then how would you know this?
Quote:Remember that this type of victim blaming is actually used to defend rapists.
Fishin' for emo. Hope you catch a big 'un.
Quote:The most common type of victim blaming is so pervasive, it has it's own slang name: "nuts and sluts." This term refers to the common practice of discrediting the complainant by labeling them as either psychologically disturbed and lying about the harassment, or they are overly-sexual --promiscuous,
dress sexually, etc.--and deserve the harassment. (This is also a common method for discrediting rape
victims, and is a favored courtroom method of lawyers to discredit victims or minimize the effects of the
harassment--see Jenson vs. Eveleth Mines and North Country for a good case example of the "nuts and
sluts" defense.)
And this has to do with establishing if slutty/revealing attire increases the likelihood of an assault of a sexual nature or not in what way exactly ?
Quote:And lastly, if someone you knew and loved dearly, a mother, sister, friend, girlfriend was raped, would really tell them as they deal with the guilt and trauma..."Maybe you shouldn't have worn that skirt?" Think about that.
More appeals to emotion.
Quote:.....we have nothing more to say.
Again? You said you were finished many threads ago. You keep threating to walk out on me yet you're still here. Just like my last ex.
(May 20, 2010 at 1:05 pm)binny Wrote: I haven't read this whole rape debate, but I'll give my input anyway. Forgive me if it's already been said. Rape is not a sexual crime. It has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with power. I really don't think it matters what a woman looks like or what she wears. Men rape because of power, not because some hotty in a mini skirt turned them on.
Now continue.
So says the psyco-babblists. It's about animalistic reproductive instincts and triggers. If it was about power I believe you would see MUCH more man on man rape (to the delight of many here it seems). Men beating up women, that's about power.
(please spare me the links to any psyco-babblists)
(May 20, 2010 at 4:21 pm)Saerules Wrote: ...then I should think a hole would be the most vulnerable target... I mean: why bother going after a moving hole, attached to a woman who will make the sex more difficult (or annoying, if she cries)... when one might obtain a simple hole of proper size quite easily? More to the point... why bother going for a hole at all: does one not have a hand or three?
I can answer that one for you!!
Here ya go....
[youtube]7p64FvyOBj4[/youtube]
I used to tell a lot of religious jokes. Not any more, I'm a registered sects offender.
---------------
...the least christian thing a person can do is to become a christian. ~Chuck
--------------- NO MA'AM
Different people define "beauty" in different ways... 'tis why I believe 'abstract philosophy' 
![[Image: attemptingtogiveadamnc.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img824.imageshack.us%2Fimg824%2F7042%2Fattemptingtogiveadamnc.gif)
