Objectifying women

[Autumnlicious]

Once again I feel obligated to remind our little flamefest that there is no such thing as being perfectly blameless and being perfectly responsible. However one plans to set the distribution, it is up to debate, but this whole victim blaming fiasco reeks of absolute morality.

Please refrain from making absolutist statements - it makes one look like a fool.

Criminality runs in many forms.

But it doesn't run in a vacuum.

Food for thought.

[LastPoet]

Another thing to add: Many raped women already do that, they already feel responsible for beeing raped, under many different rationalizations, and this self blaming (erroneous, of course) is a tough nut to crack by any psichologist doing victim counseling!

But lets take for the sake of argument that we start finding women responsible for rape, what is accomplished? Nothing but to add more pain and misery to an already traumatizing event! It wouldn't stop rape from occurring thats for sure, and overall we have a negative balance in our humanity, because by adding responsability you inevitably downplay the victim suffering.

Imagine yourself a father and you are on the hospital were your daughter is, all beated up because of a rape, and a guy comes to you and says: "Well I'm sorry for your daughter, damn that pervert! But she shouldn't be at those hours, in that place, dressed like that, she has a bit of responsability too!", What whould you feel then?

[Scented Nectar]

Would anyone hold a 90 pound weakling guy responsible for looking too weak and thus getting his lunch money taken? Would anyone hold a black person responsible for wearing a tall afro hairstyle and flaunting their blackness around the public since there are potential racists out there hidden among the normal people? Maybe kids should not wear baseball caps in case a plain clothed priest sees them looking too childlike when they are out and about.

The only logical way for appearance to lower one's risk of rape, is for it to mask completely whether or not a vagina is hiding beneath it. In other words, both men and women would have to wear an all-covering burka-like garment that masks general body shape as well.

If the assumption that sexy clothing increases rape is believed, then why would a tasteful secretary-style dress, makeup, etc, who a shitload of men and then some, would find more than fuckable/head-turning not also be a horrible risk factor? Many men go completely horny like crazy over respectable types of attractive looks. Your father fucked your mother, didn't he? Do you think he had to picture her in sexy clothing? Seriously, think about what you are saying about men. That they don't most of the time get horny over respectably attractive women. How many respectably attractive, plain, and even ugly women have children? That is proof that lots of men are finding them attractive enough to have an orgasm into. Are they all wearing sexy clothing?

I would like to see a statistic or research showing about sexy clothing in particular, and how much of an increase in the already-known-to-be-rare-grabbed-off-the-street-rapes it allegedly causes. If that can be shown in a way that proves it to me, I would then like to discuss whether it is reasonable to expect all women to uglify themselves in an attempt to thwart any potential rapists that might be hiding in the crowds around them.

[Purple Rabbit]

I love it when you talk about burkas, Scented Nectar. It's getting all hot over here.

Really the only thing that would excuse you from solliciting for it would be your non-existence.

[Godhead]

Eilonnwy -

If you knowingly don't attempt to do anything to minimise risk of harm, you're certainly partly responsible if harm occurs. The other share of the responsibility of course lies with the perpetrator. Note that responsibility doesn't mean fault / blame. In other words, here's what happens when a woman knowingly neglects to take responsibility for her own safety :

Blame and responsibility for the event :

Perpetrator : Victim :
Blame : 100% 0%
Responsibility : c. 50% c.50%


Blame and responsibility for oneself :

Perpetrator : Victim :
Blame : N/A N/A
Responsibility : 100% (for himself) 100% (for herself)

What the PC brigade are doing, and which is astonishingly transparent, is putting the phrase "taking responsibility" and putting inverted commas arond it to imply and insinuate that anyone who uses the phrase actually means something else (ie that the woman is to blame). They then attack that strawman. However, when one uses the phrase 'taking responsibility" it is meant literally. The PC brigade try to exploit the fact that word "responsibility" is flexible. For example, one can say "I am responsible for all of this" (meaning "it's all my fault") or, "I'll hold you responsible if it goes wrong" (meaning "I'll blame it all on you"). In other words, "responsibility" can be interchangeable with "blame". However, the word "responsibility" in itself has a different meaning, and applied to this discussion, it means "being the one whose role it is to try one's best to look after ones own safety" and "being the one who has to deal with the event, should it happen, and therefore it being in your own best intereststo try to avoid it as much as you can". That can't possibly apply to a rapist if we're talking about your safety. In terms of your safety, the responsibility of looking out for it lies with you. The rapist isn't going to do it for you. His role is to rape you. Your role is to look after yourself. If you fail to try, and you abdicate your responsibility to yourself, you're a fool.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Clearly there is a spectrum of culpability. On the one end, there is the (admittedly unlikely) scenario where a woman literally asks for it; she goes aound the back streets of the red light district with a big sign round her neck that shows an arrow pointing downwards and the words, 'Insert penis here.' I'd say that a woman who goes back drunk to a man's house and gets in his bed, whilst still having the right to say, 'No', would be more towards this end of the spectrum in terms of culpability. On the other end, there is someone who is dressed modestly, walking through a well populated central area, but still gets raped. All that she's contributed to her rape is the fact that she is outdoors, and nobody in their right mind would blame her for her rape in this situation. What I mean to say is that we can't make absolute judgements about whether a woman is culpable for her rape or not; it depends very much on the situation. We have to decide, then, whether wearing sexy clothing is on one end of the spectrum or the other, or somewhere in the middle.

[Godhead]

Omnissiunt one -

You jumped from responsibility to blame. You said : "All that she's contributed to her rape is the fact that she is outdoors, and nobody in their right mind would blame her for her rape in this situation". No I wouldn't blame her. But, as you say, she contributed to her own rape n some way. Taking responsibility means ensuring, to the best of your ability and knowledge, that you're minimising risk. It doesn't mean getting it right, it just means acknowleding the fact that it's down to you to try. I know what you meant but I'm illustrating how the word "responsibility" can be taken to meansomething it doesn't.

[Dotard]

A friend of mine fell off a bridge today. Got busted up pretty bad.

He was walking on the handrail. "Well why was he walking on the railing?" people were asking. Some even had the nerve to suggest it was his fault for walking on the handrail. How dare they suggest it was his fault.

It was 100% gravitys fault. For anyone to suggest he shouldn't have been rail walking is blaming him. He has every right to walk where he wanted without fear of gravity pulling him to the ground causing him injury.

How dare they suggest handrail walking is what caused his injuries. Statistics show a majority of falls happen in the home so there is no corrolation that suggests handrail walking increases the risk of falling. To suggest he held any responsibility for his injuries would be bullshit as gravity is 100% responsible. Even if people never rail walked people would still be victimized by gravity as if they avoided falling, gravity would just find another to pull to the ground.

Later that day I saw a woman telling her children to stay off the handrail because they may fall, as if suggesting if they did fall it would be their fault. How could they suggest this?! If they fell, responsibility and blame would be 100% the fault of gravity. What did she expect them to do? Stay off of bridges? They have every right to use bridges and walk on the handrails if they wish to without any responsibility being assigned to them if they should fall.

Gravity will always be 100% reponsible and no blame be placed on the victim of falling under any circumstance.

This is why we should all advocate removal of those signs "Stay off the handrail" posted around bridges. It leads to victim blaming and suggests removing full responsibility from gravity and assigning it to the victim. It's fall culture at it finest to suggest handrail walking may increase the likelihood of falling.

If you disagree then that only means you are a gravity sympathizer and push people off bridges or fantasize about pushing people off bridges. How are they on the handrail when you fantasize about pushing them off the bridge?

[Edwardo Piet]

You are trying as hard as you can to phrase it without saying the word 'should', instead of being honest and admitting that what you really mean to say is 'you should do this'.

What I really mean?

You are not a mind reader. I mean what I say so either actually address what I post or don't reply to me. Claiming to know my mind is ridiculous.

Yes I'm trying hard to explain. Because, as you have so clearly demonstrated once again, it's very hard indeed to explain something to someone who claims to know what I'm thinking and what I "really mean".

You've backtracked yourself right into a corner trying to claim you aren't victim blaming to the point of engaging in outright denial.

Your claim that I am in denial and that you know what I "really mean" rather than actually addressing what I said is nothing but sheer arrogance and a means of side-stepping my actual points. As I said, I backtrack and repeat myself because it's so very hard to explain something to someone who doesn't actually address what I say. You are so emotionally charged that I can say anything right and you will just side-step by arrogantly claiming to know what I "really mean", well, charming.

All I hear is my great-grandfather's voice going, 'I'm not racist, but....'

Nothing but sheer emotion behind this. Address my actual points or I'm done here.

The only 'precaution' that actually decreases risk is educating people against victim blaming.

What nonsense. A person who lives on their own or doesn't live with rapists could reduce the risk of rape by never going out. That would be utterly ridiculous and I would never suggest such a thing (nor would I ever say that a rape victim should or shouldn't take a precaution, it's up to them, as I said repeatedly in my post you ignored the points of) - but that example alone shows what nonsense that statement is. And, do you claim that a group of friends walking together are just as likely to be raped as a single person?

This has been proven over and over. The statistics support this.

It has been proven over and over that all actions rape victims take have absolutely zero influence on the probability of their assault? Where?

Utter appeal to emotion. Whether the victim's actions have any influence over the probability of being raped or not and whether it's the victim's 'fault' are two completely different things, the former is a matter of fact and the latter is a matter of morals, values. To not understand the difference due to appeal to emotion and go around claiming to know what others are thinking is irrationally + arrogance.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

@Dotard

Ehhhh...

Is that really an attempt to make some sort of sensical parallel?

Everybody knows that walking on the bridge itself is a free ticket for a lethal self induced accident.