Objectifying women

[Dotard]

However, none of you can argue that there aren't men who feel that way. Well, you could argue it, but you would be wrong.

And by the same token none of you can argue that there aren't women who feel that way. Well, you could argue it, but you would be wrong. In no way would I saddle the whole and hold them to the opinions of a few. I think a more correct statement would have been "...that there aren't people who feel that way."

My opinion, to clarify once again, on this whole de-railed thread topic, has been a matter of contributing factors and self responsibility for the protection of personal property.

There are some who nit-pick the words used to convey the thoughts on the matter. Namely the word 'blame'.

If I claim a factor which contributed to the likeilhood of my Gold bars being stolen from my driveway was the fact I left them sitting on my driveway, I could correctly say partial blame should be placed upon me.

"Blame" meaning some responsibility for the theft is mine due to the stupidity of leaving my Gold out on the driveway. It does NOT mean "It's all my fault".

If it was some piece of a companys, whom you work for, property you left out on the driveway and was stolen I doubt said company is going to say "It's not your fault. Not one iota, it's 100% the thiefs fault. No worrys, we'll get a new one."
No, you will be told "Dumbass! Why you leave it out on the driveway? It's your fault it was stolen. You gotta pay for it and we'll deduct it from your paycheck." You will be "blamed" for the theft.

[Shell B]

Adrian, again, I realize that no one here has said it was justifiable to rape someone. My statement is actually backed up by your above statement. I merely said I dress the way I do because of men that think it is justifiable to rape a woman because of the way she dresses. I didn't say "Because of rapists like you guys that think it's okay to attack someone because of the way she dresses, I dress like a librarian." And, again, no one can argue that there are not men who think that way.

There are certain actions that are more likely to get you raped; and if you ignore common sense and act like an idiot, you are partially to blame.

This is where we disagree. I only disagree with you for that plain and simple fact that not everyone has common sense. How can you ignore common sense, if you are a walking brick? Let's say a woman is gorgeous, but she doesn't have the sense it takes to pump her own gas. She dresses scantily because she is beautiful, she at least has enough sense to know that. However, her common sense doesn't tell her that she could attract negative attention this way. Basically, she has the mind of a child. Children, as we know, are far too trusting. So is this woman. Is it her fault then, if she doesn't know any better? I think not. The fault lies with the attacker, every time. 100% of the blame is his (or hers, not all rapists are men). Of course there are bad people out there who take advantage of naivete. None of the blame should ever be removed from them, for any reason. If you attack someone, you are piece of shit. If you are attacked, you are a victim, nothing more, nothing less. There is no partial blame here.

With all of the above being said, allow me to point out that psychologically rape has very little to do with a woman's clothing. I would even go so far as to say it has nothing to do with a woman's clothing. Rape is about control, power or simply getting something you want that you otherwise couldn't get. So, knowing that, I know that if the girl dressed like a stripper wasn't there for the sick guy on the prowl to rape, the sick guy would rape grandma in her orthopedic shoes. I don't see how what a girl is wearing has anything to do with rape.

And by the same token none of you can argue that there aren't women who feel that way. Well, you could argue it, but you would be wrong. In no way would I saddle the whole and hold them to the opinions of a few. I think a more correct statement would have been "...that there aren't people who feel that way."

Quite right, Dotard. I do try to not pin these things on one sex. My apologies. I was simply thinking of men because it was my clothing that I was talking about and I just wasn't picturing a woman trying to rape me. That being said, that isn't an excuse.

This is funny, though.

There are some who nit-pick the words used to convey the thoughts on the matter

If it was some piece of a companys, whom you work for, property you left out on the driveway and was stolen I doubt said company is going to say "It's not your fault. Not one iota, it's 100% the thiefs fault. No worrys, we'll get a new one."
No, you will be told "Dumbass! Why you leave it out on the driveway? It's your fault it was stolen. You gotta pay for it and we'll deduct it from your paycheck." You will be "blamed" for the theft.

No doubt a company that handled gold bars would not hire someone who they thought was incapable of handling said gold bars. In this case, you are to blame because safekeeping of the gold bars is part of your job description. Unfortunately, life does not come with a job description and we can't expect everyone to be capable of their own safekeeping. We should be able to be safe from other people, regardless. I'm not naive enough to think that is the case. However, I will not prescribe to the "she should have known better" argument, in the case of rape.

[Tiberius]

This is where we disagree. I only disagree with you for that plain and simple fact that not everyone has common sense. How can you ignore common sense, if you are a walking brick? Let's say a woman is gorgeous, but she doesn't have the sense it takes to pump her own gas. She dresses scantily because she is beautiful, she at least has enough sense to know that. However, her common sense doesn't tell her that she could attract negative attention this way. Basically, she has the mind of a child. Children, as we know, are far too trusting. So is this woman. Is it her fault then, if she doesn't know any better? I think not. The fault lies with the attacker, every time. 100% of the blame is his (or hers, not all rapists are men). Of course there are bad people out there who take advantage of naivete. None of the blame should ever be removed from them, for any reason. If you attack someone, you are piece of shit. If you are attacked, you are a victim, nothing more, nothing less. There is no partial blame here.

And if every single victim of rape was a walking moron, I'd agree with you.
And if I hadn't already covered this scenario by saying that in "some cases" (i.e. not all cases) of rape, the victim has some of the blame, I'd agree with you.

For some reason you continue to make strawmen of what we've said. If we'd argued that in all cases the women shares some of the blame, you'd have a very good point, but we didn't. Even so, you seem to think that just because there are some cases where a woman cannot be blamed for the rape, this means that *all* cases are like this. That is a non-sequitur. Your example above simply covered the case which we'd already ignored for the obvious reasons.

So let me ask you about the opposite scenario:

A relatively smart woman (compared to your idiot above) goes out dressed in slutty clothing, gets drunk, then decides to walk home alone without calling a taxi, and ultimately gets raped. Do you accept that part of the blame does go to her for not anticipating the scenario (which in this day and age should be something every woman thinks about) and not arranging suitable "getting home" arrangements?

[Scented Nectar]

There's a difference between women walking down the street with their bodies hanging out for the express purpose of sex- these are called prostitutes- and a woman who is simply comfortable enough with her body to wear clothing that reflects that. One is asking for sex, and as such, contributing to the acquiring of sex while one is simply wearing clothing. There is absolutely no pre-meditated "I want to get laid" behidn a woman dressing up.

I'm with Eilonnwy here, a woman doesn't dress up just to show off her goods for potential mates to ogle at- she may simply want to wear what she finds pleasing, comfortable, and attractive in her tastes. She is not contributing to or looking for the act of sex by wearing the clothing, she is simply expressing herself just like any man would do through style of dress.

Similarly, beauty paegant contestants or models may want to get across a 'message' by putting themselves out there on the stage and trying to look good while making a statement, but that message is not always "FUCK THE SHIT OUT OF ME." Come on, guys. Some time I am ashamed to be one of you.

I'm surprised, Watson. I agree with almost everything you wrote here, only wanting to add that hookers also must not be blamed if they are raped. They are simply selling a service.

As a female human, I should have the right to wear or not wear whatever is socially acceptable for the male humans to wear. That includes going topless. Get used to it world. My body comes with tits. Men's bodies come with visible chest hair. No big deal. I decided over 30 years ago that I had no reason or desire to wear a bra, so I don't. I don't give a shit what people think. Just like I don't give a shit whether they like my hair or not.

Here in Toronto, we have the legal right to go topless now. I'm chicken to be one of the first ones doing it, but as soon as it's not seen as any weirder than a male going topless, I'm there!!! Summers are hot you know. Should men have to wear tops to cover the very nice chests some of them have?

No one should ever get raped for their visual attractiveness. But they don't get raped because of that. It's the power trip/conquering thing that makes the rapist horny. If all women are covered head to toe to hide the body that everyone still knows they have, the rapist will still rape. It's the rapist who should be blamed, never the victim.

Some people like to say that it's the victim's fault for making the rapist too horny. Bullshit. Anyone who is too horny can wank. Problem solved if that were really the problem.

As for beauty pageants, the points in this video sum up the way I feel about things like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TdEYqOZY_E

[tavarish]

There's a difference between women walking down the street with their bodies hanging out for the express purpose of sex- these are called prostitutes- and a woman who is simply comfortable enough with her body to wear clothing that reflects that. One is asking for sex, and as such, contributing to the acquiring of sex while one is simply wearing clothing. There is absolutely no pre-meditated "I want to get laid" behidn a woman dressing up.

Let's make a distinction. At what point do you draw the line? What articles of clothing are saying "sex" and what others are saying "secure with my body"? Can you make a list?

Also, how can you make the bald faced assertion that women don't dress up to attract mates for sex? I'm guessing you've never been to a club with alcohol involved, but it's sort of common.

I'm with Eilonnwy here, a woman doesn't dress up just to show off her goods for potential mates to ogle at- she may simply want to wear what she finds pleasing, comfortable, and attractive in her tastes. She is not contributing to or looking for the act of sex by wearing the clothing, she is simply expressing herself just like any man would do through style of dress.

Again with the fall-on-your-face contradictions. A woman doesn't dress up to show off her goods, but she wears something she finds attractive. What the hell is she attracting? It doesn't mean she's necessarily looking for sex, but no one is implying that. The fact is, she knows what she looked like coming out of the house, and should know the risks involved and take precautions to those risks.

Similarly, beauty paegant contestants or models may want to get across a 'message' by putting themselves out there on the stage and trying to look good while making a statement, but that message is not always "FUCK THE SHIT OUT OF ME."

Yes, being sexually attractive has nothing to do with beauty pageants or modeling.

That deserves an applause.

Come on, guys. Some time I am ashamed to be one of you.

Take your holier than thou attitude and shove it up your ass. Don't parade your babynuts around here thinking you know something about how the world works, then condemn others for not having your views. It's a fucking forum, where opinions may differ from time to time. Ashamed of being a guy? Congratulations.

---

---

There's a difference between women walking down the street with their bodies hanging out for the express purpose of sex- these are called prostitutes- and a woman who is simply comfortable enough with her body to wear clothing that reflects that. One is asking for sex, and as such, contributing to the acquiring of sex while one is simply wearing clothing. There is absolutely no pre-meditated "I want to get laid" behidn a woman dressing up.

I'm with Eilonnwy here, a woman doesn't dress up just to show off her goods for potential mates to ogle at- she may simply want to wear what she finds pleasing, comfortable, and attractive in her tastes. She is not contributing to or looking for the act of sex by wearing the clothing, she is simply expressing herself just like any man would do through style of dress.

Similarly, beauty paegant contestants or models may want to get across a 'message' by putting themselves out there on the stage and trying to look good while making a statement, but that message is not always "FUCK THE SHIT OUT OF ME." Come on, guys. Some time I am ashamed to be one of you.

I'm surprised, Watson. I agree with almost everything you wrote here, only wanting to add that hookers also must not be blamed if they are raped. They are simply selling a service.

As a female human, I should have the right to wear or not wear whatever is socially acceptable for the male humans to wear. That includes going topless. Get used to it world. My body comes with tits. Men's bodies come with visible chest hair. No big deal. I decided over 30 years ago that I had no reason or desire to wear a bra, so I don't. I don't give a shit what people think. Just like I don't give a shit whether they like my hair or not.

Here in Toronto, we have the legal right to go topless now. I'm chicken to be one of the first ones doing it, but as soon as it's not seen as any weirder than a male going topless, I'm there!!! Summers are hot you know. Should men have to wear tops to cover the very nice chests some of them have?

No one should ever get raped for their visual attractiveness. But they don't get raped because of that. It's the power trip/conquering thing that makes the rapist horny. If all women are covered head to toe to hide the body that everyone still knows they have, the rapist will still rape. It's the rapist who should be blamed, never the victim.

Some people like to say that it's the victim's fault for making the rapist too horny. Bullshit. Anyone who is too horny can wank. Problem solved if that were really the problem.

As for beauty pageants, the points in this video sum up the way I feel about things like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TdEYqOZY_E

---

1. ZOMGitsCriss is one of the most attractive people I've ever seen (intellectually) - physically she's not bad either.

2. No one's saying that wearing revealing clothing = justified rape. The general issue is that wearing revealing clothing attracts attention, both wanted and unwanted. Women who feel free enough with their bodies should know that this is something they must safeguard against. I'll make an example. My girlfriend lived by herself in Rhode Island for 2 years, and had to walk home from her job as a waitress every night. She would always watch out for groups of people or single individuals that looked like they were up to no good. If something set off an alarm, she crossed the street or took another route. She's never had an issue because she looked out for herself, and she wore miniskirts and moderately revealing clothing at her job.

This is the only thing I'm advocating - that women take account for how they look, how it can attract possibly unwanted attention, and how to make themselves ultimately safer with that knowledge.

3. Rape is bad, in any context. It isn't justifiable. Period.

[Shell B]

For some reason you continue to make strawmen of what we've said. If we'd argued that in all cases the women shares some of the blame, you'd have a very good point, but we didn't.

I believe I was addressing exactly what has been said in this thread, Adrian. Our opinion on what a strawman is must differ.

Even so, you seem to think that just because there are some cases where a woman cannot be blamed for the rape, this means that *all* cases are like this. That is a non-sequitur. Your example above simply covered the case which we'd already ignored for the obvious reasons.

Actually, that is what I think. Whether you think it is a non-sequitur or not; I stand by it. I simply used the above analogy because there seems to be a lot of forgetting that a victim is simply a victim going on here. In my mind, this is easy and rather cut and dry.

A relatively smart woman (compared to your idiot above) goes out dressed in slutty clothing, gets drunk, then decides to walk home alone without calling a taxi, and ultimately gets raped. Do you accept that part of the blame does go to her for not anticipating the scenario (which in this day and age should be something every woman thinks about) and not arranging suitable "getting home" arrangements?

Absolutely not. I will never agree that a person should accept any responsibility for being raped. As I mentioned before, rape isn't about what a person is wearing, anyway. Therefore, clothing shouldn't even be factored into a discussion on doling out blame for rape.

When I leave my front door unlocked, it simply makes it easier for a person to break in. Sure, I should have locked my door, but the person who broke in would have broken in anyway. The only difference is now I don't have to buy a new window. With rape, it's a little different. What I am wearing doesn't make it any easier for a person to rape me; they could simply cut out the crotch of my pants and panties and have done with it. I would have to recover a whole lot more than my clothing afterward, however. I say all of this because in any scenario, the rapist likely would have raped her regardless of her clothing. Furthermore, he can follow her home from wherever she was, whether she took a cab or not.

[Scented Nectar]

Tavarish, yes women often try to look good to attract sex, and so do men by the way, but no one is trying to attract nonconsentual sex. Even when they obviously are trying really hard too hard to impress the whole world with their looks, all they are trying to do is to be thought of as sexually attractive. In other words, socially approved in the attractive mate material sense. Not violent assault. Friendly offers of dates and phone numbers, yes, but rape no. That is never the intention behind wanting to look sexually attractive.

[Tiberius]

Actually, that is what I think. Whether you think it is a non-sequitur or not; I stand by it. I simply used the above analogy because there seems to be a lot of forgetting that a victim is simply a victim going on here. In my mind, this is easy and rather cut and dry.

It matters not that I think it's a non-sequitur. A non-sequitur it is. It simply does not follow that something true for some means something true for all. There are *some* cases where a murderer isn't responsible for their actions (i.e. mentally ill), but that doesn't mean *all* murderers are suddenly now not responsible for their murders.

Absolutely not. I will never agree that a person should accept any responsibility for being raped. As I mentioned before, rape isn't about what a person is wearing, anyway. Therefore, clothing shouldn't even be factored into a discussion on doling out blame for rape.

No, rape isn't about what a person is wearing, but it is a factor. The difference is quite clear. However, saying that clothing shouldn't even be factored into the discussion is ignoring the entire discussion itself. Murder isn't about the words that we speak, it's about killing people. However, words can easily be a factor that lead to a murder.

With rape, it's a little different. What I am wearing doesn't make it any easier for a person to rape me; they could simply cut out the crotch of my pants and panties and have done with it. I would have to recover a whole lot more than my clothing afterward, however. I say all of this because in any scenario, the rapist likely would have raped her regardless of her clothing. Furthermore, he can follow her home from wherever she was, whether she took a cab or not.

Again, why I said that there are far more factors other than clothing (like walking home alone). I also find your example of a rapist following a person home in a cab slightly unrealistic, especially considering there may be people she lives with, meaning the rapist wasted an entire trip.

[Eilonnwy]

I know I got very emotional about a subject, but I have cooled down and just want to post a more objective explanation of victim blaming, since a lot of you don't seem to get it and my discussion earlier didn't really highlight this method of dealing with rape victims and its social impact.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon

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.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/invuln.html

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. In fact, it is completely contradictory with facts about rape.

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]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statis...ted_States

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.

I can "do the right" things and I still have just as much chance as being raped as the next person. I'm more likely to be raped by someone I know, in my own home. Shall I live in a bubble because of that risk? 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.

Victim Blaming is a common occurrence in the media at large. I referenced Bill O'Reilly before, because he did exactly that.. There was also another instance where a rapist told his victims, "You should have locked the doors". The media was outraged, but where is the outrage when the media does just exactly that?

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. 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.

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.

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].”

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.

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, remember that the majority of rape cases are not reported. Remember that this type of victim blaming is actually used to defend rapists.

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.)

http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/Backlash.html

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.

Maybe you think I'm too emotional about this, but when a society promotes the idea that a woman is to blame for their rape, it deeply offends me. If you still think that it's okay to hold a woman at fault for their rape under certain circumstances, then we have nothing more to say. You are victim blaming, plain and simple.

[binny]

Not that one. The previous ones. That one looks scary.

LOL! The previous one was a penis tee shirt.

---

There, I put it back for you