(June 13, 2010 at 2:02 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: It's easy to assume that dressing more conservatively might lower a woman's odds of being raped, but I am unaware of any reason to believe that's true. Are most rapists motivated by the way his victim looks? I doubt that they are, but I don't know the statistics... or if there even are any.

Asking women not to dress provocatively in order to be safer from rapists... seems like a form of Pascal's Wager.

I don't know the statistics I just know that people get aroused by visual stimulus, and you can't rape without being aroused.

EvF

I did not exactly pull that one out of my ass, Sae!




http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/honor-...d-and.html

(June 13, 2010 at 3:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I don't know the statistics I just know that people get aroused by visual stimulus, and you can't rape without being aroused.

No matter how much visual stimulus is needed along with the stimulus of the violence, not every man is turned on by provocative clothing. I've never heard of rapists having different fashion tastes than normal men. Many men find sleazy clothing to be distasteful and cheap. Those ones often find a nicely dressed, more modest manner of clothing to be far more attractive. So, the percentage of how many men find which different types of clothing arousing would also have to come into play if trying to analyse any possible correlation between clothing style and rape vulnerability.

(June 13, 2010 at 10:53 am)VoiceOfReason Wrote: Three words: Toddler beauty pageants. You forget a lot of this starts in childhood. All my childhood I went to swimming lessons. Some parents make beauty pageants a normal part of their daughter's life.

And what exactly does a toddler beauty pageant have to do with our subject? Do most women who choose to "objectify" themselves have a childhood filled with exploitation or something?

(June 13, 2010 at 10:53 am)VoiceOfReason Wrote: Incorrect. I despise the objectification of women, in part because I am an attractive woman. I am sick of people getting wrapped up in my looks, when there is a person behind the face they often forget to acknowledge.

Provide pics. There are far too many women, in my experience complaining about being objectified, only to be exposed for having delusions of grandeur. I don't want to be an asshole, but saying you're a supermodel or something wouldn't change the fact that you could very well be a 35 year old bald dude living in his mom's basement talking shit.

Or don't - whatever's good.

Also notice that Dotard said "in my experience". He didn't say anything about an objective reality or an overall average of women. Please read more carefully.

(June 13, 2010 at 10:53 am)VoiceOfReason Wrote: Several times a week I get men coming up to me at my work and hitting on me. I am in a professional environment trying to work. Do you know how hard it is to try to compete for a promotion when a co-worker accuses me of spending more time 'socializing' than completing transactions?

OK, that's what a human resources department is for, and exactly why sexual harassment laws are in effect, and are greatly in favor of women. Take advantage of that if you feel it impedes with your professional progress. Either that, or use your appeal as a means to move forward, just like the women the OP was talking about. In what industry do you work?

(June 13, 2010 at 10:53 am)VoiceOfReason Wrote: I don't wear revealing clothing, I do not flirt- exactly the opposite, I have become downright frigid towards all male clients because I can't tell who will become inappropriate.

And? What's your point?

You've built up a defense mechanism, which is understandable. Personally, I've become pretty apathetic to those that request my help in my field, because they usually expect me to work my ass off for free. I dismiss them and go on my way as best I can. It seems like you've done the same, but are still complaining for some odd reason.

(June 13, 2010 at 10:53 am)VoiceOfReason Wrote: Unlike a sculpture or a sunset, this is a person. Important distinction. Anyone who looks at a beautiful person should remember they have feelings, ideas, and a life like anyone else. The most important thing about them should never be that they happened to win the genetic lottery.

Who's making that assertion now? I don't think anyone said that a person is defined by their looks. The only thing that was spoken of was how a person's looks can change his/her circumstances in society.

(June 13, 2010 at 10:53 am)VoiceOfReason Wrote: Yes, exactly! If I happen to be going out on a blistering hot summer day, I am not going to wear a sweater simply to avoid men looking at me. I have the right to comfortably wear shorts without someone trying to pinch my ass..

You don't seem to understand this. No one's stopping you from putting on anything or doing whatever the hell you want to do. The sheer fact that you acknowledge that some men can't control themselves is reason enough to just stay alert and safeguard against this to the best of your ability. That's it.

(June 13, 2010 at 10:53 am)VoiceOfReason Wrote: Barbie. Bratz. Disney princesses. There is a huge list of role models for young girls that largely are based on appearance. We grow up seeing all these attractive, successful women in the spotlight.

Yes, just like we grow up seeing attractive, successful men in the spotlight. You seem to forget that there was also G.I. Joe, Ken, and the A-Team to paint a portrait of what men should be in society. What exactly is the point here?

(June 13, 2010 at 10:53 am)VoiceOfReason Wrote: Society has no business shoving Britney Spears and Christina Agulera down young girls' collective throats.

Actually one of the primary functions of society is to establish norms. It is society's business to promote certain cultural trends. Don't like it? Don't do it.

(June 13, 2010 at 10:53 am)VoiceOfReason Wrote: One of my friends was anorexic before we even hit puberty. I don't even want to count how many were in high school. No girl wants to starve herself. She does it because she thinks she has to. She thinks she is worthless if she doesn't look like all those dolls and superstars shoved into our faces.

There will always be people who haven't developed psychologically and retain complexes. I don't know enough about your friend or her situation, but it seems like she really takes the opinions of people far too seriously. She needs professional help if she allows what she interpret as social pressures to have a dramatic negative impact on her health.

(June 13, 2010 at 10:53 am)VoiceOfReason Wrote: I was raped at 15. I was dressed for the cold fall day that it was. What the fuck did I do to 'contribute' to that?!

I don't want to invalidate any experience you may have had, but not all rape cases are the same, and if the circumstances don't apply to you, then the conversation doesn't apply to your situation.

Some of that's just nasty tav. I feel like I just stepped in shit.

(June 13, 2010 at 4:20 pm)tavarish Wrote: And what exactly does a toddler beauty pageant have to do with our subject? Do most women who choose to "objectify" themselves have a childhood filled with exploitation or something?

My point is that some woman who choose to objectify themselves in adulthood were objectified in childhood before they had a choice. To them its normal.
I won't deny for a second that some of them are just attention-seekers. But the whole 'hate the players' thing would make more sense if it was only adults. In my opinion, child pageants are as much of a form of indoctrination as churches.

Quote:I don't want to be an asshole, but saying you're a supermodel or something wouldn't change the fact that you could very well be a 35 year old bald dude living in his mom's basement talking shit.

True, this is the internet. However I never claimed to be a supermodel. I merely said attractive.

Quote:In what industry do you work?

I work at a DMV. Hence the lack of a human resources department. Where I am, the DMVs are privately owned and operated, but audited by the government.

Quote:You've built up a defense mechanism, which is understandable. Personally, I've become pretty apathetic to those that request my help in my field, because they usually expect me to work my ass off for free. I dismiss them and go on my way as best I can. It seems like you've done the same, but are still complaining for some odd reason.

Personally, I think there should be a line drawn by common sense. I am working, and there are probably a lot of others behind you in line. I am not here to look pretty, I am here to help you register a vehicle or whatever the case may be.

Quote:Yes, just like we grow up seeing attractive, successful men in the spotlight. You seem to forget that there was also G.I. Joe, Ken, and the A-Team to paint a portrait of what men should be in society. What exactly is the point here?

Male role models are a hell of a lot more varied. There are male role models celebrated for their intelligence (James Bond, Batman- World's Greatest Detective, Bruce Banner is a scientist, Tony Stark is a genius). Some are even physically deformed (Jonah Hex, Sin City's Marv, Heroes' Peter Petrelli gets a facial scar, Avatar's Jake Sully saves a whole planet despite being confined to a wheelchair).
The vast majority of female role models are just good-looking bimbos with no real talent. Female superhero movies tank. When an intelligent female does appear in movies, it's typically a secondary or love interest role. And when was the last time you saw a scarred/deformed woman in the media?
My point is that we are largely stuck with one ideal, and that doesn't bode well for impressionable young girls.

Quote:Actually one of the primary functions of society is to establish norms.

So normal is unintelligent but good-looking girls with no self-restraint and a drug problem? (Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Anna Nicole Smith) Or spending your life on reality shows or making fashion lines between plastic surgeries? (Heidi Montag, Tori Spelling, Victoria Beckham, Donatella Versace) Seriously?

Quote:There will always be people who haven't developed psychologically and retain complexes. I don't know enough about your friend or her situation, but it seems like she really takes the opinions of people far too seriously. She needs professional help if she allows what she interpret as social pressures to have a dramatic negative impact on her health.

Seriously missing the point. Society is put an unnecessary amount of importance on appearance and it is affecting a lot of girls/young women. Granted, it isn't the only contributing factor. But would it be less of problem if there were more female CEOs, doctors, or soldiers in the media? I think that would help.

Quote:I don't want to invalidate any experience you may have had, but not all rape cases are the same, and if the circumstances don't apply to you, then the conversation doesn't apply to your situation.

My point was that saying a woman 'contributed' to her attack is ignorant. Most rapists know their victims and choose them for vulnerability and ease of scaring them to not tell, not sit on a street corner picking out which woman is most attractive to him.

---

Also, here's a Halloween photo of me. Just so you know I am not a 45-year old bald man.

   

(June 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm)VoiceOfReason Wrote: My point is that some woman who choose to objectify themselves in adulthood were objectified in childhood before they had a choice. To them its normal. I won't deny for a second that some of them are just attention-seekers. But the whole 'hate the players' thing would make more sense if it was only adults. In my opinion, child pageants are as much of a form of indoctrination as churches.

Some children raised in an environment where they are sold as sex slaves treat sex much differently than the rest of us. Upbringing has a lot to do with values later in life, but they're not necessarily irreversible. You seem to think that indoctrination isn't administered by people, but held as some kind of evil unwritten ideal.

(June 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm)VoiceOfReason Wrote: True, this is the internet. However I never claimed to be a supermodel. I merely said attractive.

Supermodel was merely an analogy.

(June 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm)VoiceOfReason Wrote: I work at a DMV. Hence the lack of a human resources department. Where I am, the DMVs are privately owned and operated, but audited by the government.

DMVs are usually privately operated, but they usually have a central hiring station and human resource department. What state? I'm only familiar with those on the East Coast.

Even without a human resource department, you can file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, if the DMV is registered (as it should be), or file suit if you find it to be that much of an issue. There are always options and always those that will fight for your cause if it holds merit.

(June 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm)VoiceOfReason Wrote: Personally, I think there should be a line drawn by common sense. I am working, and there are probably a lot of others behind you in line. I am not here to look pretty, I am here to help you register a vehicle or whatever the case may be.

I really don't understand the issue. You're angry because in a position where you have face to face contact with hundreds of people a week, some men take it upon themselves to try to ask you out? If it's such an issue, why work there? Obviously the reward outweighs the risk - or you're a glutton for punishment.

I'll take for example my girlfriend, who worked as a waitress for a few years, and got hit on absolutely everyday she worked without fail. Why is it an issue to just tune those people out and take it in stride, taking appropriate action when things escalate? I'm sure your bosses don't want a lawsuit on their hands for sexual harassment, so convey your emotions to them instead of idly complaining on a forum. Life isn't fair, but you do have cards at your disposal you're not using.

(June 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm)VoiceOfReason Wrote: Male role models are a hell of a lot more varied. There are male role models celebrated for their intelligence (James Bond, Batman- World's Greatest Detective, Bruce Banner is a scientist, Tony Stark is a genius). Some are even physically deformed (Jonah Hex, Sin City's Marv, Heroes' Peter Petrelli gets a facial scar, Avatar's Jake Sully saves a whole planet despite being confined to a wheelchair).

What the hell are you talking about?

James Bond, Batman, The Hulk, and Iron Man are mostly womanizing men of power that have no qualms with killing people when the circumstances call for it. By the way, Jake Sully in Avatar wouldn't have done shit if it wasn't for Neytiri.

You're also not looking at the big picture. How many villains are women? Nameless henchmen?

Comic book heroes apply more to men than women because men are usually more visual and purchase and collect more comics than women. Conversely, if we look at an industry catered to women, for instance, romance novels, then the tables are turned as far as protagonists and role models go.

(June 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm)VoiceOfReason Wrote: The vast majority of female role models are just good-looking bimbos with no real talent. Female superhero movies tank. When an intelligent female does appear in movies, it's typically a secondary or love interest role.

Female superhero movies tank because they're fucking boring and usually have shit writing and story development. In fact, most superhero spinoff movies suck donkey dick - as a general rule.

You want intelligent female roles? Didn't they just make a second Sex and the City movie with 4 main female roles - all of them successful? How about any of the countless romantic comedies where the man is portrayed as a bumbling idiot and the woman as a professional? Did you suddenly forget about those?

(June 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm)VoiceOfReason Wrote: And when was the last time you saw a scarred/deformed woman in the media?

Have you seen the movie Precious? The main character isn't exactly scarred/deformed, but she is certainly 180 degrees removed from a Britney Spears lookalike, and it won best picture at the Oscars this year, along with a host of other awards.

(June 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm)VoiceOfReason Wrote: My point is that we are largely stuck with one ideal, and that doesn't bode well for impressionable young girls.

And that isn't true at all.

(June 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm)VoiceOfReason Wrote: So normal is unintelligent but good-looking girls with no self-restraint and a drug problem? (Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Anna Nicole Smith) Or spending your life on reality shows or making fashion lines between plastic surgeries? (Heidi Montag, Tori Spelling, Victoria Beckham, Donatella Versace) Seriously?

You do realize that the reason tabloids were invented is to witness the train wrecks within the lives of people with more money than we can ever hope to obtain, correct? It's a trade-off. No one wants to see Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan have an education and live a nice quiet family life, but it's amazing when they go nuts and check into rehab. It's gossip, and the public eats it up without issue. If you really think they're putting this out there purely for aspirational purposes, I'd urge you to do a double take. Things described in sensationalism is not grounds for emulation of a certain lifestyle.

If you have a little girl and she looks at Paris Hilton with doe eyes and proclaims that she wants to be a spoiled whore as well, you have failed as a parent. Reality shows aren't life tips.

I'd also give you the example of Oprah - a woman who has been in the public eye for decades, has made billions from scratch, is not a glamour model, does not have a drug problem, and promotes relatively wholesome ideals and gives to charity on a daily basis. These people ARE out there.

(June 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm)VoiceOfReason Wrote: Seriously missing the point. Society is put an unnecessary amount of importance on appearance and it is affecting a lot of girls/young women. Granted, it isn't the only contributing factor. But would it be less of problem if there were more female CEOs, doctors, or soldiers in the media? I think that would help.

So the problem here is not that successful females don't exist - it's just that they're not advertised as well.

I'll reply with this:

So what?

Society puts an unnecessary amount of importance on a LOT of things, but it doesn't mean that it should be taken seriously at face value. Honestly, in a society that is more than 90 percent theistic, here you are on an atheist forum. Role models by themselves can't accomplish anything unless people make a conscious decision to embrace their ideals.

If your friend thinks she doesn't stack up to society's standards, it wouldn't necessarily be society's fault. Perhaps she set an impossibly high standard for herself and suffers from an inferiority complex - I don't know. What I do know is that in my experience, most people that suffer from anorexia and bulemia can't be convinced, even if everyone around them tells them they are beautiful. It's an internal complex.

I don't doubt it affects people, but that's life. There's always going to be people that don't conform or agree with certain ideals and go against the grain. That's an underlying tenet of the human condition - dissent.

(June 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm)VoiceOfReason Wrote: My point was that saying a woman 'contributed' to her attack is ignorant. Most rapists know their victims and choose them for vulnerability and ease of scaring them to not tell, not sit on a street corner picking out which woman is most attractive to him.

1. Do you have any insight to what most rapists think?
2. The only issue I was alluding to was the added attention with wearing revealing clothing in public. If you're new to this topic, re-read the last few pages and read my replies - I've covered this topic already.

(June 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm)VoiceOfReason Wrote: Also, here's a Halloween photo of me. Just so you know I am not a 45-year old bald man.

Nope, definitely not bald.

(June 13, 2010 at 4:18 pm)Scented Nectar Wrote:

(June 13, 2010 at 3:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I don't know the statistics I just know that people get aroused by visual stimulus, and you can't rape without being aroused.

No matter how much visual stimulus is needed along with the stimulus of the violence, not every man is turned on by provocative clothing. I've never heard of rapists having different fashion tastes than normal men. Many men find sleazy clothing to be distasteful and cheap. Those ones often find a nicely dressed, more modest manner of clothing to be far more attractive. So, the percentage of how many men find which different types of clothing arousing would also have to come into play if trying to analyse any possible correlation between clothing style and rape vulnerability.

It seems that you think that rapists are some sort of vile monster I rather think that they are usually simply normal people exposed to circumstances they are unprepared for... or which test the weak soul prepared and find him... lacking.

Frankly, i do not believe that a single man finds a moderate fashion more sexually attractive than a naked or otherwise little dressed woman (unless of course the woman they consider at all times hideous ). How many hours do men spend masturbating to a great old coat, I wonder? If you can't masturbate to something: you didn't find it sexually attractive in the first place.

Ergo: find me a man masturbating to a great old coat, and I might believe you

---

(June 13, 2010 at 3:44 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I did not exactly pull that one out of my ass, Sae!




http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/honor-...d-and.html

I didn't think you did

Did I say it was ridiculous anywhere? :S

---

(June 13, 2010 at 1:51 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: I agree completely, Sae. The only point I was trying to make is that rape can and will happen whether a woman dresses provocatively or not. If a woman does dress provocatively, and she gets raped... the clothing may have caused the rapist to target her (because she looked sexy), but he probably would have raped someone. It is never the woman's fault she got raped.

How commonly is it that a person about to perform a rape sets out planning to do it? Hardly as commonly as those people who find themselves in a situation where they find someone attractive and are alone... and either do not care to hold firm... or cannot resist it. Have you ever questioned why it is 'family members' who are most commonly raped? It is simply because 'family members' are much more likely to find themselves in these situations than two random strangers. Those raped by their family are more clearly the victims of trust than of lust (for else how would that lust have manifested with them both alone?).

Quote:If a woman wears skimpy clothing, I certainly take notice. I don't commit rape, though. If someone commits rape... it wasn't because of the clothing or that fact that the woman was sexy. The fault is all on the rapist. Sexy women are everywhere... and if that was cause for rape... there would be a lot more rapes.

You don't commit rape because you a: do not want to and/or b: are resilient enough that you would not, and/or c: for a reason I do not think of at this time. If someone 'commits rape'... it may in fact be because of the clothing or the sexiness that they a: wanted to, and/or b: were not resilient enough to not do so, and/or c: for a reason I do not think of at this time. In which case fault can be neatly distributed to these factors, the person who chose to wear the clothing, the parents that bore the sexy child (or the talented surgeon), etc... but each of which to a much lesser extent than the one who raped. Fault is almost never (if ever) entirely upon a single being or factor.

Sexy women are everywhere... but men and women who enter into situations where they feel the urge to rape them and/or are not resilient enough to avoid doing in a place where the rape will go relatively unobstructed (or nearby to such a place) so are not so common (in common circumstances, at the least). Sexy women are a cause for rape (as I believe has been demonstrated, though I can do it again if it has not been)... but there are not so many rapes as to reflect this because women are not so vulnerable as they may seem (if not because of their strength, then because of the strength of potential witnesses around them).

Tavarish Wrote:You're also not looking at the big picture. How many villains are women? Nameless henchmen?

Know why you will never see a woman villain? Because they are just that good!

I did see a pretty interesting nameless henchwoman when watching the Chronicles of Riddick... and that is the only one to come to mind to me

(June 13, 2010 at 11:56 pm)Saerules Wrote: How commonly is it that a person about to perform a rape sets out planning to do it?

I'd guess very common. I would presume a person falls into the mindset due to frustration and or perversion possibly due to lack of meaningful stimulation. Not planned as in a meticulously made plan but driven into putting themselves in the situation. Then any potential victim happenning into the purpetrators path becomes a target.

(June 13, 2010 at 11:56 pm)Saerules Wrote: You don't commit rape because you a: do not want to and/or b: are resilient enough that you would not, and/or c: for a reason I do not think of at this time.

Personally I can appreciate beauty and sexuality without feeling any desire to go abuse a person. I couldn't think of a more contradictory response. To have such a perverse mindset is some serious sickness. Blokes that go to strip clubs etc objectifying women are fostering this sickness. It's all about skewing your nature so much you act on it un-naturally.

I wouldn't have anything to do with the sex industry. I think the reasoning for it being healthy are perverse and should be recognised as such. Healthy sex is found in a functioning inclusive community.