Objectifying women

[In This Mind]

Have you read the articles yet?

Let me ask you a question, and I want you (and those like you in this thread) to answer it honestly.

Is there anything a woman could wear, any behavior she could exhibit, any place she could be, that could incite YOU* you personally, to rape** to rape her?

If your answer is yes, please seek professional help.

But if your answer is no, then you are acknowledging that rape is not about what the woman says or does, where she is located or what she is wearing, how sexy or ugly she is, so on, so forth. It is about something being wrong with certain men that lead them to commit the act of rape.

Therefore, all this 'advice' you are offering is not helpful. At all. All it leads to is the events of this article: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-06...detectives

Read it. All of it, there are several pages. Read it before you come back to this thread, as it answers your question very clearly and in great detail.



* (as in you, yourself, not a general or theoretical you)
** (actual rape, not consensual sex as part of a rape fantasy or S&M session)

[Violet]

TOO, no matter what the clothes or intentions regarding the casualness of sex being looked for, I think any touching should always wait for when it's clear the woman wants it. Even the seeker of the most casual "don't-even-know-his-name" sex doesn't want just anyone touching and groping her, only whoever it is she decides to have sex with that night.

Of course... if the woman in question is attending an orgy, she might well not give a damn

Which is why acting like the clothing matters is pure victim blaming. Glad you finally came around. Now if only the rest of the pricks would.

And victims, often being part of why the crime took place, deserve their share of the causation. To do any less is to do them a disservice.

[In This Mind]

And victims, often being part of why the crime took place, deserve their share of the causation. To do any less is to do them a disservice.

And someone is going to come along in the next few posts and say again 'but really, nobody here is actually blaming the victim!'

So, for those inclined to say that, here it is again, right there, quoted, enlarged, and in red. Victim blaming. Will you stop denying it now?

[Eilonnwy]

Eilonnwy -

Yes I think people need to calm down and not get so emotional. Ok Eilonnwy, how am I, for example, blaming the victim? How are you getting that from what I'm saying? To recap, what I'm saying is :

Right when you said she's foolish for not minimizing the risk. First, you are making the Historian's fallacy. You're assuming with your independent and hindsight view of limited facts that she has made an error that contributed to her rape. Hindsight is 20/20 is it not?

Furthermore, we have argued the point that women who are raped by being snatched off the street, is rare. That clothing has little to do with why they are taken. You have not refuted the arguments. So not only have you decided she was foolish based on your hindsight view, you've done so on rather bad information. And how is it possible that you have all the facts to make such a presumptions? Every rape is unique, there are different circumstances that apply, and as we've said repeatedly, women are most commonly raped by someone they know.

I can see how common sense would make you believe walking around at night in a miniskirt is running the risk of being raped. I really can, but it doesn't line up with the facts, and it doesn't change the fact that you are placing responsibility on the victim for the crime someone committed against her. She didn't choose to be raped, she didn't invite the rape to happen. Statistics show they have little to do with why she's raped. When a man has made the decision to commit the crime, they will find someone.

Also, back in the beginning of this thread, before you were a member, I explained "Just World Theory", which is the idea that people who have crimes committed against them did something wrong to deserve it. Essentially, people are uncomfortable with the idea of bad things happening to good people, and there being no justice for it, so people assume the victim must have done something to deserve it. Here's the entire post, I suggest you read it.

Reducing risk is reasonable when there's actual evidence to back up the claim. Seatbelts reduce the risk of death in a car crash. There's evidence to back it up. Smoking increases the risk of cancer. Evidence backs it up. Where is the evidence that not wearing sexy clothing or walking alone reduces the risk of rape? Please, In His Mind and I have asked for it, repeatedly. (Hint: The reason you cannot reduce the risk is because the negative action is being done by the person who chooses to do it, whose reasons for doing it have been proven to have nothing to do with the risks you have stubbornly stood by. The other risks such as seatbelts and smoking are the result the actions you take for actions directly happening to you. Actions you do to yourself, your fault. Actions someone does to you, not your fault )

Also, In His Mind previously pointed out some people recommend fighting back, some recommend laying down and taking it if you want to survive. Both result in the woman possibly ending up dead. Which one is right? Neither of them. If a man has decided to rape and kill you, they have decided to rape and kill you. You have no way of knowing if fighting back will save you, or if taking it will keep him from killing you.

So not only have we explained why victim blaming is wrong, why common sense does nothing to prevent that rape, we've also shown the very real consequences of the rape culture that exists today.

[In This Mind]

My great-grandfather said of a man 'well if he hadn't been flaunting it wouldn't have happened'.

The man he was referring to was named Matthew Shepherd. He statement was part of an argument for why gays should stay in the closet.

I wonder, how many of those saying 'well a woman shouldn't wear sexy clothes or travel alone' would have looked at my great-grandfather in utter disgust, if not shouted him down or even physically threatened him.

What about you, GodHead? Do you agree with my great-grandfather? Why is what he said different than what you said?

[Godhead]

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.

[Violet]

babbling

Read these, as I see no reason to repeat them:

http://whatprivilege.com/the-entitlement...do-gooder/
http://whatprivilege.com/abused-kids-can...r-parents/
http://whatprivilege.com/non-survivor-pr...d-silence/

Until you have read them, do not respond to me again. You've already demonstrated that you aren't actually reading what I write, as your latest post demonstrates. So I'll let someone else explain it to you.

Considering you've not responded to my last few, I find this demand somewhat amusing.

Because this is what you and the others are doing, right here:

"When they’re someone you know; someone very much like you. When you get that crumpled feeling in the gut that it’s only random chance it was them and not you, and your first instinct is to explain away why it happened to them (and could therefore never happen to you). "

And this is very good. Sussy Q, a five year old, puts her hand on the hot stove, and is subsequently burned. Bratty B, her friend, does not want to be burned, and therefore avoids putting her hand on the hot stove. It applies to everything... from murder (presidents used to ride their cars around town open to the air... then Frankie got shot... and now they ride around in armored cars)... to theft (Mr. Brown left his store unlocked last night and a theif made off with his money... conclusion? Lock your store at night)... to rape (Your sister goes to a party and drinks the punch... she is raped. Conclusion? Either A: don't go to parties, or B: don't drink punch, or C: both.). By this mechanism (learning from the misfortune of others), we can avoid performing the same folly ourselves. At times, we misidentify what led to their misfortune... or at other times, we fail to identify significant parts of why an event occurred... but this same mechanism keeps us from suffering many of the woes our peers have come to enjoy.

And when it's pointed out to you, your response is to call the other person nuts and try to make them into a bad person.

I am rather of the opinion... that your finding a method by which humanity thrives to be negative to it... is absolutely ludicrous.

Just like a rapist claims his victim was 'asking for it'. Same mentality.

Interestingly... sometimes they are. Very rarely, I should think 'Asking for it' is, i believe, not intended to be taken literally (except in those odd cases )... but is rather to refer to things such as "The man who drove drunk is just asking for a crash". It is through and through a colloquial suggestion (that a thing is 'asking' for a negative thing to happen to them)... one that means something along the lines of "taking a huge risk". Observe that the definition would apply to every colloquial use (such as the little man mouthing off to the big bad bully is 'asking to be punched'... or 'taking a huge risk of being punched').

Same mentality indeed... although the rapist might believe (it is from his or her perspective after all) that the 'victim' really was asking for it (in a literal sense).

And that is where the responsibility for rape lies. Not in what a woman wears, or whether she travels in herds, or whether she leaves her house at night. Those things don't 'increase her risk'. The above listed mentality is what increases her risk. That's what needs to change. That's what ultimately will lower rape.

Responsibility for an event lies across all of its causes. These causes are neither necessarily equally responsible, nor 'requiring' any recompensation for having been part of an event. But to ignore them so as to force one of them to being one's sole focus is to do the whole of the event a disservice.

Clothes can affect wether one is raped (as demonstrated by Dotard and others)... traveling in groups or failure to do so can affect wether one is raped (as further demonstrated by Dotard)... and wether or not one leaves their house at night can affect wether one is raped (as for the umpteenth time, demonstrated by Dotard). Do you know what really needs to change? The idea that one has no control over what happens to them, or their belongings, or anything. Everything is not unruled chaos. Or... perhaps it is, and everything so far noted by myself has been coincidence ^_^

Someday, perhaps, you'll grow up, and get it. But somehow, I doubt that day will be today. You'll just keep blaming me and stating I need professional help because I make you uncomfortable and point out how you are actively contributing to the high statistics of rape.

Evidently... you think some of us (likely including myself) need to grow up... but I rather am against this notion. I would much like to shrink a bit

Has anybody yet blamed you for anything? I don't think so... but I'm going to right now: I blame you for your believing a number of us somehow encourage rape. Indeed... if my interlocked fingers are the event of you blaming me for rape: you are a whole hand, at the least. Us people such as myself make up little parts of fingers, and rapes themselves occurring perhaps a finger or 2. But much of this has to do with you... your non-sequiturs connecting such things as Dotard to being a rapist, your apparent delusion that I and others are somehow contributing to "the high statistics of rape" (whatever those are ), your overactive imagination and B&W complex consistently interpreting remarks made in dissent as an attack of some form, your having been raped in the past and your (perhaps negative) counseling of 'rape victims' (conveniently not understanding that the rapist is likely themselves a victim), and some other odd complaints.

That's right... I'm blaming In This Mind for all of that. I wonder what he/she has to say for themself of this shameful event

Because this is where your mindset leads, every time:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-06...detectives

Read that article, before you respond to me. Actually read it, don't just click the link and look at the headline. Read the article. That's where your mindset leads. Every time.

I don't think I will just yet... you've not exactly encouraged me to do so. I rather believe your mindset leads to being:

---

And victims, often being part of why the crime took place, deserve their share of the causation. To do any less is to do them a disservice.

And someone is going to come along in the next few posts and say again 'but really, nobody here is actually blaming the victim!'

Indeed... it's kind of silly of them. Considering I am perhaps the only one here who would assume to do such

So, for those inclined to say that, here it is again, right there, quoted, enlarged, and in red. Victim blaming. Will you stop denying it now?

Victim blaming is not a bad thing, and indeed I find your high-strung emotions amusing to me

---

My great-grandfather said of a man 'well if he hadn't been flaunting it wouldn't have happened'.

The man he was referring to was named Matthew Shepherd. He statement was part of an argument for why gays should stay in the closet.

Does it bug you particularly that he is right?

If Mr. Matthew Shepherd had not been open about being gay: he would neither have been beaten nor killed for being such. Indeed... another open individual might have been butchered in his stead BUt Mr. Matthew Shepherd would be quite safe from this particular incident.

Amusing how that works, isn't it? I must wonder how much my very calm posts are firing you up

I wonder, how many of those saying 'well a woman shouldn't wear sexy clothes or travel alone' would have looked at my great-grandfather in utter disgust, if not shouted him down or even physically threatened him.

Well if they had looked at him in disgust, I would have been among the first to shame them.

---

---

The women in this thread, with exception of Saerules fail to understand that "safeguarding against" does not mean "wear a burlap sack" or "stay home", nor does it mean "get a man" or "it's your own fault if you don't".

Would I be blaming the victim of a car accident if I told them to put on a seatbelt?

I never said rape happens predominantly with scantily clad women, nor did I say wearing revealing clothes is an open invitation for harm. I said that wearing clothing may increase attention, both good and bad, and women who wear revealing clothing should be aware of this at the very least. That's it. Be fucking aware of your surroundings when you're the center of attention. My comment is geared towards the same thing we've been talking about for nearly 40 pages now - common sense.

Why the conversation turned to victim blaming, us v them mentality, and emotionally charged straw men is something I'll never quite understand.

---

+1 twice.

---

The women in this thread, with exception of Saerules fail to understand that "safeguarding against" does not mean "wear a burlap sack" or "stay home", nor does it mean "get a man" or "it's your own fault if you don't".

If you really have to go there, then I have to point out that Saerule's gender is female, but not her sex. There's a difference.

Furthermore, if you really really want to go there, notice how women tend to be the victims and men tend to be the perpetrators.

If I really have to go there... woman = gender, female = sex. Tavarish refered to gender, not sex.

Would I be blaming the victim of a car accident if I told them to put on a seatbelt?

Seatbelts don't cause or prevent car accidents. Your analogy is irrelevant.

Although seatbelts might not prevent crashes... wearing one can prevent one from dying in a crash or other accident. Similarly, while not wearing string bikinis might not prevent rapes... not wearing them can prevent one from 'turning on' a rapist. His analogy is not irrelevant... you are simply misinterpreting it.

I never said rape happens predominantly with scantily clad women, nor did I say wearing revealing clothes is an open invitation for harm. I said that wearing clothing may increase attention, both good and bad, and women who wear revealing clothing should be aware of this at the very least. That's it. Be fucking aware of your surroundings when you're the center of attention. My comment is geared towards the same thing we've been talking about for nearly 40 pages now - common sense.

Why the conversation turned to victim blaming, us v them mentality, and emotionally charged straw men is something I'll never quite understand.

Yeah, no. So woman who are not wearing scantily clad clothing should not be aware? Where are the statistics that show a woman's clothing has a strong correlation to rape victims?

Your common sense is flawed, I'm sorry you can't see it.

That is not what he suggests at all. With high security comes high lenience as to how aware one must be. Indeed... in some positions one can entirely negate all awareness of a particular incident occurring comfortably. You will notice that you are likely entirely unconcerned with what 'God' thinks about what you do... but the same cannot be said for the poor Christian who just committed what they see as a crime. Whereas they are quite concerned that they won't go to heaven (and perhaps are even more concerned that they will go to hell)... you don't even notice it. Why not, Ely? For the same reason that a man who has never heard of war is not concerned about the possibility... for the same reason that a rich woman with bodyguards and martial arts training is not concerned about the possibility of rape. This is because they don't see any possibility for its occurrence, and ignore it until they see reason to believe it possible.

Further, I believe that Dotard's example of a rapist having a choice between a sexy and weak looking woman in a bikini and a chicken woman is quite revealing, and negates needs for statistics. What proves that Earth will continue revolving? It's having done so for as long as we can recall... or an understanding of why it does so in the first place? I don't think it is terribly difficult to understand that such statistics as 'how many people die in car crashes while wearing a seatbelt/not wearing one' and 'how many women are raped because of their apparel/other causes' are unnecessary for anything but to show prevalence

'Common sense' is a strange notion... and I honestly don't believe anyone has it

[In This Mind]

babbling that proves he hasn't actually read any of the post he responded to nor the cited pages

Godhead, please read the articles and answer the questions.

Here is another citation for you:

http://mencanstoprape.blogspot.com/2010/...erent.html

---

I must wonder how much my very calm posts are firing you up

Why would they fire me up?

In fact, I should thank you. You have demonstrated for several people on this board exactly what is so disgusting about victim-blaming behavior. You have provided a wonderful example of why such behavior should be rejected by revealing it's true roots.

May your post stand as illumination for the others who have taken your side on just how revolting their behavior has been now that they can see it with the sugar-coated veil of 'we are just looking out for you girls' removed. Thank you for revealing the true purpose of this 'well-meaning advice', to silence and control women.

[Scented Nectar]

I see a lot of defending of the opinion that women should mind their clothing, but still no proof that women who wear sexier clothing have a higher number of rapes happen to them.

Show me your statistics, anyone.

[In This Mind]

I see a lot of defending of the opinion that women should mind their clothing, but still no proof that women who wear sexier clothing have a higher number of rapes happen to them.

Show me your statistics, anyone.

They can't and won't.

Because when you actually look at the statistics involved, they will show something very disturbing that the folks in this thread won't acknowledge.

Educating the women about sexual assault and harassment does nothing to lower the percentage of women who are the victims of sexual assault and harassment. At best, all it does is provide women the courage to report it when it does happen.

Educating the men about sexual assault and harassment does amazing things to lower the percentage of women (and of men too) who are the victims of sexual assault and harassment.

Take the workplace, for example. Making men take sexual harassment seminars and actually punishing the men who were involved in sexual harassment instead of the old-fashioned approach of telling a woman to change her behavior has helped bring down the instances of sexual harassment dramatically.