Objectifying women

[Scented Nectar]

By the statistics, male on male violence, especially when it comes to homicide, dominates when compared to male on female violence, by sheer numbers and percentage. Even when you factor in men raping women and try comparing it to males killing other males, you'll find that the majority of men cited would more likely murder a few of their peers over raping a vulnerable woman.

Clearly, if we were to talk alertness and look at statistics as a guide, males should be more watchful.

Wow, that's quite a claim, and a new one too. I've never heard anyone try to suggest that men are more at risk of murder than women are at risk for murder and rape combined. Do you have any links or real research about this? Men should be warned that they are being murdered in such huge numbers. Cry me a river man.... I mean, come on. Since that does not appear to be actually happening, perhaps you guys are just doing a really good job of preventing it? The reality is that men have to worry about murder, and women have to worry about murder and rape.

In matters pertaining to rape, it is clear to anyone with an unclouded mind that the victim did not manage to avoid or even detect the threat displayed in the criminal(s). Does that make the victim more responsible, because they were "unlucky"? No, but if we were to unify our behavior to be more just, it would do if we were to note the conditions, the scenario, whether or not the victim suspected an event occurring, etc,. Surely you would want to establish clearly and without a shadow of a doubt who did what and the degrees of the burden of actions involved with each party - and in the majority of cases, the victim will obviously have an insignificant degree of responsibility, actions - I mean, obviously, the victim has been savagely attacked and brutalized by a thinking human predator.

Why does noting the victim's risk level come into play at all for crime blame? A high risk level does not cause the crime, it's simply the preferred target choice of all criminals, a choice that can't even be properly predicted in a consistent manner, one that is completely subjective, even if there were some reason to think of it as being a cause rather than targetted victim feature of the day, like dyed blond hair, which is preventable. And at what level does the risk become insignificant? Has a woman who chose to dye her hair to a colour considered the most sexually attractive, is she now partly responsible for any sex crime against her.

[suggestions that rape might have mitigating factors caused by the victim]
There are no circumstances in which a person can cause another person to get horny over hurting someone. Happy over hurting someone yes, but horny no. They have to have that horniness about nonconsent in them to begin with. It's not like anger/murder, where enough anger can cause a person (of either gender) to desire murdering the one they are angry at even though they don't normally desire that sort of thing.

There is give and take, at least conceptually. Risk and responsibility is everywhere and we all are bound by it.

Not when it comes to blame for crimes. Of course it's good for people to lower whatever risks to crime in general that they reasonably can, but unless that is equally brought into court about every single other crime in the world, and even then unless there is a standard to go by when assessing all victim risks, vulnerability absolutely must not be used in any blame assigning whatsoever. It's logistically impossible to assess anyways.

Let me stop you there - just because society told you to jump off a cliff, would'ya do it? You can only blame society so much until it boils down to the actors at hand, and then we're several paragraphs up.

When society is the one encouraging and condoning a behaviour, they have no right to then say she shouldn't have been doing it. Mixed messages much? That's what us women get all the time with stuff to do with sex and attractiveness. Approval and lots of good attention when we look good, but if any of the much rarer bad attention happens, then it's our fault for looking good. Lowering the risk factor by preventing oneself from looking good, is an unreasonable expectation. It's not like locking one's house door, since it's not popular public opinion that a house looks better when its doors are open. With sexual attractiveness, where do you draw which lines? I admitted earlier that I don't wear bras. Some would say that doing that is attractive and therefore will attract bad attention. But on the other hand, I don't wear make-up. Some would say that makes me look plainer and less attractive and therefore will attract less bad attention. Do those two things cancel each other out? Can they be assigned attractiveness-to-criminals values on the risk scale?

Other than that, let it be noted that I disagree with Dotards later statements, as it has the unfortunate connotation that men are merely animals, unable to control themselves within the bounds of law and society. That, I would think, would be one of the biggest crimes of all with respect to oneself. The crime of being unable to control oneself.

If it were only a matter of uncontrolled horniness, the guy could wank or meet/hire someone into whatever harmful thing makes him horny. Everyone has desires they know not to ever act on, and with some people they are sexual desires. A rapist knows that if he acts on his desires, he will be causing harm. I actually feel sorry for anyone who gets horny over non-consent but knows not to actually do it except in their imaginations. If someone actually decides their orgasm is worth more than the harm and trauma they will cause, all compassion from me is completely revoked. Uncontrollable horniness can be dealt with nonharmfully, but the decision to harm someone in order to get off is an active, voluntary one.