Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
