RE: Objectifying women
May 30, 2010 at 3:30 am
(This post was last modified: May 30, 2010 at 4:41 am by Violet.)
Oh, so here's where this went! Leave a few days, and forget where everything is :S
If indeed it had nothing to do with sexual attractiveness... then allow me to illustrate a point (originally made by Dotard):
I said it once before, and I will say it again:
I believe it... :S
Implied points:
Pretty girls who are raped didn't do enough to safeguard themselves.
(Edit: having problems with the quote above... no idea why, just informing) As they got raped, this is necessarily true. Perhaps they could not have done more... and STILL not done enough.
It is the responsibility of all people to not be in harmful situations when they do not want to be... having more necessarily means one must do more to protect what they have than others who have less. In example... you are the leader of a nation... it is 10 kilometers by 10... and you have 8 border policemen. If you buy more land, and suddenly your domain is 100 by 100 kilos: to maintain the level of border security, you must hire more than your 8 police.
Apply this to money. Say you have a few dozen dollars in your ghetto bank: the chance of that money being stolen is low when compared to the rest of the money in the bank. If, however... your coffers should extend to the hundreds of thousands: they are much more likely to be stolen where they are, and must be moved to a more secure (and larger) bank. Having more, once again, means that one must protect more to maintain a level of security.
Similarly, being more sexy will lead to a need for more protection for yourself. The girl who is about the size of a baby hippo is outstandingly less likely to be raped... when compared to the slender sexy Jamaican stripdancer. To have an equivalent level of security... the stripper would have to pay (money they almost certainly do not have) for it.
To quote Sirian: "Possession is nine tenths of the law, and they have established that a certain planet did not, in fact, belong to me after all, because I was unable to protect it."
This is by necessity true.
For understanding blame/responsibility/causation?
Some unnamed people who gave your post kudos are overreacting
(May 20, 2010 at 4:31 pm)Shell B Wrote:(May 20, 2010 at 4:21 pm)Saerules Wrote: Understand that sexual attractiveness is perhaps the single most important aspect of why a rape occurs...
Sorry, no. It's not even close.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/...nd-rapists
If indeed it had nothing to do with sexual attractiveness... then allow me to illustrate a point (originally made by Dotard):
I said it once before, and I will say it again:
Saerules Wrote:It is true that being sexy is not the cause of rape (Hence how non-human animals are sometimes raped, which is quite related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia a linky for you)... but it is an great part of the choice for whom to rape. It is true that riches are not the cause for theft (Here is a link to prove this: http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/story/868944.html )... but that riches are an great part of the choice of whom to steal from.
(May 20, 2010 at 4:52 pm)binny Wrote: This conversation is unbelievable.
I believe it... :S
(May 21, 2010 at 3:20 pm)Meatball Wrote: [quote='tavarish' pid='71598' dateline='1274465840']
1. Rape is wrong, but it happens
2. Pretty girls get more attention that less attractive ones - good and bad.
3. Pretty girls should do more to safeguard against negative actions taken against them due to this extra attention.
Implied points:
Pretty girls who are raped didn't do enough to safeguard themselves.
(Edit: having problems with the quote above... no idea why, just informing) As they got raped, this is necessarily true. Perhaps they could not have done more... and STILL not done enough.
Quote:It is the responsibility of pretty girls to not get raped.
It is the responsibility of all people to not be in harmful situations when they do not want to be... having more necessarily means one must do more to protect what they have than others who have less. In example... you are the leader of a nation... it is 10 kilometers by 10... and you have 8 border policemen. If you buy more land, and suddenly your domain is 100 by 100 kilos: to maintain the level of border security, you must hire more than your 8 police.
Apply this to money. Say you have a few dozen dollars in your ghetto bank: the chance of that money being stolen is low when compared to the rest of the money in the bank. If, however... your coffers should extend to the hundreds of thousands: they are much more likely to be stolen where they are, and must be moved to a more secure (and larger) bank. Having more, once again, means that one must protect more to maintain a level of security.
Similarly, being more sexy will lead to a need for more protection for yourself. The girl who is about the size of a baby hippo is outstandingly less likely to be raped... when compared to the slender sexy Jamaican stripdancer. To have an equivalent level of security... the stripper would have to pay (money they almost certainly do not have) for it.
To quote Sirian: "Possession is nine tenths of the law, and they have established that a certain planet did not, in fact, belong to me after all, because I was unable to protect it."
Quote:Pretty girls who are raped are partially to blame for failing to not get raped.
This is by necessity true.
Quote:You are a terrible person.
For understanding blame/responsibility/causation?
Some unnamed people who gave your post kudos are overreacting
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day