While it is true that reporting rape in a muslim country can be very dangerous to one's health, and that many rapes that do occur in those countries goes unreported... Dotard does have a very good point. If a scientist does not report a discovery he has made, we should hardly expect to know that he has made a discovery. Similarly, if a raped individual does not report a rape they have suffered, we should hardly expect to know that she has suffered a rape.

---

(July 16, 2010 at 11:30 pm)Scented Nectar Wrote:

(July 16, 2010 at 10:56 pm)Dotard Wrote: Bullshit. No one ever said "it's your own fault".

And yes, if you do take the advice you have layed out, your risk of robbery will be lesser than the man in an armani suit driving a high end mercedes.

It's used, especially by religious types, to fault/blame women all the time, even if you yourself don't do it. And as for the risk, no one has shown any increased risk yet. We already know for sure some opposing facts, such as the rarity of dragged off the street style rapes, and the fact that no stats have appeared showing any rapes increased with specific clothing styles.

Until I see some solid indicators (correlation at least), I can't seriously consider this religion-spawned concept as based on any reality. There is too much evidence against it, and none for it.

A lack of evidence for a thing does not denote evidence against it.

I don't see a rarity of rape by an unknown individual as either opposing or supporting the idea that one's clothes influence rape. We do, however, have a stat listed by Cego stating

Cego Wrote:"84% of rapists surveyed cited sexual motivation 'solely or in part' as a cause of their acts." (Ibid)
" 'She stood there in her nightgown, and you could see right through it– you could see her nipples and breast and, you know, they were just waiting for me, and it was just too much of a temptation to pass up' ." (ibid, then directed towards-- Men who Rape by Groth)

As clothing (or perhaps it is a lack of it in strategic locations on the body... hello thriving sexual clothing market!) can excite sexual attraction... here is clear evidence of clothing choice being a part of 84% of rapist's impulse to rape. So there is one hit for the evidence... just read what the man quoted from 'Men Who Rape, by Groth' says. All of us should know that our clothing choice affects the libido of others... else why would the sexual clothing market exist in the first place... let alone thrive?

(July 17, 2010 at 12:39 am)Dotard Wrote: [quote='Minimalist' pid='80675' dateline='1279338940']

Quote:DEFINITION: Total recorded rapes.

I knew someone would claim it is only because of unreported rapes.

Prove it. If they are unreported how would you know of it?

Just because someone writes an article stating convicted women are really rape victims does not make it fact. Just because someone accuses another of rape does not prove a rape actually occured.

Yeah, Dote....it's just like reporting a crime here in the states. Wake up, man!

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa...76354.html

Quote:A Somali girl who said she had been raped has been stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery, a human rights group has said.

Amnesty International said in a press release on Friday that the victim, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, had been 13 years old - not 23 as earlier reports had suggested.

Duhulow was stoned to death on October 27 by dozens of men in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses.

The armed group in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, Amnesty said.

(July 16, 2010 at 3:56 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Every statement I've read by the people hear explain it as a reduced risk option, yes? Then it's advice. Which means you are saying women should not walk home alone.

Not necessarily the case, no. I'd say that if a precaution reduces a risk it's still entirely the choice of the woman whether to take the risk or not. So I still wouldn't say "She should do X" because it's up to her. If she wants to take a risk she is free to do so. (And that's only if there's a risk of course).

And assuming there really is no evidence whatsoever that clothing makes any difference... that still doesn't mean it equates to victim blaming if I didn't know that.... because I never said "The woman should take a precaution".

Quote:A woman somewhere is going to be raped because they crossed paths with a rapist. You can say that all those times I walked home alone at 2am in a place previously stalked by a serial rapist as being risky, or I shouldn't have done it.

I don't see any sense in saying what risk or precaution you should or shouldn't take. It's your choice. If there's an increased risk more one way than another/if there are precautions to take then I would merely question if or state that I think that's the case. I wouldn't say "You shouldn't take that risk" or "You should take the precaution". It would be impossible to never take a risk, there are always risks, and it's also your choice what risks to take.

Quote:And here's the crux of the problem. None of you who argue "common sense" can see past your own privilege. Your common sense suggests woman should never wear sexy clothing, that every time she walks home alone she could be raped.

That's one example.

Whether clothing actually has anything to do with or not. There are other examples that do apply... such as ones Adrian has suggested like not walking home alone but taking a taxi or going home with a group of friends instead. This doesn't mean a woman 'should' do this it is her choice... it is merely acknowledging the fact that there are ways to decrease or increase risk.

Saying that a woman can play her part in decreasing or increasing the risk or her rape and therefore share a part in the risk doesn't mean that she shares a part in the responsibility of her choice to do so. It does not mean that because she can take a risk that she 'shouldn't' or that she 'should take a precaution instead.'

The point is that to acknowledge the possibility of taking risks or the fact that it makes sense to not take them if you want to play your part in decreasing the risk does not mean blaming the victim. Blaming the victim would be to say that you 'shouldn't take the risk' rather than stating the fact that if you want to help decrease the risk then it would make sense to take a precaution. Because whether it makes sense or not to take a precaution if you want to help decrease the risk.... it is still entirely your choice to take the risk if you wish. There is nothing to say what you should or shouldn't do with the personal decisions you have.

To acknowledge the fact that taking precautions can decrease risk (which is tautologically true, precautions must be able to do that otherwise they're not really precautions) and it makes sense to take them within the scope of a wish to reduce risk is not the same as saying that precautions should be taken as if it's the woman's fault she got raped in any way. Because the former only applies if risk reduction is her priority and there is nothing to say that she 'should' do it if she doesn't wish to, whereas the latter just says she shouldn't take the risk.

Quote: We like to think we can reduce our risk, but in these instances, it's just not true.

Well to suggest that whatever actions we take it makes absolutely ZERO difference to our risks in anything we do (whether rape or otherwise) no matter how tiny of a near infinitely tiny fraction of a percentage of a difference is merely to deny reality - to blame a woman and say she 'should' take a precaution is completely different to acknowledging the obvious fact that our actions make a difference to our risk - whoever we are.

Quote:Would you tell me, "You shouldn't have changed your song and flashed your iphone?" Or better yet, "You shouldn't have had an iphone. If you had a crappy nextel you would never had had your phone stolen?"

No I wouldn't say you shouldn't. It's your choice. But I wouldn't deny the reality that one choice may be more or less risky than another. To do the former would be to blame whilst the do the latter would not.

Quote:The truth is that the people who decide to steal are the ones who commit the crime and have full blame. The same goes for rape.

Duh.

Quote: When you try to think of what "risks" they could have reduce, you are placing the onus on the victim that they should have done something,

non-sequitur. Speculating on what risks the victim could have reduced, is not the same as saying they 'shouldn't take the risk'. It's their choice either way whether a choice they make is risky or not. I mean, isn't that blatantly obvious?

Quote:The common sense thing is that people have lives, they have the right to live it. They have a right to riches, and flashing pricey thing does make it partly their fault it got stolen.

Exactly. It's their choice whether their choices are risky or unrisky.

Quote: Women have bodies, and they have right to not have the bodies violated.

Obviously.

Quote: Wearing flashy clothing or walking home at night does not make it partly their fault that someone took it upon themselves to violate her.

Of course it doesn't make it their fault. A personal choice to do something that increased a rape risk in no way means a woman is any more to blame than if she had instead chose personally something less risky and still got raped.

Quote:I do not assume I can avoid every possible rape situation with "common sense".

Nor do I. There are obviously unavoidable cases. But I don't see how every case is unavoidable? I don't assume that you can avoid every possible rape situation either, obviously not. But to not be able to avoid any ever as if no actions make any difference whatsoever no matter the situation is to deny reality. That is completely different than saying that a risk should be avoided or that a precaution should be taken.

EvF

(July 17, 2010 at 2:16 am)Minimalist Wrote: Wake up, man!

Yeah whatever. You believe everything you read?

You have no fucking way of knowing. You have no way of knowing if she wasn't prositituting herself and then hollering rape as a cover when discovered. Maybe yes, maybe no. Point is you have no way of knowing.

You stated, or alluded to, the evidence I have presented as being flawed due to unreported incidents of rape. I'm asking you to prove it. Until you can, I postulate the statistics are due to the manner of dress of women in those countries.

(July 16, 2010 at 10:56 pm)Dotard Wrote: Bullshit. No one ever said "it's your own fault".

And yes, if you do take the advice you have layed out, your risk of robbery will be lesser than the man in an armani suit driving a high end mercedes.

Look at the actual statistics. Who gets robbed more, the man in the Armani suit driving the high end Mercedes? Or the kid in jeans taking the bus?

What kind of cars get broken into most often? A Mercedes? Or a basic Honda?

Take a look at reality. It's the opposite of what you claim.


Even after quoting and calling out someone stating that they believe the victim is at fault, you still deny it. Wow. That's some heavy level denial there.

---

(July 17, 2010 at 12:18 am)tavarish Wrote: For someone who pledged to stay out of this thread, you sure did come back and restate some of your arguments with no real resolution in the matter. I suppose that's a positive thing, since it shows that you're persistent, but it doesn't add anything to your assertions. Emotionally charged straw men are nonetheless straw men driven by emotion.

We've backed up everything we've said.

Provide some evidence that your 'advice' actually works. Provide some evidence that this model you have of rape, the lone, sexy-clothed, woman grabbed randomly off the street is statistically likely. Support your statements with actual evidence, not just the 'I think it should be this way'.

---

(July 17, 2010 at 3:21 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Whether clothing actually has anything to do with or not. There are other examples that do apply... such as ones Adrian has suggested like not walking home alone but taking a taxi or going home with a group of friends instead. This doesn't mean a woman 'should' do this it is her choice... it is merely acknowledging the fact that there are ways to decrease or increase risk.

We have now pointed out, repeatedly, that according to the statistics, going home with a group of friends or taking a taxi would actually INCREASE the chances of rape, as most victims are attacked by someone they know and the grabbed off the street scenario is the rarest form of rape. I even cited a case where the rapist was driving a taxi.

Before you keep babbling about this 'decreased or increased' chance of rape, provide evidence that demonstrates your 'advice' actually decreases or increases the chance of rape.

Have you read the articles yet?

(July 17, 2010 at 11:45 am)In This Mind Wrote: ...you still deny it. Wow.

Even after providing statistics compairing burka wearing countries with 'wearing whatever else' countries and postulating the burka wearing women have a lesser number of rapes due to the manner of dress in those societies, you ignore it and still deny dress has anything to do with incidents of rape.

Wow. That's some heavy level denial there.

Others have postulated it is due to all the 'unreported' rapes occuring. AGAIN I ask, "If they are unreported, how would you know this?"

It's like me claiming the jean wearing bus riders have higher statistical incidents of robbery because of all the unreported incidents of robbery against Armani suit wearing men. It's bullshit.

(July 17, 2010 at 1:09 pm)Dotard Wrote: Others have postulated it is due to all the 'unreported' rapes occuring. AGAIN I ask, "If they are unreported, how would you know this?"

You really can't see how rape is underreported in Saudi Arabia? In an area where adulterers are stoned to death or sentenced to brutal lashings, you have no idea why rape would be underreported?

Rape victim sentenced to 200 lashes: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...60847.html
Rape victim sentenced to 100 lashes: http://trueslant.com/nealungerleider/201...100-times/
Saudi Males say it's reckless to travel with a man who is not a relative, or you will get raped: http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/14/rap...udi-males/
Pregnant women suffers 100 lashes for being raped: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnew...ltery.html
Girl receives 1 yr in jail and 100 lashes for adultery, and yet if you read the report, she was forced to have sex with 5 men. What do we call that? Oh right, rape!: http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm...ome.regcon
19 year old was gang raped and give 90 lashes for the crime of "being alone with a man not her relative": http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html
Saudi women’s rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider talks with Al Jazeera about the corporal punishment sentence imposed on a rape victim being doubled after she spoke out about her case: http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/11/2...di-arabia/

Seems pretty fucking apparent to me why rape would be severely under reported.

(July 16, 2010 at 8:20 pm)Godhead Wrote: Eilonnwy -

What you're saying is that a woman can't tell, at the time, whether or not she's at risk, or what she can do to try and minimise any risk. What I'm saying is that she may or may not be able to do those things, and also even in hindsight she may or may not be able to tell where it all went wrong. I'm also saying that she should try, to the best of her ability and knowledge, to assess those things, and do what she can to minimise any perceived risk, as opposed to consciously not bothering to assess anything or try to minimise any risk.In other words, be careful, not careless. That's what responsibility is.

If you go into a bar and in your opinion you decide that there's very little risk, and that all you have to do to minimise any risk that there might possibly be is to simply not wear anything too revealing, and you do nothing else, and you then get raped, one can say that you at least took responsibility for yourself. Whether you were correct in your judgment or not, and whether you get raped or not, and regardless of your assessment of the situation in hindsight, you still showed responsibility. You tried. You decided to own your life and your safety and at least you tried. That's all that matters, your attitude. You can live your entire life being careless, and never get raped, but you'll still be a fool, and a lucky one at that. And you can live your whole life being careful, yet get raped over and over again, but you will still be a responsible person, albeit a very unlucky one.

So basically what you saying is that every second of a woman's life needs to be assessed to evaluate the risk of rape. Furthermore, when a rape is being committed, she should assess whether he is the type to kill her for fighting back or lay down and take it. Please tell me, Godhead, are you always assessing the risk when you walk down the street of who is going rape you? Because men get raped too. How about, do you assess the risk of what clothes you wear will target you for a mugging? And tell me, in a moment of crisis, how calm and cool is your head for assessing the best course of action? Please tell me, because I want to know how a woman can constantly assess her risk of rape every time she goes outside, especially when we've repeatedly told you, the majority of women get raped are raped by someone they know. I'm more likely to get raped by a man I know walking me home at night than a stranger rapist who has already made a decision to rape and will find someone anyway. Also, please tell me how you would advise men not to get raped. Should men not walk alone at night? Are you not struck with the apparent sexism that women shouldn't?

Everyone who thinks it's common sense to not wear certain clothing and not walk outside alone have basically claimed knowledge that they know what a rapists thinks and does. You've decided that rapists must be drawn to sexy clothing and a woman not surrounded by friends, despite the statistics that show rapists don't remember their victim's clothing, and the yanked off the street rape is the rarest form. Every time a women who fits that criteria gets raped, you've confirmed your unsubstantiated conclusion, (Note confirmation bias) and then you blame her for it by telling her she should have "assessed her risk, not worn that clothing, you were a fool for going out at night". Meanwhile statistics show that the majority of rape victims were raped by someone they know. Your well intentioned advice was useless. Your well intentioned advice leads to the stigma of rape victims being blamed for their rape, looking for something he or she could have done to avoid the rape. Your well intentioned advice is used as a way for men to get away with it when brought to court.

Interestingly enough, One survey showed that women are more likely to victim blame.

I don't know why you all refuse to see it. For people who often say "show me the evidence", we have and you still refuse, with out bringing up any reliable evidence of your own. You're being dogmatic in this as much a religious fundies, and refusing to see evidence that's right in front of your face. You're so convinced by your preconceived notions and your "common sense" that you let it win over every statistic we show, every report we show, every psychological study we show on the real problem of victim blaming. I've explained it in so many different ways, but nothing will get through. This is facts causing a backfire in action. And what's worse, you start attacking a victim for standing up for herself and relaying the facts. Say she can't think rationally about this because she was attacked. The condescending and misogynistic attitude in here is appalling. I can only imagine that your unwillingness to admit to victim blaming is why you've decided to neg rep her all over the place when she has given consisted logical reasoning backed by evidence, and all the rest of you have is "common sense" and refer to rape statistics that show only reported statistics when everyone knows rape is the most underreported crime thanks to victim blaming you all perpetuate.

I don't think anyone here is not well intentioned and doesn't care for women, but your good intentions are wrong. Intentions aren't magic, it doesn't change how wrong you all are.

As In His Mind pointed out, rape is reduced when your educate men on what consent is, sexual harassment, etc...not when you tell women to cover up and walk home with someone.

Everything you all espouse about rape is myth, and I'm sorry you all can't or won't see it.

Quote:Myth: Only "bad" women get raped.
Fact: No other crime victim is looked upon with the degree of suspicion and doubt as a victim of rape. Although there are numerous reasons why society has cast blame on the victims of rape, a major reason found in studies is that of a feeling of self protection. If one believes that the victim was responsible because she put herself in an unsafe position, such as being out late at night, drinking alcohol, dressing in a certain way, or "leading on" the rapist, then we are able to feel safer because "we wouldn't do those things." But, the basic fact remains that without consent, no means no, no matter what the situation or circumstances.

Myth: Rape only happens to young attractive women.
Fact: Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class, ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to attack. Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims. His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets.
Statistics were obtained from various sources including the study Rape in America, 1992, National Victim Center, The Federal Bureau of Investigations and the National Crime Survey.

Myth: Only certain kinds of people get raped. It cannot happen to me.
FACTRapists act without considering their victim's physical appearance, dress, age, race, gender, or social status. Assailants seek out victims who they perceive to be vulnerable. The Orange County Rape Crisis Center has worked with victims from infancy to ninety-two years of age and from all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Dotard Wrote:Depends on your definition. I define it as a mistrust of women. Nothing else.

That is acceptable.

(July 17, 2010 at 3:21 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: And assuming there really is no evidence whatsoever that clothing makes any difference... that still doesn't mean it equates to victim blaming if I didn't know that.... because I never said "The woman should take a precaution".

I'm sorry, but your backtracking is starting to be completely ridiculous.

Quote:Saying that a woman can play her part in decreasing or increasing the risk or her rape and therefore share a part in the risk doesn't mean that she shares a part in the responsibility of her choice to do so. It does not mean that because she can take a risk that she 'shouldn't' or that she 'should take a precaution instead.'

The point is that to acknowledge the possibility of taking risks or the fact that it makes sense to not take them if you want to play your part in decreasing the risk does not mean blaming the victim. Blaming the victim would be to say that you 'shouldn't take the risk' rather than stating the fact that if you want to help decrease the risk then it would make sense to take a precaution. Because whether it makes sense or not to take a precaution if you want to help decrease the risk.... it is still entirely your choice to take the risk if you wish. There is nothing to say what you should or shouldn't do with the personal decisions you have.

To acknowledge the fact that taking precautions can decrease risk (which is tautologically true, precautions must be able to do that otherwise they're not really precautions) and it makes sense to take them within the scope of a wish to reduce risk is not the same as saying that precautions should be taken as if it's the woman's fault she got raped in any way. Because the former only applies if risk reduction is her priority and there is nothing to say that she 'should' do it if she doesn't wish to, whereas the latter just says she shouldn't take the risk.

You are trying as hard as you can to phrase it without saying the word 'should', instead of being honest and admitting that what you really mean to say is 'you should do this'. You've backtracked yourself right into a corner trying to claim you aren't victim blaming to the point of engaging in outright denial. All I hear is my great-grandfather's voice going, 'I'm not racist, but....'

The only 'precaution' that actually decreases risk is educating people against victim blaming. This has been proven over and over. The statistics support this.