I will let Dotard answer you. In what part of my answer did I say I wouldn't? The last time I checked, this was a discussion forum where anyone can respond to any post (unless it's a formal debate of course).

The second part of my answer was a general response to other people in this thread, hence why I changed the subject.

(May 22, 2010 at 4:07 pm)Synackaon Wrote: Other than that, let it be noted that I disagree with Dotards later statements, as it has the unfortunate connotation that men are merely animals, unable to control themselves within the bounds of law and society.

I maintain men are merely animals. However I did say 99% of them are able to control the baser instincts and keep themselves in check.

Sorry you got that connotation you got, but it's not what I said.

We seem to have 100% affirmation of what women feel about this discussion. As males we're speaking from a position of power: the civilised world being heavily patriarchal. It's obvious it fucking hurts a lot. Just saying our focus maybe should be listening and understanding rather than dictating/ making proclamations.

(May 22, 2010 at 6:12 pm)bozo Wrote: Dotard, what you are arguing could be really radical in a legal context.
You seem to be suggesting that the courts should view robbery/rape somewhat differently than they now do.
If I understand you correctly, a robber/rapist could offer the defence that the victim had shared responsibility. If that were accepted then a much lighter sentence would follow or indeed no sentence.
Is this your proposition?

No. How the hell am I coming across as such? I said many times "Blame" in the strictest sense is never to be applied to the victim. I agree a woman should be able to lay out on her front lawn completely naked and touching her titties if she so chooses to without concern for an assault. If I were a jurist in a rape trial and that defense was offered "She was flashing her ass at him and making cooing noises and touching herself so when she said "No" it didn't count and she asked for it." I would vehemently argue to toss that defense out as no matter what one person does, it is the self who is ultimately responsible for any actions taken. Period.

I and many many others go to titty bars and get them slapped around our faces, we get crotches rubbed up and down our legs, we get bung holes shoved within 4 inches of our noses. Rules are you can't reach up and touch them. We don't. You see the odd ball here and there that does or tries and gets tossed out. I would never say "she asked for it slapping her titties in his face". He knew the rules. I don't give a fuck what the excuse is. "She coo'd at me and lifted her skirt", "she kept giving me sultry looks" or whatever. I, we, dudes, people, know the rules.

I only advocate awareness that there are a small percentage of fucks out there who care not for the rules and will seek out victims to take from be it cars, money, watches, tits, ass. It is a good idea and prudent not to flaunt it to others. There are those who view that as a dare to take it away from you. A reasonable protective measure to safeguard your shit is to keep your money in your pocket and your tits in your shirt.

---

(May 22, 2010 at 8:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We seem to have 100% affirmation of what women feel about this discussion. As males we're speaking from a position of power: the civilised world being heavily patriarchal. It's obvious it fucking hurts a lot. Just saying our focus maybe should be listening and understanding rather than dictating/ making proclamations.

WTF are you on about?

Basically fr0do is saying; 'You are not a woman, STFU and GTFO'

(May 22, 2010 at 4:07 pm)Synackaon Wrote: By the statistics, male on male violence, especially when it comes to homicide, dominates when compared to male on female violence, by sheer numbers and percentage. Even when you factor in men raping women and try comparing it to males killing other males, you'll find that the majority of men cited would more likely murder a few of their peers over raping a vulnerable woman.

Clearly, if we were to talk alertness and look at statistics as a guide, males should be more watchful.

Wow, that's quite a claim, and a new one too. I've never heard anyone try to suggest that men are more at risk of murder than women are at risk for murder and rape combined. Do you have any links or real research about this? Men should be warned that they are being murdered in such huge numbers. Cry me a river man.... I mean, come on. Since that does not appear to be actually happening, perhaps you guys are just doing a really good job of preventing it? The reality is that men have to worry about murder, and women have to worry about murder and rape.

Quote:In matters pertaining to rape, it is clear to anyone with an unclouded mind that the victim did not manage to avoid or even detect the threat displayed in the criminal(s). Does that make the victim more responsible, because they were "unlucky"? No, but if we were to unify our behavior to be more just, it would do if we were to note the conditions, the scenario, whether or not the victim suspected an event occurring, etc,. Surely you would want to establish clearly and without a shadow of a doubt who did what and the degrees of the burden of actions involved with each party - and in the majority of cases, the victim will obviously have an insignificant degree of responsibility, actions - I mean, obviously, the victim has been savagely attacked and brutalized by a thinking human predator.

Why does noting the victim's risk level come into play at all for crime blame? A high risk level does not cause the crime, it's simply the preferred target choice of all criminals, a choice that can't even be properly predicted in a consistent manner, one that is completely subjective, even if there were some reason to think of it as being a cause rather than targetted victim feature of the day, like dyed blond hair, which is preventable. And at what level does the risk become insignificant? Has a woman who chose to dye her hair to a colour considered the most sexually attractive, is she now partly responsible for any sex crime against her.

[suggestions that rape might have mitigating factors caused by the victim]
There are no circumstances in which a person can cause another person to get horny over hurting someone. Happy over hurting someone yes, but horny no. They have to have that horniness about nonconsent in them to begin with. It's not like anger/murder, where enough anger can cause a person (of either gender) to desire murdering the one they are angry at even though they don't normally desire that sort of thing.

Quote:There is give and take, at least conceptually. Risk and responsibility is everywhere and we all are bound by it.

Not when it comes to blame for crimes. Of course it's good for people to lower whatever risks to crime in general that they reasonably can, but unless that is equally brought into court about every single other crime in the world, and even then unless there is a standard to go by when assessing all victim risks, vulnerability absolutely must not be used in any blame assigning whatsoever. It's logistically impossible to assess anyways.

Quote:Let me stop you there - just because society told you to jump off a cliff, would'ya do it? You can only blame society so much until it boils down to the actors at hand, and then we're several paragraphs up.

When society is the one encouraging and condoning a behaviour, they have no right to then say she shouldn't have been doing it. Mixed messages much? That's what us women get all the time with stuff to do with sex and attractiveness. Approval and lots of good attention when we look good, but if any of the much rarer bad attention happens, then it's our fault for looking good. Lowering the risk factor by preventing oneself from looking good, is an unreasonable expectation. It's not like locking one's house door, since it's not popular public opinion that a house looks better when its doors are open. With sexual attractiveness, where do you draw which lines? I admitted earlier that I don't wear bras. Some would say that doing that is attractive and therefore will attract bad attention. But on the other hand, I don't wear make-up. Some would say that makes me look plainer and less attractive and therefore will attract less bad attention. Do those two things cancel each other out? Can they be assigned attractiveness-to-criminals values on the risk scale?

Quote:Other than that, let it be noted that I disagree with Dotards later statements, as it has the unfortunate connotation that men are merely animals, unable to control themselves within the bounds of law and society. That, I would think, would be one of the biggest crimes of all with respect to oneself. The crime of being unable to control oneself.

If it were only a matter of uncontrolled horniness, the guy could wank or meet/hire someone into whatever harmful thing makes him horny. Everyone has desires they know not to ever act on, and with some people they are sexual desires. A rapist knows that if he acts on his desires, he will be causing harm. I actually feel sorry for anyone who gets horny over non-consent but knows not to actually do it except in their imaginations. If someone actually decides their orgasm is worth more than the harm and trauma they will cause, all compassion from me is completely revoked. Uncontrollable horniness can be dealt with nonharmfully, but the decision to harm someone in order to get off is an active, voluntary one.

(May 22, 2010 at 10:19 am)Scented Nectar Wrote: Even though you personally are not blaming the victim, any expectation for the victim to have to be more alert than men have to be for their whole lives, will not go over well, especially when to do so would be to avoid the very things society tells us we should do, like dress attractive.

Life isn't fair. Personally, I don't give a shit how it will "go over".

(May 22, 2010 at 10:19 am)Scented Nectar Wrote: That expectation for the victim to prevent the rape from happening is too often used as the reason to blame the victim, even if you weren't trying to do that. There is too much history of, and current situation of, blame being put on the victim of rape for not protecting herself enough.

But it wasn't what I was illustrating. Why would others' arguments be relevant to mine?

(May 22, 2010 at 10:19 am)Scented Nectar Wrote: In some countries, women are in this day and age being punished with the death sentence for being a victim of rape with all blame assigned to the victim for having 'tempted' her attacker (another thank you to those abrafuckinghamic god believers). The wound is too fresh to women in the world for a statement about how it shouldn't have been a surprise.

The majority of us on this forum don't live in such societies, and I don't care how fresh the wound is. A point is a point, regardless of proximity to a particular event.

(May 22, 2010 at 10:19 am)Scented Nectar Wrote: Anyways, it's not ever been concluded that sexy clothing catches the attention of potential rapists any more than a loud attention-getting voice might. Or being noticeably short. Or being noticeably fat. Or any other thing that might catch a criminal's eye. I doubt that rapists, like any other person on this planet, have their horniness restricted only to a particular style of clothing. Lots and lots of guys get horny over plain, even 'ugly', women, as proven by how many have kids. Any woman with a vagina is vulnerable to rape. Disabled wheelchairbound women get raped at a higher percentage than other women. Are they extra sexy looking?

WTF? Did I say that wearing revealing clothing = rape? I said it attracts attention moreso than a regular woman, who already gets enough attention as it is. I didn't say people commit rape for the sole reason of getting turned on. In fact, I didn't even talk about any reasons people might do such a thing - I have no interest in it, and it is irrelevant to the conversation.

(May 22, 2010 at 10:19 am)Scented Nectar Wrote: Even if risk/vulnerability were not being used against victims to shift blame to them, in the case of rape and attractiveness, no measurements have ever been done. It would first require defining what's considered attractive by men who want to rape. Visually and clothingwise this would be difficult to do. The only thing that has ever been determined for sure about what rapists often find attractive is vulnerability in, personality weaknesses like won't fight back/scares easy/appears to lack confidence/low self esteem/won't tell, and physical ones like smaller size than attacker for ease in overpowering. I read this stuff years and years ago though and I'm completely paraphrasing, so I can't cite anything. If true, then a sexily dressed, strong looking and confident looking woman will be much safer than a plainly dressed and scared looking physically weak woman.

So what does this have to do with my text?

(May 22, 2010 at 8:33 pm)Dotard Wrote:

(May 22, 2010 at 6:12 pm)bozo Wrote: Dotard, what you are arguing could be really radical in a legal context.
You seem to be suggesting that the courts should view robbery/rape somewhat differently than they now do.
If I understand you correctly, a robber/rapist could offer the defence that the victim had shared responsibility. If that were accepted then a much lighter sentence would follow or indeed no sentence.
Is this your proposition?

No. How the hell am I coming across as such? I said many times "Blame" in the strictest sense is never to be applied to the victim. I agree a woman should be able to lay out on her front lawn completely naked and touching her titties if she so chooses to without concern for an assault. If I were a jurist in a rape trial and that defense was offered "She was flashing her ass at him and making cooing noises and touching herself so when she said "No" it didn't count and she asked for it." I would vehemently argue to toss that defense out as no matter what one person does, it is the self who is ultimately responsible for any actions taken. Period.

I and many many others go to titty bars and get them slapped around our faces, we get crotches rubbed up and down our legs, we get bung holes shoved within 4 inches of our noses. Rules are you can't reach up and touch them. We don't. You see the odd ball here and there that does or tries and gets tossed out. I would never say "she asked for it slapping her titties in his face". He knew the rules. I don't give a fuck what the excuse is. "She coo'd at me and lifted her skirt", "she kept giving me sultry looks" or whatever. I, we, dudes, people, know the rules.

I only advocate awareness that there are a small percentage of fucks out there who care not for the rules and will seek out victims to take from be it cars, money, watches, tits, ass. It is a good idea and prudent not to flaunt it to others. There are those who view that as a dare to take it away from you. A reasonable protective measure to safeguard your shit is to keep your money in your pocket and your tits in your shirt.

You came across that way to me because of you stressing that victims of robbery/rape in some small/large ways were partly responsible for the crime perpetrated against them.
I think you still have that opinion, but you have answered my question as regards the legal position.
I agree with you that we all must take responsibility for our actions.

(May 23, 2010 at 7:09 am)bozo Wrote: You came across that way to me because of you stressing that victims of robbery/rape in some small/large ways were partly responsible for the crime perpetrated against them.

I stress individuals are reponsible for their own personal safety. If one refuses to take reasonable precautionary measures to help ensure their own safety, does it, or does it not logically follow that person is partly responsible if a crime is perpetrated against them?

Quote:I think you still have that opinion, but you have answered my question as regards the legal position.

Legal standpoints can differ from personal ones. We may agree those poor Iranian women forced to wear burkas is wrong. They should be able to wear whatever they choose. No man has a right to dictate a womans choice of clothing. But the "Legal" position in Iran is what?

Quote:I agree with you that we all must take responsibility for our actions.

No matter which side our actions are on? If I am waving my money around I am not legally responsible for the inevitable theft? No I am not. Would you say I am personally responsible? (I want to say 'morally' responsible, but that didn't seem to fit) Would you not tell me "Dumbass! Why were you waving it around?"

Thank God the courts realize that no matter what the actions, no matter how irresponsible, of one party that does not excuse a perpetrators lack of control over the baser instinct to 'gather' resources even at the expense of 'other tribes'.

IMO that does not excuse the potential victim's lack of reasonable protective measures nor give a 'free pass' to behave in irresponsible manners and expect not to become a victim of criminal activity.

---

(May 22, 2010 at 9:21 pm)Watson Wrote: Basically fr0do is saying; 'You are not a woman, STFU and GTFO'

If that is indeed what he is saying then to be consistant when the convo moves into "why men rape", then Frodo should be telling the women here "You're not a man, STFU and GTFU."

Dotard, I'll try again.
Would you like to see the legal position altered so that a defence of " shared responsibility " ( or some other words which describe what you keep banging on about ) is acceptable to the courts with the implication on sentencing that entails?