Rape

[Reality]

This is one I've heard being argued about for years, and I notice there are some opposing views to it. Some people reckon that when a woman gets raped, it's partly or even mostly all her fault. She gets accused of dressing "provocatively", and thus attracting men to rape her.

On this site, the article author compares a woman getting raped to a smoker who gets lung cancer, or a white man calling a black man a "nigger" and sticking his fingers up at him and then the white man getting hit.

And so it is that if women blithely disregard the real world in which they live, and simply ignore the realities out there, then they are not only behaving irresponsibly, but they should expect less sympathy, and less redress, when things go wrong.

Furthermore, despite the claims of feminists who consistently argue that women should bear no responsibility at all for sexual assaults, it is clearly the case that women, by their behaviour and by their dress, do send out messages regarding their attitudes towards sexual approaches.

http://www.angryharry.com/esWomenareSometimesPartlyResponsible.htm

I personally still think it's unfair to blame a woman for her rape. It's a horrible experience, and a woman shouldn't have to (not) dress in a certain way, just because some idiot "might" rape her.

I'm interested to see what your views are on this, and I hope that whoever votes on my poll, particularly the "Some responsibility" and the "no responsibility" options.

[nick]

I can't vote in your poll because its not quite as clear cut as that for me.

First off I would say that a woman cant be blamed for dressing to provocatively. Thats no excuse for a guy to rape and never should be used as an excuse.

The cases that are less clear to me is if a guy and a girl get drunk and end up in bed together and perhaps they're both to drunk to know what they're doing. Then in the morning the girl wakes up with this naked guy next to her and cries rape. I think in a case like that the girl has to take some of the responsibility. If the guy is sober and takes advantage of a drunken girl then thats clearly rape, but if they're both pissed then surely its equal fault?

[Requin]

Rape has been around for a thousand years and more, at least. People forget that, its not a 'new' thing.

Women in Ancient Greece and even the Iron Age and furthur back were being raped. They, I have to admit didn't wear that much clothing either. But to say that women bare part of the blame for there rape is a bit short sighted tbh.
I can see his point, some women are advertising themselves a bit, so it is 'incouraging' the rapists in some ways.

But lets be honest, a man whos a rapist is going to rape someone, skimpy clothes or not. Women in the victorian era, wore clothes that showed absolutely nothing of there own skin, they'd cover up there faces if they could off.
Women, still got raped, they were covered up head to foot, and still happened to them.

But, tbh, if in the 21st century, a young woman has been raped after walking home down an alley one night after a night out with mates. She's hurt, in mental and physical shock. She'll probably be traumatised for life, and she may even be preganant with the rapists child. Which depending on her decision, she may even have to go through with an abortion.

How is going up to her and blaming her for wearing a slightly short skirt, and that's why she got raped, going to help?
Its beyond madness, you have to look after people like that. Not go blaming them, there going to be in enough stress and trauma as it is. So its silly to do such a thing. Even if they were wearing over suggested clothing.

Don't you think?
Oh I'm not really on any of those choices in your poll. Sorry. :)

[Hyper]

In black and white of course its not the womans fault at all

However in the real world, which is not black and white..

Women/girls can't say they were not at fault even a little bit if they went through a bad neighbourhood wearing an ass-skirt

[Sage]

In black and white of course its not the womans fault at all

However in the real world, which is not black and white..

I concur. This is one of the few things that is black and white. There is no way to justify rape, ever.

[Hyper]

I concur. This is one of the few things that is black and white. There is no way to justify rape, ever.

You may do so but I never put it the way your taking it

I said it was unjustifiable, in my own way I suppose, but you can't live in the real world without having the common sense to be careful

i.e don't walk around alone in a bad neighbourhood at night

[Death]

Damn, misread the question. I don't think women actually have any responsibility over being raped for obvious reasons.

[tripolar]

Most of the time it is never the woman's fault, like the joggers in parks that are rapped that is never there fault, a freak jumped out and raped them. The only time i think its a woman's fault is when she dresses like a slut and gets real drunk then gets rapped that's it, sometimes people ask for it but most rapes are never the woman's fault.

[Bougainvillea]

Most of the time it is never the woman's fault, like the joggers in parks that are rapped that is never there fault, a freak jumped out and raped them. The only time i think its a woman's fault is when she dresses like a slut and gets real drunk then gets rapped that's it, sometimes people ask for it but most rapes are never the woman's fault.

No one deserves it.
Dressing like that isn't asking for it.
I'm sure you'd think differently if you were one of those girls.

[tripolar]

No one deserves it.
Dressing like that isn't asking for it.
I'm sure you'd think differently if you were one of those girls.

Wearing a mini skirt, then taking off my shirt wile drunk climbing on a bunch of dudes, its bound to happen. No one deserves to be raped but it can be reduced by behavior, only in that case.

[Bougainvillea]

Yeah, well taking advantage of a drunk woman instead of pushing her away or calling her a cab really shouldn't be the case.

[Spin]

First of all, rape is NOT about a guy being horny and wanting to bone. Rape is about dominating the victim and making them feel inferior. It's an absolute horrible thing. To say that a women was 'asking for it' is disgusting. So the whole 'she was wearing provocative clothing' excuse is complete BS because rape is not at all about sexual attraction. Also that excuse just shows that men clearly have no self control if a women in a tube top and mini skirt will cause them to rape her.

[growingjudy]

Of course the rapist is wrong. But he is provoked by the girl. either by her dress or if they date too much. If she undresses herself more in front of him she is really asking for it. Many times girls bring guys to court because they were raped. Most of the time they provoked him and it wasnt just a guy that came off the street. If someone left hundred dollar bills on his lawn, not many wouldnt try to take them even if there is a fence around if you think you wouldnt get punished. The robber is wrong, but the guy that leaves it is saying good bye to his money. In any case, a girl that dresses in a way that guys are going to try to get her, she is asking for trouble and if it happens she should know that she got herself into the mess. Any girl that doesnt think she is asking for trouble, should ask any guy. Sex is on the mind all the time. They are always trying to find ways when they could. a girl doesnt understand it. I just made a new thread and I want to hear what guys have on thier mind. Don't think otherwise. Protect yourself!

[Bougainvillea]

First of all, rape is NOT about a guy being horny and wanting to bone. Rape is about dominating the victim and making them feel inferior. It's an absolute horrible thing. To say that a women was 'asking for it' is disgusting. So the whole 'she was wearing provocative clothing' excuse is complete BS because rape is not at all about sexual attraction. Also that excuse just shows that men clearly have no self control if a women in a tube top and mini skirt will cause them to rape her.

THANK YOU!
Exactly what I was trying to say.

[Zephyr]

I know I've dressed a bit 'edgy' before,
But my intent was never to invite somebody to have sex,
It was a 'you look good you feel good' type of intent.
I can understand where it'd partially be a woman's fault if she were purposely leading a man on,
Even then though, those men need to learn to control their urges.
Yes, leading somebody on is wrong,
But it's even more so wrong to force them to have sex as a consequence of their behavior.
The ONLY clear consent to sex is a sober "Yes.",
Man or woman.

[Dreaming Cannibal]

To shout out my opinion.

If it's a man raping a woman, sure the woman can be at fault too for wearing provocative clothing, but the man has to have the sense of self control, you can't just fuck everyone that wear a short skirt or a low top.

if it a man raping a child
it's 100% man fault. First of all why would you want to do that to a child? You would have to be a pedophile to just think about doing a child.

And also it has to be accounted that rape is not only an act a men does to a woman, it can also happen that a woman is raping a man or same sex rape.

In an open conclusion the person raping the other is at fault for not knowing how to control him/her-self.

[Bougainvillea]

Hey Cannibal, I think you can include women in your third statement.

[Dreaming Cannibal]

Hey Cannibal, I think you can include women in your third statement.

don't you mean second?
just making sure
and yeah a woman can also rape a child. i still find it sickening

[The Killjoy]

No, there is absolutely no excuse for raping a woman, no matter how they dress. Women can wear anything they want, it isn't an invitation for men to rape them.

[Bougainvillea]

don't you mean second?
just making sure
and yeah a woman can also rape a child. i still find it sickening

Yeah, sorry.
I should of said paragraph.
And it is sickening. I've experienced it.
Yes. I was molested as a child.
It's terrifying, and absolutely nobody deserves it.

[AllThatIsLeft]

this "provokative" dressing this is soooo relative, it can't be used as an excuse to the rapist.
Each person has their own perception of how much is too much, or how little is too little.
a mini skirt that covers just enough, that i can bend over and still be fine, isn't slutty or provocative to me. though someone might disagree.

and even so, if she's coming on to u unwanted... sue her. you dont have to rape her.
so it is not their fault at all.
the rapists have options.

[Bougainvillea]

this "provokative" dressing this is soooo relative, it can't be used as an excuse to the rapist.
Each person has their own perception of how much is too much, or how little is too little.
a mini skirt that covers just enough, that i can bend over and still be fine, isn't slutty or provocative to me. though someone might disagree.

and even so, if she's coming on to u unwanted... sue her. you dont have to rape her.
so it is not their fault at all.
the rapists have options.

That they do, Paula.
Thanks :)

[Sapphire]

I'm horrified and disgusted that ao many of you are agreeing that women are at least partially to blame! It's sexist, it's putting blame on the victim of a crime (which incidentally is only attempted with this crime, not others) and by doing so it's attempting to excuse the rapist of his crime(s).

Men are not incapable of controlling themselves when they are horny or being led on. They are the ones that have the choice: to rape or to not. The women don't have the luxury of choosing and they definitely don't "ask for it" as no one wants to be raped - they just want to have a good time in the pub/club/other venue.

And as someone has already said, rape isn't about sex. It's about domination, violence and anger.
Also most rapes are actually planned and don't even occur under such circumstances as discussed thus far.

and even so, if she's coming on to u unwanted... sue her. you dont have to rape her.
so it is not their fault at all.
the rapists have options.
Agreed!

[Brilliance]

There is never an excuse for raping a woman, no matter what they are wearing. If men can't control themselves that their problem.

[Sapphire]

Of course the rapist is wrong. But he is provoked by the girl. either by her dress or if they date too much. If she undresses herself more in front of him she is really asking for it. Many times girls bring guys to court because they were raped. Most of the time they provoked him and it wasnt just a guy that came off the street. If someone left hundred dollar bills on his lawn, not many wouldnt try to take them even if there is a fence around if you think you wouldnt get punished. The robber is wrong, but the guy that leaves it is saying good bye to his money. In any case, a girl that dresses in a way that guys are going to try to get her, she is asking for trouble and if it happens she should know that she got herself into the mess. Any girl that doesnt think she is asking for trouble, should ask any guy. Sex is on the mind all the time. They are always trying to find ways when they could. a girl doesnt understand it. I just made a new thread and I want to hear what guys have on thier mind. Don't think otherwise. Protect yourself!There is nothing a woman can do to protect herself from ever being raped as there isn't a formula as to who will fall victim to it. However much you'd like to believe that acting and dressing in a certain way will render you immune, it won't. Rapists don't care if you are pretty or ugly, fat or skinny, showing lots of skin or not.

Over 80% of men who commit rape know and are known to their victims beforehand.
So what about the majority of women who are raped in situations different from the drunken and scantily clad situation?
What about the husband who one day decides that he's going to take what he wants?
What about the uncle who decides that his neice needs to be fucked and so does it for her against her objections?
What about the man alone at work with a female colleague who decides that she'd enjoy it even if she says "no"?

I find this sexist view from a female all the more disturbing!

[Reality]

Of course the rapist is wrong. But he is provoked by the girl. either by her dress or if they date too much. If she undresses herself more in front of him she is really asking for it. Many times girls bring guys to court because they were raped. Most of the time they provoked him and it wasnt just a guy that came off the street. If someone left hundred dollar bills on his lawn, not many wouldnt try to take them even if there is a fence around if you think you wouldnt get punished. The robber is wrong, but the guy that leaves it is saying good bye to his money. In any case, a girl that dresses in a way that guys are going to try to get her, she is asking for trouble and if it happens she should know that she got herself into the mess. Any girl that doesnt think she is asking for trouble, should ask any guy. Sex is on the mind all the time. They are always trying to find ways when they could. a girl doesnt understand it. I just made a new thread and I want to hear what guys have on thier mind. Don't think otherwise. Protect yourself!
k.
Well.
What about the rape victims that are young girls that are about 10, old women, and not dressed as "sluts"? Because that still happens.

As someone explained, rape is thousands of years old, and exists even in societies where it's illegal or taboo for a woman to show too much skin.

[Camazotz]

By wearing clothes that are revealing, is that an invitation to sex? Does that mean it's okay to rape a woman wearing little clothing?

Rape victims should not feel responsible for being raped. Rapists don't go out raping people because of their clothing. They do it for the sick thrill they receive.

[YourFriend]

Depends on the situation in my opinion.

[Sapphire]

Depends on the situation in my opinion.
Please explain.

[nick]

I've been worried since my earlier post that I might have been misunderstood, now I'll probably end up making it worse!

I dont condone rape at all, its disgusting and I said elsewhere recently it makes me feel ashamed to be a guy.

However sometimes the definition of what is rape can get blurred and thats where things aren't so simple. In my earlier post I used the example where both people are completely pissed. How about the case where they're both sober and both agree to have sex but then the woman changes her mind part way through. I know thats her right and I would like to think I would stop under those circumstances (although if you were right on the point of cumming that would be very difficult) but wouldnt that be a case where the woman is partly responsible for agreeing to have sex in the first place?

[Sapphire]

How about the case where they're both sober and both agree to have sex but then the woman changes her mind part way through. I know thats her right and I would like to think I would stop under those circumstances (although if you were right on the point of cumming that would be very difficult) but wouldnt that be a case where the woman is partly responsible for agreeing to have sex in the first place?
In that situation the woman needs to make it known that she no longer wants to carry on. If the man stops then that is ok. If he carries on then it is rape.

[nick]

In that situation the woman needs to make it known that she no longer wants to carry on. If the man stops then that is ok. If he carries on then it is rape.
I know thats the law, but don't you think she bears the teeniest bit of responsibility for getting into that situation in the first place?

[Sapphire]

I know thats the law, but don't you think she bears the teeniest bit of responsibility for getting into that situation in the first place?
No!
They should respect each others wishes and stop if the other says "no" - regardless of what has been said or done beforehand.

[nick]

No!
They should respect each others wishes and stop if the other says "no" - regardless of what has been said or done beforehand.
I agree they should stop. Asbolutely. But it seems a different case to agree to have sex with someone, to happily allow and probably assist in your own penetration, as opposed to just wearing a short skirt.

[Sapphire]

I agree they should stop. Asbolutely. But it seems a different case to agree to have sex with someone, to happily allow and probably assist in your own penetration, as opposed to just wearing a short skirt.
The cases are different because the man who rapes his partner after she has expressed a wish to stop and the man who rapes a scantily clad stranger are different. They are both rapists but they executed their crimes in different ways.

[nick]

The cases are different because the man who rapes his partner after she has expressed a wish to stop and the man who rapes a scantily clad stranger are different. They are both rapists but they executed their crimes in different ways.
Yes but the question in this thread is not whether rape is a crime but whether the actions of the woman (or whichever person is the victim) in anyway provokes the consequence. Agreeing to have sex, and willingly starting to have sex, kinda provokes the situation I would say. (I'm still not saying the guy shouldnt stop)

[Sapphire]

Yes but the question in this thread is not whether rape is a crime but whether the actions of the woman (or whichever person is the victim) in anyway provokes the consequence. Agreeing to have sex, and willingly starting to have sex, kinda provokes the situation I would say. (I'm still not saying the guy shouldnt stop)
I outlined why they were different because you seemed to be questioning whether the difference was not in the victims behaviour.

Agreeing to have sex with someone isn't provoking the man to rape her. Saying that it is is akin to saying that by letting someone into your house once you are provoking them to break into your house after you have told them to leave.

[nick]

I outlined why they were different because you seemed to be questioning whether the difference was not in the victims behaviour.

Agreeing to have sex with someone isn't provoking the man to rape her. Saying that it is is akin to saying that by letting someone into your house once you are provoking them to break into your house after you have told them to leave.
I hope we wont get done for fighting because its an interesting discussion. But thats a bad example because you can only break into a house from the outside. You couldn't even be done for trespass if you'd been invited into the house by the owner. Until very recently rape meant foreced penetration, which certainly wouldnt apply in the example we've been talking about.

[Sapphire]

Oh, I beg to differ:If a visitor misbehaves at any time and refuses to leave when asked to do so by someone with a right to do so (usually the landowner or a representative) then the visitor becomes a trespasser because they no longer have the landowner's permission to be there, even if they entered legally.
-- Source (http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dt/browse/law/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewcontent&sid=75920&aid=34460)And do you have evidence to collaborate that?
I ask because the law on rape has always covered anal/vaginal/oral penetration that was not consented to which does indeed cover the situation we have been discussing.

[nick]

Aw come on Carole, you know we've been discussing a case where the penetration was consented too. This is a discussion about withdrawl, not penetration

[Sapphire]

Aw come on Carole, you know we've been discussing a case where the penetration was consented too. This is a discussion about withdrawl, not penetration
Lol. If he doesn't stop and withdraw then he is still penetrating her. If he is still penetrating her after she has told him to stop then it is rape.

[marty]

no woman deserves to be raped.

However, i do think that some women consider things rape, which in fact should not be considered as rape. For instance:

A boy and a girl, both drunk, willingly have sex. Afterward..."the morning after", the woman wakes up, and realizes what she's done, so she says she was raped.

That isn't rape, she was willingly doing this sexual act. It doesn't matter that she "wouldn't have done it if she were sober"...you WEREN'T sober. it was her choice to get drunk. No one forced her to do anything. Actually..in this situation, the guy could have easily made the exact same claim.

Now, that is one example of when rape isn't really rape. When it is actually rape, the woman should not be held accountable in the slightest.

[ylllek nivyer]

why is there even a fucking debate over this? rape, TRUE rape, not that shit where the chick gets pissed and is like, well it was rape(cuz i've seen that happen) i thought it was pretty clear that it has no responsibility to the woman? that doesn't even make sense according to the definition of rape.

"rape: the crime of having sexual intercourse with a person FORCIBLY and WITHOUT CONSENT"- that came straight from my Websters New World Dictionary.

sooo, tell me what part of FORCIBLY and WITHOUT CONSENT is the victims fault?
and for those of you who might think it is even kind of thier fault, i'd like for you to face the rape victims of VT and tell them that, including me.

[Reality]

A boy and a girl, both drunk, willingly have sex. Afterward..."the morning after", the woman wakes up, and realizes what she's done, so she says she was raped.

That isn't rape, she was willingly doing this sexual act. It doesn't matter that she "wouldn't have done it if she were sober"...you WEREN'T sober. it was her choice to get drunk. No one forced her to do anything. Actually..in this situation, the guy could have easily made the exact same claim.
If the woman, however, was drunk and the man was sober and knowingly took advantage of her, it is rape because she is not in the right mind to make a good judgement on the situation.

A woman can rape a guy in the same way, too.

[marty]

notice i said "a boy and a girl, BOTH DRUNK"

[Reality]

notice i said "a boy and a girl, BOTH DRUNK"
Notice I said "however", which means I got your point. I do know how to read, mmkay.

[Sapphire]

sooo, tell me what part of FORCIBLY and WITHOUT CONSENT is the victims fault?
and for those of you who might think it is even kind of thier fault, i'd like for you to face the rape victims of VT and tell them that, including me.
Quoted for fucking truth! :)

[Modus Operandi]

Think about this: in Muslim countries(note: I'm not hating on muslims, just making an example)14-year old girls can be stoned to death for being raped by an adult male, while the male walks free. The reason? Different countries/religions have different view.
I have read some bits of the logic behind this, and it is apparantly that the girl/woman must have shown too much skin and that the man couldn't control himself. So we're right back to dressing provacitivly. But no it isn't the womans fault AT ALL.

Note: pls forgive me if this post makes no sense, extremely tired as i type

[sebbie]

Think about this: in Muslim countries(note: I'm not hating on muslims, just making an example)14-year old girls can be stoned to death for being raped by an adult male, while the male walks free. The reason? Different countries/religions have different view.



Source where you got this from, as Islamic Law dictates the punishment for rape is the death penalty for the rapist.


How about the case where they're both sober and both agree to have sex but then the woman changes her mind part way through. I know thats her right and I would like to think I would stop under those circumstances (although if you were right on the point of cumming that would be very difficult) but wouldnt that be a case where the woman is partly responsible for agreeing to have sex in the first place?


In this situation both parties are to blame, right on the point of coming a guy will be charged with hormones and pulling out is not going to be on his mind.

Also I heard that if you yell surprise and then have sec with someone its not rape, just surprise sex! [A low joke I know :P ]

[Bougainvillea]

Quoted for fucking truth! :)

Quoted for quoting the fucking truth! :)

[growingjudy]

A girl walking around naked in a nudist colony who is raped against her will is she responsible or is he?? Of course he is still 100% wrong. But when she brings him to court the judge will ask “what were you doing there?” I’m sure he will also get less of a punishment even though it was possible for him to control himself in any situation. Now take it from there. The more she reveals herself, the more she has a chance of being raped. It is true that rape is around for thousands of years. It is mentioned in the bible. It always happened. But nowadays I’m sure it is far more prevalent. I’m sure if there is a survey in countries where the girls dress better you will find much less raping. So you can safely say that she was at fault that the “wrong guy” got her. So if she goes around half nude, she should have in mind what might happen. If a little girl that wasn’t fully dressed gets raped, it might be her mother’s fault. Also even if any girl that dresses in a better way, if she hangs out in secluded places or she talks too much to a guy that she doesn’t trust, she is also somewhat at fault if it happens. It is also very possible that because the “wrong guys” are looking at the half nude girls that they can’t rape and they are having big boners and going crazy because of that they snatch anyone they can find that they can rape even someone that it not her fault at all.
By the way, I live in a community where there is a stringent dress code and we have virtually no rapes.

[Sapphire]

In this situation both parties are to blame, right on the point of coming a guy will be charged with hormones and pulling out is not going to be on his mind.Yes, it is frustrating. But it is well within a mans ability to respect the woman enough to pull out when she says "stop". Good men are more concerned about making sure that the woman is enjoying herself as well as he is and so are very willing to stop if she wants to.
A girl walking around naked in a nudist colony who is raped against her will is she responsible or is he?? Of course he is still 100% wrong. But when she brings him to court the judge will ask “what were you doing there?” I’m sure he will also get less of a punishment even though it was possible for him to control himself in any situation
Being a nudist has nothing to do with sex and so where have you got this preposterous idea from?
Now take it from there. The more she reveals herself, the more she has a chance of being raped.Where is your evidence for this?
AS I've already said over 80% of rapists in the UK rape women they already knew.
If wearing provocative clothing is such a big motivator for rape then why is it not that over 80% of male rapists attack strangers on the street?
Rapists already have the behaviour in themselves before they even commit their first sexual crime.
It is true that rape is around for thousands of years. It is mentioned in the bible. It always happened. But nowadays I’m sure it is far more prevalent. I’m sure if there is a survey in countries where the girls dress better you will find much less raping. So you can safely say that she was at fault that the “wrong guy” got her.Lol. Ok, I'm going to have to ask. Where is there any evidence to collaborate the wild claim you've just made?
So if she goes around half nude, she should have in mind what might happen. If a little girl that wasn’t fully dressed gets raped, it might be her mother’s fault.WHAT?!?!!
Child abusers already have the urges, desires and behaviour before they meet their first victim. You'll also find that child abusers are attracted to children for reasons other than their clothing.
How is any of that the parents fault?
Also even if any girl that dresses in a better way, if she hangs out in secluded places or she talks too much to a guy that she doesn’t trust, she is also somewhat at fault if it happens.And where are these women who hang around secluded areas and dark alleys on their own?
It is also very possible that because the “wrong guys” are looking at the half nude girls that they can’t rape and they are having big boners and going crazy because of that they snatch anyone they can find that they can rape even someone that it not her fault at all.Rape isn't about sex. It is about violence, anger and a will to dominate.
Rapists do not snatch and rape random women because they can't have sex with the person they want to.
By the way, I live in a community where there is a stringent dress code and we have virtually no rapes.
And how do you know that rapes aren't occurring but just not being reported/talked about?

[Reality]

A girl walking around naked in a nudist colony who is raped against her will is she responsible or is he??
He is, of course.

Of course he is still 100% wrong. But when she brings him to court the judge will ask “what were you doing there?” I’m sure he will also get less of a punishment even though it was possible for him to control himself in any situation.
That's the point. He's able to control himself. He won't (or shouldn't) get less of a punishment just because the girl happens to be a nudist, because rape is a crime. End of.

Now take it from there. The more she reveals herself, the more she has a chance of being raped. It is true that rape is around for thousands of years. It is mentioned in the bible. It always happened. But nowadays I’m sure it is far more prevalent.
Prevalent? You mean rape is more prevalent because it's being reported more?
In many communities, past and present, women aren't allowed to show so much skin, yet still get raped.

It's nothing to do with how much she "reveals herself".

I’m sure if there is a survey in countries where the girls dress better you will find much less raping.
Would you kindly show me a survey on that, then?

So you can safely say that she was at fault that the “wrong guy” got her. So if she goes around half nude, she should have in mind what might happen. If a little girl that wasn’t fully dressed gets raped, it might be her mother’s fault.
.. Are you condoning child abusers/child rapists also?

Also even if any girl that dresses in a better way, if she hangs out in secluded places or she talks too much to a guy that she doesn’t trust, she is also somewhat at fault if it happens.
Rape doesn't always happen at stereotypical places, in stereotypical situations, it happens everywhere. This is such a dull point.

It is also very possible that because the “wrong guys” are looking at the half nude girls that they can’t rape and they are having big boners and going crazy because of that they snatch anyone they can find that they can rape even someone that it not her fault at all.
Speaking as a guy myself, guys do have self-control, and shouldn't be given any excuse whatsoever for rape.

I actually can't believe you're blaming a girl for that.

By the way, I live in a community where there is a stringent dress code and we have virtually no rapes.
As Sapphire said; how do you know there's no rapes, that they're not just going reported? Many women feel unable to report it if they're raped because they're embarrassed, ashamed, etc.

[ylllek nivyer]

A girl walking around naked in a nudist colony who is raped against her will is she responsible or is he?? Of course he is still 100% wrong. But when she brings him to court the judge will ask “what were you doing there?” I’m sure he will also get less of a punishment even though it was possible for him to control himself in any situation. Now take it from there. The more she reveals herself, the more she has a chance of being raped. It is true that rape is around for thousands of years. It is mentioned in the bible. It always happened. But nowadays I’m sure it is far more prevalent. I’m sure if there is a survey in countries where the girls dress better you will find much less raping. So you can safely say that she was at fault that the “wrong guy” got her. So if she goes around half nude, she should have in mind what might happen. If a little girl that wasn’t fully dressed gets raped, it might be her mother’s fault. Also even if any girl that dresses in a better way, if she hangs out in secluded places or she talks too much to a guy that she doesn’t trust, she is also somewhat at fault if it happens. It is also very possible that because the “wrong guys” are looking at the half nude girls that they can’t rape and they are having big boners and going crazy because of that they snatch anyone they can find that they can rape even someone that it not her fault at all.
By the way, I live in a community where there is a stringent dress code and we have virtually no rapes.

that is possibly the most disgusting thing i've ever heard. so, your trying to say that women who are raped are dressing too scandalously? guess what, when I was raped, i was wearing sweats and a t-shirt. wow, how sexy, right? i think not. and girls aren't the only rape victims, you insensitve pig. little boys and grown men experience it too, everyday. you have your facts all wrong. you have no idea what your talking about. and you know what? i bet your community isn't as "perfect" as you think. and, in countries where the women can't show hardly any skin, there is still lots of rape. tons of it, because of people who think just like you.

[mosaic.]

I believe some, not all, women bear even the smallest responsibility for rape.

This is because of the situations particular women put themselves in. While it is not the victim's fault, it's hard to deny their responsibility when examining their case.

For example, rapes that occur when a person is wandering alone, at questionable hours, into perilous areas that are either secluded and/or dark.

I understand that it's not the victim's fault. However, if better safety precautions were taken, it could have been avoided. Therefore, I believe some women hold responsibility for rape.

[MykeSoBe]

Sometimes girls pressure boys to have sex with them, then, if they get caught, to not get in trouble she says she was raped. Now that's a bunch of total bullshit but mind you it does happen. Girls have as much responsibility in a rape case as much as the man. (Have you kept in mind that grown women may rape little boys? Then who gets in trouble, the boy or the lady?)

[Sapphire]

Sometimes girls pressure boys to have sex with them, then, if they get caught, to not get in trouble she says she was raped. Now that's a bunch of total bullshit but mind you it does happen.And show me cases of this happening.
I can tell you now that the number of cases like this are a very rare occurrence.
Girls have as much responsibility in a rape case as much as the man.If the man is the victim then the woman is responsible and at fault. If the woman is the victim then the man is responsible and at fault.
(Have you kept in mind that grown women may rape little boys? Then who gets in trouble, the boy or the lady?)Then it would be the woman because she is committing child sexual abuse.

[INFERNO]

I think it's not exactly fair to say women never have any responsibility or they always have responsibility over it. It depends on the actual situation. If the woman was calmly walking and then got raped then there's little responsibility on her. On the other hand, if the woman was parading around naked and going up to some men/women, then she holds more responsibility. But even in the second case I wouldn't put all the blame on her. The reason is fairly simple, the person doing the raping holds a fair amount of responsibility as he/she was the one who did the deed to the unwilling person.

I personally believe everyone is responsible for what happens to them. That being said, I don't believe they are always completely responsible but in the cases of rape, the rapee has a small amount of responsibility for it.

A girl walking around naked in a nudist colony who is raped against her will is she responsible or is he??

Both but to different degrees. The woman was responsible for parading around naked and the man was responsible for raping the naked woman who happened to be wandering around.


But when she brings him to court the judge will ask “what were you doing there?” I’m sure he will also get less of a punishment even though it was possible for him to control himself in any situation. Now take it from there. The more she reveals herself, the more she has a chance of being raped.

True, her chances do increase but that doesn't reduce the responsibility of the rapist.


It is true that rape is around for thousands of years. It is mentioned in the bible. It always happened.

Well since this debate is considering modern times, the events that took place thousands of years ago have no real relevance.


But nowadays I’m sure it is far more prevalent.

Any rationale for that? Any statistical evidence?


I’m sure if there is a survey in countries where the girls dress better you will find much less raping.

OK, let's consider that. Consider countries where women are to be covered essentially head to toe. Do you think they are rarely raped? Nope, they are raped quite a lot. There goes your argument for the clothing.


So you can safely say that she was at fault that the “wrong guy” got her. So if she goes around half nude, she should have in mind what might happen.

As said above, she should have in mind that her chances have increased but that does nothing to deflect the responsibility of the rapist.


If a little girl that wasn’t fully dressed gets raped, it might be her mother’s fault. Also even if any girl that dresses in a better way, if she hangs out in secluded places or she talks too much to a guy that she doesn’t trust, she is also somewhat at fault if it happens.

The mother would be partially at fault and so would the rapist. Depending on the age and such of the girl, then you can more accurately estimate her responsibility.


It is also very possible that because the “wrong guys” are looking at the half nude girls that they can’t rape and they are having big boners and going crazy because of that they snatch anyone they can find that they can rape even someone that it not her fault at all.

Yes that is very possible also. Unfortunately, this goes against your initial argument of the women being more properly dressed supposedly getting raped less. So why you're introducing this concept is beyond me.


By the way, I live in a community where there is a stringent dress code and we have virtually no rapes.

Either you're bullshitting or you're unaware of the amount of rapes because it is widely known that many rapes go unreported. So unless you are able to even know how many unreported rapes there are, you're bullshitting.

I highly doubt that there is a stringent dress code. It's probably the people you see and yourself included who adhere to a stringent dress code. If there indeed was such a dress code, wouldn't people be getting arrested left, right and center during the summer for wearing shorts, revealing shorts, short shirts, no shirts, etc...? Not buying that nonsense.

[Sapphire]

I think it's not exactly fair to say women never have any responsibility or they always have responsibility over it. It depends on the actual situation. If the woman was calmly walking and then got raped then there's little responsibility on her. On the other hand, if the woman was parading around naked and going up to some men/women, then she holds more responsibility. But even in the second case I wouldn't put all the blame on her. The reason is fairly simple, the person doing the raping holds a fair amount of responsibility as he/she was the one who did the deed to the unwilling person.Why are you placing responsibilty on the victim? What part of "unconsented, forced sex" leaves even a little blame and responsibility to the victim?

I personally believe everyone is responsible for what happens to them. That being said, I don't believe they are always completely responsible but in the cases of rape, the rapee has a small amount of responsibility for it.Why?
How is the wife whose husband decides one day that he's had enough of her and is going to take what he wants regardless at all responsible?
How is the female worker who gets raped by one of her male colleagues at all responsible?
How is the girl whose neighbour decides that she'll enjoy it even if she says "no" even slightly at fault?

Both but to different degrees. The woman was responsible for parading around naked and the man was responsible for raping the naked woman who happened to be wandering around.Nudists are not nudists to invite people to have sex with them. They are nudists because they feel more natural and less restricted that way. How is that inviting someone to rape you?

The mother would be partially at fault and so would the rapist. Depending on the age and such of the girl, then you can more accurately estimate her responsibility.How on earth is it the mum partly responsible?
A hot summers day with the kids running about in swim suits or dresses is very far from an invitation to rape said children.

How people can comfortably sit there and actually make excuses for rapists is beyond me...

[INFERNO]

Why are you placing responsibilty on the victim? What part of "unconsented, forced sex" leaves even a little blame and responsibility to the victim?

If the victim is parading around naked then although the sex is still unwanted, she did increase her chances and it's fairly obvious it would increase.


How is the wife whose husband decides one day that he's had enough of her and is going to take what he wants regardless at all responsible?

Because it probably wouldn't have been completely out-of-the-blue.


How is the female worker who gets raped by one of her male colleagues at all responsible?

Depends what she said, what she wore, etc... . If it was completely random, then she still has very little responsibility simply because I'm not a fan of saying someone is not responsible one bit for something they could fight through. She has a fighting chance, she so she has very little responsibility.


How is the girl whose neighbour decides that she'll enjoy it even if she says "no" even slightly at fault?

See above.


Nudists are not nudists to invite people to have sex with them. They are nudists because they feel more natural and less restricted that way. How is that inviting someone to rape you?

How is it not? It doesn't matter why you're parading around naked, if you're a woman and you're parading around naked near men, chances are higher that at least one of them wants to have sex with you. I don't really understand how you don't understand it.


How on earth is it the mum partly responsible?
A hot summers day with the kids running about in swim suits or dresses is very far from an invitation to rape said children.

I'm assuming you didn't entirely read what I was responding to. It wasn't to wearing revealing clothing, it was regarding being improperly dressed, such as letting the girl run loose stark-naked on purpose.


How people can comfortably sit there and actually make excuses for rapists is beyond me...

While I may be making some excuses for them, never once have I excused them of their actions. In all the situations I put a great deal of fault on the rapist.

[Fiending_the_freedom]

If the victim is parading around naked then although the sex is still unwanted, she did increase her chances and it's fairly obvious it would increase.


thats like saying not having a surveillance camera is asking to be robbed, and that its not 100% the robbers fault because they were "asking for it" because they didn't have a camera.

"Originally Posted by Sapphire View Post
How is the wife whose husband decides one day that he's had enough of her and is going to take what he wants regardless at all responsible?"

Because it probably wouldn't have been completely out-of-the-blue.

sorry, i got raped in my sleep by my boyfriend, because i stopped having sex with him the last two months of our relationship because i was depressed. Was i asking for it? FUCK NO. Was that out of the blue, fuck yes, why the fuck would i ever expect or ask for someone i love and trust to take advantage of me like that?

How the hell can you find a way with every situation to blame the woman?

I'm not going to stop dressing how i want to dress because i might get raped. If you had no free will what so ever, and if you did what you wanted you would be punished, would you obey? if you would, well i would never want to meet someone like you.

[Bougainvillea]

I agree with Tegan.
Every woman should be able to wear what she wants without the fear of being raped.

[INFERNO]

thats like saying not having a surveillance camera is asking to be robbed, and that its not 100% the robbers fault because they were "asking for it" because they didn't have a camera.

You're not getting it then, are you? The robber still is at fault, in fact he/she is still completely at fault. But the other party (the one who was robbed) has some blame also for not having adequate security.


sorry, i got raped in my sleep by my boyfriend, because i stopped having sex with him the last two months of our relationship because i was depressed. Was i asking for it? FUCK NO. Was that out of the blue, fuck yes, why the fuck would i ever expect or ask for someone i love and trust to take advantage of me like that?

Why would you want to be taken advantage of like that? I don't know, some people like that and some don't.


How the hell can you find a way with every situation to blame the woman?

This goes back to what I said earlier and that is that both parties probably are at fault but they may not be at fault to the same amount. So for your example your boyfriend was 100% at fault. Were you 100% at fault? No. So I'm not saying that the woman has equal fault, I'm saying that there is still very likely to be some amount of fault.


I'm not going to stop dressing how i want to dress because i might get raped.

Then that's good for you. However, if you do get raped, then your amount of fault increases. That does not lower the fault of the rapist who still is at 100%. You're not 100% at fault though.


If you had no free will what so ever, and if you did what you wanted you would be punished, would you obey? if you would, well i would never want to meet someone like you.

Questions like these I don't like because there always needs to be more description to it. If the punishment was little then sure I'd do what I wanted. If the punishment was severe such as immediate death, then it better be something very important otherwise I wouldn't do it. If it was in between, well then that speaks to what I'd do also.

[Sapphire]

If the victim is parading around naked then although the sex is still unwanted, she did increase her chances and it's fairly obvious it would increase.Rapists already have the behaviour in them though. It doesn't matter what the victim is wearing or what they look like, the rapist gets his motivation from within.

Because it probably wouldn't have been completely out-of-the-blue.Unless he beats her, how can it not be completely out of the blue?

Depends what she said, what she wore, etc... . If it was completely random, then she still has very little responsibility simply because I'm not a fan of saying someone is not responsible one bit for something they could fight through. She has a fighting chance, she so she has very little responsibility.So you are laying blame at the victims doorstep simply because you don't like saying that everyone should accept some responsibility for what they have to go through?
Is this the only reason?

How is it not? It doesn't matter why you're parading around naked, if you're a woman and you're parading around naked near men, chances are higher that at least one of them wants to have sex with you. I don't really understand how you don't understand it.Naturists walk around naked because they feel it connects them with nature.
And so what if there are people who want to have sex with you? They ask. You say no. That should be the end of it. It isn't a green light to commit rape.

I'm assuming you didn't entirely read what I was responding to. It wasn't to wearing revealing clothing, it was regarding being improperly dressed, such as letting the girl run loose stark-naked on purpose.You quoted growingjudy who had put the scenario forward and she was talking about not being fully dressed - not being completely naked - so I naturally assumed you were as well since you made no effort to clarify otherwise.

While I may be making some excuses for them, never once have I excused them of their actions. In all the situations I put a great deal of fault on the rapist.But laying blame (however small) at the feet of the victim automatically diminishes him of some of it.

You're not getting it then, are you? The robber still is at fault, in fact he/she is still completely at fault. But the other party (the one who was robbed) has some blame also for not having adequate security.How can one party be completely at fault and there still be fault on the other party's behalf? That doesn't add up.

Why would you want to be taken advantage of like that? I don't know, some people like that and some don't.Who likes it?

This goes back to what I said earlier and that is that both parties probably are at fault but they may not be at fault to the same amount. So for your example your boyfriend was 100% at fault. Were you 100% at fault? No. So I'm not saying that the woman has equal fault, I'm saying that there is still very likely to be some amount of fault.What percentage of fault are you laying at her feet?
I'm curious because after having assigned 100% onto her rapist there isn't any left to place onto her.

Then that's good for you. However, if you do get raped, then your amount of fault increases. That does not lower the fault of the rapist who still is at 100%. You're not 100% at fault though.Lol, ok your conviction that over 100% blame can be assigned is just looking incredibly stupid now.
As I have said many times before, rapists attack all sorts of women regardless of clothing, attractiveness, age, build and behaviour. They already have it within themselves to act that way long before their victim comes along.

[hereitgoes]

this pisses me off. first, i was raped when i was five. technically, it was sort of my fault, but come on. i was five an stupid. i didn't know what rape was, i didn't know what sex was, i definitely didn't know what was going on, and i thought it was my fault and i was doing something wrong.

about a month ago, my girlfriend was raped by one of her cousin's friends. she's a lesbian, mind you. she hates her body, never dresses like a slut, she doesn't even like wearing shorts or bathing suits in public. women cannot help it if they are naturally beautiful. i have not yet met a single person who doesn't love her, mostly because of her looks. she did nothing to provoke the asshole, and i swear if i ever get close to him i will kill him with my bear hands. you can blame that on me, but my girlfriend was not at fault for what happened to her.

[Bougainvillea]

How can you say at 5 YEARS OLD it was "Sorta your fault". It wasn't. At all.

[Sapphire]

this pisses me off. first, i was raped when i was five. technically, it was sort of my fault, but come on. i was five an stupid. i didn't know what rape was, i didn't know what sex was, i definitely didn't know what was going on, and i thought it was my fault and i was doing something wrong.*offers a safe hug*
Trust me, it wasn't your fault.
It's hard to come to terms with but it's the truth.

[INFERNO]

Rapists already have the behaviour in them though. It doesn't matter what the victim is wearing or what they look like, the rapist gets his motivation from within.

That may be true, however, if the rapist already has it in him/her to rape and they see someone wearing something they fancy, then whatever that thing is that fancies them increases the chances of the person being raped.


Unless he beats her, how can it not be completely out of the blue?

If the husband went about and randomly picked a certain woman for absolutely no reason other than she was a woman, then it would be out-of-the-blue. The fact that the wife probably could figure out he was getting pissed off about not getting some makes it not completely random. The exception though is if the wife is too stupid to put two-and-two together.


So you are laying blame at the victims doorstep simply because you don't like saying that everyone should accept some responsibility for what they have to go through?
Is this the only reason?

No, it's not the only reason. I blame the victim also most of the time because there's a chance that the victim did something or wore something to increase their chances. If they were raped not due to what they were wearing, not how they looked, etc... and the only reason was that they were a woman, then they have no blame on them.


Naturists walk around naked because they feel it connects them with nature.
And so what if there are people who want to have sex with you? They ask. You say no. That should be the end of it. It isn't a green light to commit rape.

It's not a green light for rape but the person is naked already. If the person wants sex and now there's a naked lady right infront of them, then it's partially her fault for being naked. It doesn't matter why she was naked.


But laying blame (however small) at the feet of the victim automatically diminishes him of some of it.

For you it does, however, I'm assuming that you're going along with the idea that blame of victim plus the blame of the rapist must equal to 100%. The problem is, I'm not adhering to this and I've outlined that already. I'm viewing both parties as separate for their blame and both of them each have a max. blame amount of 100%. It doesn't need to be 100% in both though.


Who likes it?

People like different things, some people like that, some don't. There's billions of people on the planet and you're implying that not one of those billions like that?


What percentage of fault are you laying at her feet?
I'm curious because after having assigned 100% onto her rapist there isn't any left to place onto her.

Once again, see above. When placing the blame on the rapist and the victim, I assign it independently.


Lol, ok your conviction that over 100% blame can be assigned is just looking incredibly stupid now.

See above yet again.


As I have said many times before, rapists attack all sorts of women regardless of clothing, attractiveness, age, build and behaviour. They already have it within themselves to act that way long before their victim comes along.

And I've read that many, many times already from you. I acknowledge that, however, if it doesn't matter to the rapist then why not rape the first lady he/she sees? If they don't then that implies there's something in particular they want or don't want. If the victim is wearing or has whatever the feature is, assuming it's not controllable (within reason) then it's her fault to some amount.

[The Batman]

When it comes to rape the only person at fault is the rapist. It's never your fault that you are raped, no matter what you wear, no matter what you say, and no matter the relationship with the person that is raped it is the rapist who is at fault. If a woman walks down the street half naked she has more chances of being called a slut or approached by more men than being raped. A rapist sees their victim and usually follows them for a while, gets to know their routine and attacks and it's usually someone they know. These people are just sick, sometimes it's because they've fallen in love with the victim or it could be that they get off on it.


If you want to rape someone then your mind is really fucked up and no matter what that woman is wearing, what she says, or how she acts it's your damn fault for proceeding with the act not hers.

[Fiending_the_freedom]

INFERNO you are the only person, in the four years i've been on this site that i can really say, you make me sick to my stomach, i would tell you how you bring tears to my eyes because you make me think the fact that i got raped was my fault at all, but i don't think that would matter because you are a cold hearted human. i dont see AT ALL EVER NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY HOW YOU CAN BLAME THE WOMAN IN EVERY SITUATION THAT IS PRESENTED IN FRONT OF YOU.

RAPE IS THE RAPIST TAKING WHAT HE WANTS, YOU IGNORANT STUPID, NEVER PLACED IN THE SITUATION,STUPID FUCKER.

I'm not going to play the "victim" even though I AM. you say i was "asking for it" by not having sex with my boyfriend for a while? for the record this is what you said:

"The fact that the wife probably could figure out he was getting pissed off about not getting some makes it not completely random. The exception though is if the wife is too stupid to put two-and-two together."

so your saying basically because i was SIXTEEN and stopped having sex with my boyfriend all of a sudden i should have put two and two together? and i should of realized he was pissed off about my depression, making me not having a sexual drive and stop having sex with him so him raping me shouldn't have been random and because i should have
"expected it" some of this is my fault?

[INFERNO]

When it comes to rape the only person at fault is the rapist. It's never your fault that you are raped, no matter what you wear, no matter what you say, and no matter the relationship with the person that is raped it is the rapist who is at fault. If a woman walks down the street half naked she has more chances of being called a slut or approached by more men than being raped. A rapist sees their victim and usually follows them for a while, gets to know their routine and attacks and it's usually someone they know. These people are just sick, sometimes it's because they've fallen in love with the victim or it could be that they get off on it.


If you want to rape someone then your mind is really fucked up and no matter what that woman is wearing, what she says, or how she acts it's your damn fault for proceeding with the act not hers.

Why do you put all the blame on the rapist and none on the victim? I understand that the rapist has their mind set on it already and little can be done to deter them from that, however, if the victim is wearing something that increases her chances of being raped, then isn't that then safe to say that some blame goes onto her? I understand not all the blame goes on her but there would be some amount of it that does, would it not?

The above question is not only meant to be directed at Empty Misery but also to everyone else. I'm curious as to what your reasons are when you acknowledge that her attire does increase her chances of being raped yet that does not lead to her being somewhat at fault? Is it because there is some remorse towards the victim for the act or is there another reason?

[Sapphire]

Tegan, try to calm down. He's not worth getting wound up over.

Inferno, the attire may make the woman more sexually appealing but that's hardly a green light to anyone who wants to be sexual with her. Your insistence that women basically bring rape upon themselves is not only annoying but absolutely ridiculous. You have continued to demonstrate time and time again that you don't have a proper grasp on this topic in its entirety. It's pointless carrying on until you accept that there is a side to this that you haven't been acquainted with.

I was raped 2-3 times a day, every day for 4 months. We hadn't been abstinent before this started so he wasn't sexually frustrated. It didn't matter what I wore. It didn't matter what I said. It didn't matter what I did.

Being raped automatically makes you feel responsible in some way and what every survivor has to come to terms with it that this isn't true. There isn't anyone at fault other than the rapist.

[INFERNO]

Inferno, the attire may make the woman more sexually appealing but that's hardly a green light to anyone who wants to be sexual with her. Your insistence that women basically bring rape upon themselves is not only annoying but absolutely ridiculous. You have continued to demonstrate time and time again that you don't have a proper grasp on this topic in its entirety. It's pointless carrying on until you accept that there is a side to this that you haven't been acquainted with.

If you're implying I don't have personal experience with it, well then you're right, I don't. I see that as an advantage though as it allows me to be more objective about it but at the same time you have the advantage of using personal examples that I cannot.

The issue I'm having is if wearing something increases the woman's chances of being raped (I know the rapists are going to rape no matter what but the selected victim may be influenced over their attire), then doesn't that put some blame on her? It doesn't matter why she wore whatever she wore, that's not the point, the point is she wore it and the rapist had some appeal to it.

For the instances when it truly was completely random other than the victim being chosen because she's a woman or had natural beauty regardless of her clothing then I don't put blame on her for that.


I was raped 2-3 times a day, every day for 4 months. We hadn't been abstinent before this started so he wasn't sexually frustrated. It didn't matter what I wore. It didn't matter what I said. It didn't matter what I did.

This is a good example of what I had mentioned above. If you were raped regardless of your attire and such then I put no blame on you.


Being raped automatically makes you feel responsible in some way and what every survivor has to come to terms with it that this isn't true. There isn't anyone at fault other than the rapist.

Aha, see this is what I'm not getting answers on. I know it may be more comforting to know that the attrocity that you endured was not your fault but leaving the theraputic matters aside, why do you say this? Why do you say it wasn't any bit the victim's fault? Your argument of course is that the rapist had it in them. That may be true but the problem with your argument is that the attire you wear may make the rapist find something more desirable in you. This doesn't mean that the rapist raped you because of your attire, the rapist was going to rape no matter what but what you wore made you the selection.

[Sapphire]

If you're implying I don't have personal experience with it, well then you're right, I don't. I see that as an advantage though as it allows me to be more objective about it but at the same time you have the advantage of using personal examples that I cannot.Personal experience wasn't what I was getting at. I actually meant that you are lacking in any degree of empathy with the victim. If you lack empathy with the victim then you can't have a proper understanding of this.

The issue I'm having is if wearing something increases the woman's chances of being raped (I know the rapists are going to rape no matter what but the selected victim may be influenced over their attire), then doesn't that put some blame on her? It doesn't matter why she wore whatever she wore, that's not the point, the point is she wore it and the rapist had some appeal to it.No, it doesn't. Why should her attire be used as an excuse to lay blame at her feet? That's all you are doing, looking for excuses to assign blame to her.
Men can wear what they want to wear without fear of being blamed for being raped so women should feel the same freedom.

This is a good example of what I had mentioned above. If you were raped regardless of your attire and such then I put no blame on you.How gracious of you...

Aha, see this is what I'm not getting answers on. I know it may be more comforting to know that the attrocity that you endured was not your fault but leaving the theraputic matters aside, why do you say this? Why do you say it wasn't any bit the victim's fault? Your argument of course is that the rapist had it in them. That may be true but the problem with your argument is that the attire you wear may make the rapist find something more desirable in you. This doesn't mean that the rapist raped you because of your attire, the rapist was going to rape no matter what but what you wore made you the selection.
It's not merely "more comforting" or purely therapeutic. It is fact.

I say it because it is fact.

No one asks to be raped. No one wants to be raped. No one invites rape. Clothing is very rarely the reason someone is raped. In fact, I think that vulnerability is probably the key.

[INFERNO]

Personal experience wasn't what I was getting at. I actually meant that you are lacking in any degree of empathy with the victim. If you lack empathy with the victim then you can't have a proper understanding of this.

That may be true for you, however, when you have empathy for one of the parties, you're going to be biased. You have empathy for the victim and none for the rapist.


No, it doesn't. Why should her attire be used as an excuse to lay blame at her feet? That's all you are doing, looking for excuses to assign blame to her.
Men can wear what they want to wear without fear of being blamed for being raped so women should feel the same freedom.

The same applies for men also. We were focusing on women so I didn't mention men but if you want to, then if a man wears certain attire, he increases his chances of rape. His chances of rape may be lower to begin with though.


It's not merely "more comforting" or purely therapeutic. It is fact.

I say it because it is fact.

That isn't answering the question by simply restating the exact same thing over again only now you're saying "it's now a fact because it's a fact". If it is fact, then surely you can explain why is it fact, what made it become fact, etc... . But just saying it's fact is not answering the question, it's weaseling out of answering.


No one asks to be raped. No one wants to be raped. No one invites rape. Clothing is very rarely the reason someone is raped. In fact, I think that vulnerability is probably the key.

Some people are into submission and rape-play can be the closest legal thing to rape. So, yes some people may like the idea of rape for the element of submission.

If vulnerability is the key then wouldn't the victim's appearance make them more vulnerable? Walking alone and such would also increase the vulnerability but I see no reason why appearance wouldn't also.

[Sapphire]

That may be true for you, however, when you have empathy for one of the parties, you're going to be biased. You have empathy for the victim and none for the rapist.I don't make a habit of empathising with violent criminals. There is nothing wrong with that. There is, however, something wrong with not empathising with the victim of a crime when discussing their responsibility for their misfortune.

That isn't answering the question by simply restating the exact same thing over again only now you're saying "it's now a fact because it's a fact". If it is fact, then surely you can explain why is it fact, what made it become fact, etc... . But just saying it's fact is not answering the question, it's weaseling out of answering.You never asked why it's a fact - you never even accepted it as a fact.
I will show credible support for the assertion of rape victims bearing no responsibility. Maybe you can do the same but for your point of view.

First page (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/%7Edag/lol/rapemyths.html)
Second page (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/%7Edag/lol/RapeKnow.html%5DSecond%20page)
Third page (http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/dress/#impact_tab)

Some people are into submission and rape-play can be the closest legal thing to rape. So, yes some people may like the idea of rape for the element of submission.That is not rape though. D&S play is great fun in a loving and respectful relationship. In those types of relationships both need to trust and respect each other. A line is drawn between their consented "rape-play" as you put it and genuinely unconsented acts.

If vulnerability is the key then wouldn't the victim's appearance make them more vulnerable? Walking alone and such would also increase the vulnerability but I see no reason why appearance wouldn't also.Their clothing doesn't make them appear vulnerable. Physical characteristics like build along with the situation, the relationship they have with the rapist and their demeanor are what makes them appear vulnerable or not.

[Requin]

Okay.
Just a reminder; This is a debate forum, not a place to shout at each other.
By all means debate points, just stay aware of other peoples feelings please. Think about what your saying, and how it might affect someone. So far there hasn't been a problem, there was one though, and this thread in particular is a delicate subject.

Thanks. :) Just be nice please.

[The Batman]

My mom was raped when she was around my age and she didn't dress like you are implying. I don't know all about it because she doesn't mention it, but really it's not her fault because some ass hole decided to take what he wanted from her. The only time i see the victim is a little at fault is when they are prostituting and that's only because they are selling the shit.

[INFERNO]

I don't make a habit of empathising with violent criminals. There is nothing wrong with that. There is, however, something wrong with not empathising with the victim of a crime when discussing their responsibility for their misfortune.

And why is it wrong to not empathize with the victim? I understand they've been through something rather traumatic but suppose the rapist also has been through something traumatic already. Why is it then not alright to not empathize with the victim at hand?

As for discussing their responsibility, if you do empathize with them, then you're more likely to not hold them responsible. That makes you biased towards one side yet this doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm not understanding this. It's an appeal to emotions making you subjective and not objective.


You never asked why it's a fact - you never even accepted it as a fact.

Uh... what?


I will show credible support for the assertion of rape victims bearing no responsibility. Maybe you can do the same but for your point of view.

The first link isn't supporting you, it goes against what you're saying:

Some women believe another myth — they are helpless victims.

Aside from that, the topics in that one, Myth #3 is similar to what I'm saying expect the difference is that I'm not solely blaming the victim, I'm putting lots of blame on the rapist also.

The second link doesn't work.

The third link doesn't really explain anything. It just harps on about how putting the blame completely or partially on the victim is damaging. It then gives some examples from various court cases but the argument it gives is that blaming the victim's attire is shifting the blame from the rapist and onto the victim. But the problem with this is that if the victim is wearing rather inviting clothing, then it does increase the chances of men approaching her. This even you acknowledged, however, at the same time you then say that the clothing she wears isn't to blame and so she isn't to blame.

So, some links to support my side:

LINK 1 (http://islamoscope.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/malaysian-muslims-school-uniform-encourages-rape/)
LINK 2 (http://www.backlash.com/book/rape6.html)


That is not rape though. D&S play is great fun in a loving and respectful relationship. In those types of relationships both need to trust and respect each other. A line is drawn between their consented "rape-play" as you put it and genuinely unconsented acts.

[QUOTE=Sapphire;603934]
Their clothing doesn't make them appear vulnerable. Physical characteristics like build along with the situation, the relationship they have with the rapist and their demeanor are what makes them appear vulnerable or not.

How does clothing not make them vulnerable? If the rapist wants to rape a female and he sees three women all walking alone in the dark, all three have no relationship with him and all three have the same build, tone, etc... . One of them is dressed in a nice business suit, another is dressed in clothes that barely cover her private areas and breasts, and the last one is dressed in big puffy clothing. If one of the females' clothing types is more appealing to the rapist then she's made herself more vulnerable to rape.

As I stated above, you acknowledged that dressing in revealing clothing increases the chances of men approaching her and finding her more attractive. With this in mind, how can you then say that she has no blame on herself if she was raped due to her clothing? It makes no sense at all.

[SlightlySane]

Look at it this way. Does any women ask for someone to rape her? Does any women want someone to rape her. Rape is not about how attractive a man thinks a women is it's about showing that he has power over her and control her. If there is no consent then there is no fault to the victim. They didn't want this to happen, and the way the dress is not to be a fault of their own. There should never be a chance taken because of the way you act or the clothes you wear. Rape can NEVER NEVER NEVER be the fault of the victim!!!!! They didn't do anything to put the idea of rape into the rapist's head. That thought was already there and wasn't going to go away just because a women dress in more cover.

You all need to stop being such sexist pigs. I can only imagine the reasons you think it is the fault of a victim is that you are trying to justify your own power desires...

[Bougainvillea]

He understands that. I think what he's saying is that when someone does dress like that, it's what sparks that behavior.

[INFERNO]

Does any women ask for someone to rape her? Does any women want someone to rape her.

Refer to the idea of rape-play mentioned above.


Rape is not about how attractive a man thinks a women is it's about showing that he has power over her and control her.

Agreed.


If there is no consent then there is no fault to the victim. They didn't want this to happen, and the way the dress is not to be a fault of their own. There should never be a chance taken because of the way you act or the clothes you wear. Rape can NEVER NEVER NEVER be the fault of the victim!!!!!

But here's where I'm having some problems with understanding why you say this. Why can it not be the fault of the rapist and a fault of the victim?


They didn't do anything to put the idea of rape into the rapist's head.

If you read through some of the examples given in this thread already, then you'll see that this point of yours doesn't hold up in all cases. Suppose a husband and wife are together and the husband wants sex but the wife is not willing. Eventually the husband ends up raping her. Had she been more lenient about giving him some sex then she wouldn't have been raped.


That thought was already there and wasn't going to go away just because a women dress in more cover.

Let me ask you this. If a woman wears some type of clothing and gets mens' attracted to her because of the revealing clothing, then that increases her chances of getting asked out among other things. Naturally, if the rapist already had the idea of rape in his head and now he sees someone in this revealing clothing, then the clothing nor the woman put the idea of rape into his head but they did influence his decision on who the victim would be.


You all need to stop being such sexist pigs. I can only imagine the reasons you think it is the fault of a victim is that you are trying to justify your own power desires...

This is a place of civil debate not a place to go out and toss around insults. It does you no good in your debate.

[Sapphire]

And why is it wrong to not empathize with the victim? I understand they've been through something rather traumatic but suppose the rapist also has been through something traumatic already. Why is it then not alright to not empathize with the victim at hand?It's wrong in this scenario because you are laying blame at their feet without having any idea about what their intentions, wants and feelings are/were. You can't effectively judge their portion of blame without taking any of that into consideration.

As for discussing their responsibility, if you do empathize with them, then you're more likely to not hold them responsible. That makes you biased towards one side yet this doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm not understanding this. It's an appeal to emotions making you subjective and not objective.Being able to put yourself in their shoes is essential when discussing any possible responsibility they had for their actions. It doesn't automatically make you biased.

Uh... what?You had never previously accepted that victims of rape are not responsible for it. You even went as far as to ask why I was saying that they aren't responsible. I replied saying that I said it because it was a fact. It answered the questions put to me by you: "why do you say this? Why do you say it wasn't any bit the victim's fault?"

The first link isn't supporting you, it goes against what you're saying:That applies to women who don't take any precautions. I've never stated that women shouldn't be careful when out and about because that can alert them to predators. But being careless doesn't equate to being at blame otherwise victims of muggings and the such like are also at blame for their misfortune. It can't work for one crime but not others. So tell me, how does that contradict anything I've said?

Aside from that, the topics in that one, Myth #3 is similar to what I'm saying expect the difference is that I'm not solely blaming the victim, I'm putting lots of blame on the rapist also.I gave that site because it shows that the thing you have been arguing (that women are partly to blame because of the clothes they choose to wear) is a myth and is actually recognised as NOT being a fact.

And why did you so readily by-pass this following precious gem of information?These myths are supported by a society that puts women in an inferior social position and emphasizes violence as the stereotypical masculine role. In a 1981 study of 156 tribal societies, rape was rare or unknown in 46% of them. These "rape-free" societies treated women with great respect — giving their reproductive, economic and social roles much prestige. There was also little violence of any kind in these cultures.
In contrast, 18% of the tribal societies had "rape-prone" cultures. There were high levels of violence. In addition, women were viewed as property and segregated into separate social groupsThe second link doesn't work.All you had to do was remove a small bit from the end as I entered it wrong into the post. However, I'll fix that for you:
Fixed link to second page (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/%7Edag/lol/RapeKnow.html)

The third link doesn't really explain anything. It just harps on about how putting the blame completely or partially on the victim is damaging. It then gives some examples from various court cases but the argument it gives is that blaming the victim's attire is shifting the blame from the rapist and onto the victim. But the problem with this is that if the victim is wearing rather inviting clothing, then it does increase the chances of men approaching her. This even you acknowledged, however, at the same time you then say that the clothing she wears isn't to blame and so she isn't to blame.Not only that it is damaging but also that it stems from women's subordinate position in society as a whole. This is yet another thing to contradict your argument.

While wearing certain clothes will attract more attention from members of the opposite sex, the clothes can't be deemed to invite or even to consent to sex or sexual acts. By saying that wearing these clothes increases a woman's chance of being raped you are implying that some people will see these clothes as consent or a green light to do as they will which is simply a ludicrous excuse that they will try to use for acting on selfish and violent impulse.

So, some links to support my side:

LINK 1 (http://islamoscope.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/malaysian-muslims-school-uniform-encourages-rape/)A news report on Islamic views of the effect of wearing a white blouse to school is hardly a good debating point as school blouses are not revealing in the sense that we are discussing - being able to see a blouse through a school shirt is hardly sexy. And since when has a normal school uniform been sexy anyway? What reliable source of information have their statements been based on or even supported by?
LINK 2 (http://www.backlash.com/book/rape6.html)That makes for an interesting read as he is very careful to choose and use select quotes from works which actually go against the prejudiced crap he is spurting in an attempt to make himself look more credible.
He starts off in a very biased manner by stating that "pop-feminists" (whatever they are lol) view that only men can rape. If he had looked at the female population in addition to this then he would have immediately sounded more credible. He carries on in this vein for a while and he does Susan Brownmiller a great discredit by using her work (Against Our Will) to supposedly support some of his arguments (which she most definitely doesn't do!).
I must ask, how is this a credible and reliable source?

How does clothing not make them vulnerable? If the rapist wants to rape a female and he sees three women all walking alone in the dark, all three have no relationship with him and all three have the same build, tone, etc... . One of them is dressed in a nice business suit, another is dressed in clothes that barely cover her private areas and breasts, and the last one is dressed in big puffy clothing. If one of the females' clothing types is more appealing to the rapist then she's made herself more vulnerable to rape.Do you have anything to back this up with? Anything to show that such women are more vulnerable?

As I stated above, you acknowledged that dressing in revealing clothing increases the chances of men approaching her and finding her more attractive. With this in mind, how can you then say that she has no blame on herself if she was raped due to her clothing? It makes no sense at all.I can say that because increased attention doesn't mean that they are more likely to get raped than another woman who is more covered up.
I'm actually going to quote you in support of what I've just said.
OK, let's consider that. Consider countries where women are to be covered essentially head to toe. Do you think they are rarely raped? Nope, they are raped quite a lot. There goes your argument for the clothing.


Nice contradiction there btw, don't you think?

Look at it this way. Does any women ask for someone to rape her? Does any women want someone to rape her. Rape is not about how attractive a man thinks a women is it's about showing that he has power over her and control her. If there is no consent then there is no fault to the victim. They didn't want this to happen, and the way the dress is not to be a fault of their own. There should never be a chance taken because of the way you act or the clothes you wear. Rape can NEVER NEVER NEVER be the fault of the victim!!!!! They didn't do anything to put the idea of rape into the rapist's head. That thought was already there and wasn't going to go away just because a women dress in more cover.QFT

Refer to the idea of rape-play mentioned above.Was my response (see below) not enough for you?

That is not rape though. D&S play is great fun in a loving and respectful relationship. In those types of relationships both need to trust and respect each other. A line is drawn between their consented "rape-play" as you put it and genuinely unconsented acts.

Agreed.How can you agree with that and still have argued that a woman making herself more attractive to men increases her likelihood of being raped?
Doesn't make sense.

But here's where I'm having some problems with understanding why you say this. Why can it not be the fault of the rapist and a fault of the victim?Because the victim never wanted it to happen.
Why isn't this getting through to you?

If you read through some of the examples given in this thread already, then you'll see that this point of yours doesn't hold up in all cases. Suppose a husband and wife are together and the husband wants sex but the wife is not willing. Eventually the husband ends up raping her. Had she been more lenient about giving him some sex then she wouldn't have been raped.If someone doesn't want sex then they shouldn't be forced to have it. It's a basic human right. Sure, it is frustrating for the husband but he is capable of dealing with it and he isn't entitled to force her to endure a violent crime. If he can't deal with it then an agreement between them that he can have sex with another woman or separation are options. A period of abstinence isn't an excuse to commit a crime.

Let me ask you this. If a woman wears some type of clothing and gets mens' attracted to her because of the revealing clothing, then that increases her chances of getting asked out among other things. Naturally, if the rapist already had the idea of rape in his head and now he sees someone in this revealing clothing, then the clothing nor the woman put the idea of rape into his head but they did influence his decision on who the victim would be.Ok, you seem to be confused or something because this ^ right here is completely contradicted by the following and both from the same post of yours:
Rape is not about how attractive a man thinks a women is it's about showing that he has power over her and control her.Agreed.

[INFERNO]

It's wrong in this scenario because you are laying blame at their feet without having any idea about what their intentions, wants and feelings are/were. You can't effectively judge their portion of blame without taking any of that into consideration.

I don't have to empathize with them in order to figure out their intentions, wants or feelings. You can understand someone's feelings without being empathetic towards them. So you still haven't managed to answer why it is
wrong to not empathize with the victim.


Being able to put yourself in their shoes is essential when discussing any possible responsibility they had for their actions. It doesn't automatically make you biased.

There is a difference between putting yourself in their shoes and empathizing with them.


You had never previously accepted that victims of rape are not responsible for it.

Wrong. I've said this a few times already but it seems like I'll have to say it again:

If they were raped not due to what they were wearing, not how they looked, etc... and the only reason was that they were a woman, then they have no blame on them.


You even went as far as to ask why I was saying that they aren't responsible. I replied saying that I said it because it was a fact. It answered the questions put to me by you: "why do you say this? Why do you say it wasn't any bit the victim's fault?"

LOL, you're actually considering your answer of "it is fact" to be a real answer? I know you're able to debate quite well and I know you can do more than say it is fact. Saying it is fact doesn't do anything, give a better answer otherwise it shows you cannot explain your stance.


That applies to women who don't take any precautions. I've never stated that women shouldn't be careful when out and about because that can alert them to predators. But being careless doesn't equate to being at blame otherwise victims of muggings and the such like are also at blame for their misfortune. It can't work for one crime but not others. So tell me, how does that contradict anything I've said?

No I'm pretty sure it doesn't as it says they believe (which you are also believing) that they are helpless victims. The part after that describes some ways to reduce the chances of being raped but that doesn't imply that being a helpless victim means you're careless.


I gave that site because it shows that the thing you have been arguing (that women are partly to blame because of the clothes they choose to wear) is a myth and is actually recognised as NOT being a fact.

I never said it was fact. It was my opinion and opinions are not facts.


And why did you so readily by-pass this following precious gem of
information?

Because I failed to see what the importance was of this precious gem of information in this debate. If it was intended to suggest I adhere to the beliefs in the "rape-prone" cultures, then you're mistaken.


All you had to do was remove a small bit from the end as I entered it wrong into the post. However, I'll fix that for you:
Fixed link to second page (http://virgil.azwestern.edu/%7Edag/lol/RapeKnow.html)

The second question is the one that closely resembles this debate. HOWEVER, I have not once said that the women were asking to be raped, so I do not understand why you provide information stating that they don't ask for that. As for the other points from that page, they are useful but don't pertain to the debate at hand.


Not only that it is damaging but also that it stems from women's subordinate position in society as a whole. This is yet another thing to contradict your argument.

Would you mind explaining how it contradicts my argument?


While wearing certain clothes will attract more attention from members of the opposite sex, the clothes can't be deemed to invite or even to consent to sex or sexual acts. By saying that wearing these clothes increases a woman's chance of being raped you are implying that some people will see these clothes as consent or a green light to do as they will which is simply a ludicrous excuse that they will try to use for acting on selfish and violent impulse.

Really? So a man (regardless if he plans to rape or not) wouldn't get attracted to a woman due in part to her revealing clothing? That is what you're implying and I have a hard time believing you for this.


A news report on Islamic views of the effect of wearing a white blouse to school is hardly a good debating point as school blouses are not revealing in the sense that we are discussing - being able to see a blouse through a school shirt is hardly sexy. And since when has a normal school uniform been sexy anyway? What reliable source of information have their statements been based on or even supported by?

It may not be sexy for you but I would bet that many others would find it appealing. As for the school uniform, CLICK HERE (http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/dictionary/Schoolgirl_uniform_fetish/). Apparently, the school-girl uniform (plus the blouse) is one of the most widespread fetishes. So I think it's safe to say many people find it appealing or sexy.


That makes for an interesting read as he is very careful to choose and use select quotes from works which actually go against the prejudiced crap he is spurting in an attempt to make himself look more credible.
He starts off in a very biased manner by stating that "pop-feminists" (whatever they are lol) view that only men can rape. If he had looked at the female population in addition to this then he would have immediately sounded more credible. He carries on in this vein for a while and he does Susan Brownmiller a great discredit by using her work (Against Our Will) to supposedly support some of his arguments (which she most definitely doesn't do!).
I must ask, how is this a credible and reliable source?

Because this source gives many citations, whereas the third link you gave cites only vague details from a few court room trials and nothing else. The other two you gave have no citations whatsoever of what it says other than a study that is 28 years old.

Yes the source I gave does cite from Susan Brownmiller, however, he took direct quotes from her work. Her stance may be completely different, however, if certain quotes from her work support the other side, then I see no reason why they cannot be used.


Do you have anything to back this up with? Anything to show that such women are more vulnerable?

According to THIS (http://www.massgeneral.org/children/adolescenthealth/articles/aa_adolescent_clothing.aspx) teenagers typically are wearing clothing that can be more revealing. It also shows (and you can use your own knowledge for this unless you want me to show evidence for this also) that the younger crowds tend to wear more revealing clothing than older crowds.

Bearing this in mind, according to THIS (http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm), 1 in 2 rape victims are under 18 years old and 1 in 6 are under 12 years old. Although it does not say directly, however, we can gather from our own personal experiences and from the above link, the younger crowd wears more revealing clothing and the younger crowd gets raped quite a lot.


I can say that because increased attention doesn't mean that they are more likely to get raped than another woman who is more covered up.
I'm actually going to quote you in support of what I've just said.



Nice contradiction there btw, don't you think?

Actually I don't think it's a contradiction at all. I said that when they're covered head to toe they're still raped a lot. I also said that when they're wearing more revealing clothing they're raped a lot along with the above support. You're interpreting it as though I meant to say that they were raped more when they're fully clothed which I did not say.


How can you agree with that and still have argued that a woman making herself more attractive to men increases her likelihood of being raped?
Doesn't make sense.

LOL, now this is getting pathetic. You quoted me saying "agreed" to something else and to a different person yet you then just slapped it on for what you were saying. I was agreeing with someone else's definition of rape not to you. Don't try to pass such nonsense.


Because the victim never wanted it to happen.
Why isn't this getting through to you?

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this idea. I'm not blaming the victim because she wanted it to happen. I've made it clear too many times that I am not doing that yet you still persist with that idea that I am. I don't know why you persist with thinking I am.


If someone doesn't want sex then they shouldn't be forced to have it. It's a basic human right. Sure, it is frustrating for the husband but he is capable of dealing with it and he isn't entitled to force her to endure a violent crime. If he can't deal with it then an agreement between them that he can have sex with another woman or separation are options. A period of abstinence isn't an excuse to commit a crime.

So you're basically saying what you've said already that someone shouldn't rape. Job well done.


Ok, you seem to be confused or something because this ^ right here is completely contradicted by the following and both from the same post of yours:

The one who is confused is you and let me explain why: the rapist already has the idea in his head and the idea is power, control, etc... . The victim selected for her clothing or appearance is still raped so the person can have that power and control.

Oh, and thank you for showing the place where I actually said "Agreed." and I'll give you a hint, it was to someone whose username was SlightlySane and not Sapphire.

[Sapphire]

I don't have to empathize with them in order to figure out their intentions, wants or feelings. You can understand someone's feelings without being empathetic towards them. So you still haven't managed to answer why it is
wrong to not empathize with the victim.I have because I have given my opinion. According to you, giving an opinion is just as good as giving a fact in a debate...

There is a difference between putting yourself in their shoes and empathizing with them.No there isn't. empathy The ability to put one's self into the psychological frame of reference or point of view of another, to feel what another feels.
-- Source (http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/didglossary.htm#empathy)

Wrong. I've said this a few times already but it seems like I'll have to say it again:I meant in a general and all-encompassing manner, not a selective one.

LOL, you're actually considering your answer of "it is fact" to be a real answer? I know you're able to debate quite well and I know you can do more than say it is fact. Saying it is fact doesn't do anything, give a better answer otherwise it shows you cannot explain your stance.What I said answered your two questions regarding why I would say that rape victims are never responsible. I have explained the rationale behind this although, admittedly, not in the same section of the same post.

No I'm pretty sure it doesn't as it says they believe (which you are also believing) that they are helpless victims. The part after that describes some ways to reduce the chances of being raped but that doesn't imply that being a helpless victim means you're careless. I don't believe that they are helpless victims and have never stated that they are. I know that there are precautions that should be taken (i.e. not walking alone in secluded areas after dark and so on) but these precautions are there to try to alert women to possible predators and thereby protecting them a bit from such characters. They are not there to absolve women of blame should something go wrong or to lay blame at their doorstep should they go against one or all of these precautions. The same goes for victims of muggers.

I never said it was fact. It was my opinion and opinions are not facts.And the fact that your opinion has been explicitly stated as being a myth discredits it regardless of whether you asserted it as being fact or not.

Because I failed to see what the importance was of this precious gem of information in this debate. If it was intended to suggest I adhere to the beliefs in the "rape-prone" cultures, then you're mistaken.It shows that the attitudes of the community towards women are huge predictors of the occurrence of rape. It supports the fact that a woman's clothing, appearance and age are not deciding factors in whether a man rapes or not. Also it supports the fact that women aren't responsible for falling victim to rape because how can they be responsible for a rapist viewing them as lower than men?

The second question is the one that closely resembles this debate. HOWEVER, I have not once said that the women were asking to be raped, so I do not understand why you provide information stating that they don't ask for that. As for the other points from that page, they are useful but don't pertain to the debate at hand.You haven't said that in so many words. However, you have stated on numerous occasions that a woman's choice of clothing makes her more likely to be raped which is shown there to be false.

Would you mind explaining how it contradicts my argument?It contradicts your argument because it asserts that misogyny is a deciding factor in whether a rape is committed or not and that clothing is merely an excuse employed by such men.

Really? So a man (regardless if he plans to rape or not) wouldn't get attracted to a woman due in part to her revealing clothing? That is what you're implying and I have a hard time believing you for this.That is not what I said. I said (and I quote) "While wearing certain clothes will attract more attention from members of the opposite sex, the clothes can't be deemed to invite or even to consent to sex or sexual acts."
So, I have clearly stated that certain outfits are more sexually appealing to men. However, that does not shift any blame onto the victim because clothes cannot be deemed to give consent for sex or sexual acts for the woman.

It may not be sexy for you but I would bet that many others would find it appealing. As for the school uniform, CLICK HERE (http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/dictionary/Schoolgirl_uniform_fetish/). Apparently, the school-girl uniform (plus the blouse) is one of the most widespread fetishes. So I think it's safe to say many people find it appealing or sexy.A school girl uniform on an adult is hugely different to a school girl uniform on a 14 year old. Few adults will find the latter sexy and approach said 14 year old. And aren't we talking about women going out in revealing clothes? A school blouse is hardly revealing in the same sense.

Because this source gives many citations, whereas the third link you gave cites only vague details from a few court room trials and nothing else. The other two you gave have no citations whatsoever of what it says other than a study that is 28 years old.You must have missed this "Adapted from Crooks and Baur’s Our Sexuality, Brooks/Coles Publishing, 1999, pages 569-571, 579-580." (From the first one)
And "Adapted from Diana Barthlow and Mary Haskett's "Increasing Student Awareness of the Impact of Sexual Assault," The Psychology Teacher Network, September/October, 1992, pages 9-11."
(From the second one)

And btw, quantity of citations isn't the key - the quality, relevance and reliability are.

Yes the source I gave does cite from Susan Brownmiller, however, he took direct quotes from her work. Her stance may be completely different, however, if certain quotes from her work support the other side, then I see no reason why they cannot be used.There isn't a reason why they cannot be used. I am just of the opinion that he does her an injustice by including her works in that piece of writing because it provides a misrepresentation (in parts) of her works and standpoint.

According to THIS (http://www.massgeneral.org/children/adolescenthealth/articles/aa_adolescent_clothing.aspx) teenagers typically are wearing clothing that can be more revealing. It also shows (and you can use your own knowledge for this unless you want me to show evidence for this also) that the younger crowds tend to wear more revealing clothing than older crowds.It shows that teens typically wear more revealing clothes than people younger than themselves - hence the disputes between parents and teenagers over their wardrobe choices.
I'm not sure where you found in that article that people older than the teens discussed dress more reservedly. If anything, it shows that people older than themselves (pop-stars, actresses/actors etc) provide a template of styles that teenagers copy including "sexy" styles.

Bearing this in mind, according to THIS (http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm), 1 in 2 rape victims are under 18 years old and 1 in 6 are under 12 years old. Although it does not say directly, however, we can gather from our own personal experiences and from the above link, the younger crowd wears more revealing clothing and the younger crowd gets raped quite a lot.40% were under 18 actually and 15% were under 12.

Don't you think it could be that under 18 year olds are incredibly impressionalble and vulnerable that this age bracket is so frequently?
That is much more highly suggestive than the clothing of said age brackets.

Actually I don't think it's a contradiction at all. I said that when they're covered head to toe they're still raped a lot. I also said that when they're wearing more revealing clothing they're raped a lot along with the above support. You're interpreting it as though I meant to say that they were raped more when they're fully clothed which I did not say.It still demonstrates that the amount of skin a woman shows doesn't dictate how likely she is to get raped.

LOL, now this is getting pathetic. You quoted me saying "agreed" to something else and to a different person yet you then just slapped it on for what you were saying. I was agreeing with someone else's definition of rape not to you. Don't try to pass such nonsense.It doesn't matter that you said "agreed" to SlightlySane as it is an admission of agreement with the statement that rape isn't about sexual attraction but is actually about demonstrating power the rapist has over their victim. That distinctly contradicts all this chatting on you've done about how a woman's selection of more revealing attire makes her more likely to be raped because men will be more attracted to her.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this idea. I'm not blaming the victim because she wanted it to happen. I've made it clear too many times that I am not doing that yet you still persist with that idea that I am. I don't know why you persist with thinking I am.And how many times do I have to say that a choice of certain clothes is not a green light for someone to rape them.

So you're basically saying what you've said already that someone shouldn't rape. Job well done.Well, if you weren't so persistent and repetitive in your ignorant views about abstinence in a relationship and rape I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

The one who is confused is you and let me explain why: the rapist already has the idea in his head and the idea is power, control, etc... . The victim selected for her clothing or appearance is still raped so the person can have that power and control.So now you are trying to tell me that the rapist already had the urges and behaviour inside of them and that is the reason they are raping people? Well thank you very much for telling me what I've already told you.

As for the victim being chosen for their clothing/appearence, where are these women who are selected on such grounds?
As far as I can tell you haven't shown me any...

Oh, and thank you for showing the place where I actually said "Agreed." and I'll give you a hint, it was to someone whose username was SlightlySane and not Sapphire.
As I said before, it doesn't matter in the slightest who you said it to. The fact still stands that you've agreed to both sides of the argument in greater or lesser degrees.

[INFERNO]

I have because I have given my opinion. According to you, giving an opinion is just as good as giving a fact in a debate...

Would you mind quoting where in this thread I said that?


No there isn't.

Fine, you win on the debate of the definition of empathy.


I meant in a general and all-encompassing manner, not a selective one.

Well that general and all-encompassing manner isn't correct then. So I assume you'll continue on this incorrect one as you have already.


What I said answered your two questions regarding why I would say that rape victims are never responsible. I have explained the rationale behind this although, admittedly, not in the same section of the same post.

What you said to me was that is was a fact. Your links to the sources you gave don't exactly explain it either. Both you and your sources say that my view is wrong but you don't give an objective reason for it.


I don't believe that they are helpless victims and have never stated that they are.

Well when you say that the victims are not at fault at all and the rapist is completely at fault, then that does give the impression that the victims are indeed helpless.


I know that there are precautions that should be taken (i.e. not walking alone in secluded areas after dark and so on) but these precautions are there to try to alert women to possible predators and thereby protecting them a bit from such characters. They are not there to absolve women of blame should something go wrong or to lay blame at their doorstep should they go against one or all of these precautions. The same goes for victims of muggers.

We're discussing rape as in the sexual act not as in the act of stealing something.


And the fact that your opinion has been explicitly stated as being a myth discredits it regardless of whether you asserted it as being fact or not.

But the problem is it hasn't been successfully explained WHY it's incorrect in an objective way. You've said over and over as have your sources that it is incorrect but you haven't managed to explain why successfully.


It shows that the attitudes of the community towards women are huge predictors of the occurrence of rape. It supports the fact that a woman's clothing, appearance and age are not deciding factors in whether a man rapes or not. Also it supports the fact that women aren't responsible for falling victim to rape because how can they be responsible for a rapist viewing them as lower than men?

Nope, it doesn't do anything to support or go against the debate about clothing for a simple reason: it never mentions anything along those lines and yet you're now somehow introducing that into those statistics.


You haven't said that in so many words. However, you have stated on numerous occasions that a woman's choice of clothing makes her more likely to be raped which is shown there to be false.

Yes, you've shown it to be false but not WHY in an objective way. And repeating that "it is fact" isn't an successful answer.


It contradicts your argument because it asserts that misogyny is a deciding factor in whether a rape is committed or not and that clothing is merely an excuse employed by such men.

Nope it doesn't contradict it, it simply gives another possible reason for why women may be raped.


That is not what I said. I said (and I quote) "While wearing certain clothes will attract more attention from members of the opposite sex, the clothes can't be deemed to invite or even to consent to sex or sexual acts."
So, I have clearly stated that certain outfits are more sexually appealing to men. However, that does not shift any blame onto the victim because clothes cannot be deemed to give consent for sex or sexual acts for the woman.

OK I'll try to explain my rationale differently because you apparently didn't get it. You're saying that the clothes will give more attraction to the female wearing them. I'm pretty sure most men aren't going to be attracted to the female because they like the brand name of the clothing, most will be attracted because it is sexually-appealing to them. Yet somehow, with the rest of your quote, the men will be attraction yet it won't be in a sexual way. So tell me, if you see a female wearing revealing clothing, you're not attracted because she looks good, you're attracted because you like the colour of her clothing? You like the brand name of it? Doesn't make sense for most men.


A school girl uniform on an adult is hugely different to a school girl uniform on a 14 year old. Few adults will find the latter sexy and approach said 14 year old. And aren't we talking about women going out in revealing clothes? A school blouse is hardly revealing in the same sense.

Didn't you read the link I gave? The link had nothing to do with 14-year olds, it was meant for adults. I wasn't attempting to show that the adults will go for the 14-year old girl, I was showing that adults find the idea of that type of clothing attractive (in a sexual way) and if other adults wear that or something similar, then the men may find her sexually attractive. I guess I should clarify what I mean by "revealing clothing", it can include clothing in the literal sense as being revealing or in the metaphorical sense of being attractive even if it does cover a decent amount of the female wearing them.


It shows that teens typically wear more revealing clothes than people younger than themselves - hence the disputes between parents and teenagers over their wardrobe choices.
I'm not sure where you found in that article that people older than the teens discussed dress more reservedly. If anything, it shows that people older than themselves (pop-stars, actresses/actors etc) provide a template of styles that teenagers copy including "sexy" styles.

Either you are really bad at finding something obvious or you're purposely saying you cannot find and simply doddle. So, from the article:

Parents often think that their children are wearing clothes that are too tight, too loose, too short, too skimpy or too baggy. Why in the world would a male teen want his pants to hang halfway down his rear end? And how can that teen female breathe wearing pants that seem at least two sizes too tight. Teens frequently deem their parents old-fashioned and out of touch with the real world

And to support what I said above about clothing being more appealing (sexually) to the part where you tried to refute that:

Thus, a teen wearing a simple turtleneck sweater and pair of pants would probably draw far less attention than one wearing a tight, short leather skirt with a miniscule halter-top.


40% were under 18 actually and 15% were under 12.

I didn't notice that part in the link then, however, the numbers aren't terribly different.


Don't you think it could be that under 18 year olds are incredibly impressionalble and vulnerable that this age bracket is so frequently?
That is much more highly suggestive than the clothing of said age brackets.

I'll clear this part of my view up now so it doesn't get confused later on. I believe that with rape, there can be multiple reasons why a victim is raped. I certainly do believe that their age can be a very large factor from a psychological standpoint. However, the debate I'm going with is about the clothing that is worn.


It still demonstrates that the amount of skin a woman shows doesn't dictate how likely she is to get raped.

From above:
Thus, a teen wearing a simple turtleneck sweater and pair of pants would probably draw far less attention than one wearing a tight, short leather skirt with a miniscule halter-top.


It doesn't matter that you said "agreed" to SlightlySane as it is an admission of agreement with the statement that rape isn't about sexual attraction but is actually about demonstrating power the rapist has over their victim. That distinctly contradicts all this chatting on you've done about how a woman's selection of more revealing attire makes her more likely to be raped because men will be more attracted to her.

No it does matter quite a bit. You took the idea that I agreed about the definition of rape and then slapped that onto saying I agree that "rape-play" is about love and trust. When I said "agreed", that had nothing to do with "rape-play". So you quoted me saying "agreed" to something completely different than what you were talking about but you put it there anyways. Rape and "rape-play" are different.


And how many times do I have to say that a choice of certain clothes is not a green light for someone to rape them.

And how many times will I have to then say that your statement implies that certain clothes are not found to be sexually appealing? Re-read the part about the school-girl outfit fetish or other clothing fetishes as those show that people can fancy certain clothing. That immediately contradicts your statement yet somehow you don't seem to get this to sink into your head.


Well, if you weren't so persistent and repetitive in your ignorant views about abstinence in a relationship and rape I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Me and you are repeating ourselves because neither of us is fulling understanding the other.


So now you are trying to tell me that the rapist already had the urges and behaviour inside of them and that is the reason they are raping people? Well thank you very much for telling me what I've already told you.

Yes the rapist already had the urges inside of them but the urges inside are about showing power over the victim. The clothing the victim wears can hone the rapist in on her BUT the clothing is not the sole reason why the rape is occurring to her.


As for the victim being chosen for their clothing/appearence, where are these women who are selected on such grounds?
As far as I can tell you haven't shown me any...

Perhaps you should look over one of your own sources about the court cases.


As I said before, it doesn't matter in the slightest who you said it to. The fact still stands that you've agreed to both sides of the argument in greater or lesser degrees.

Yes but that is not why I'm harping on you copying the "agreed" post. I'm harping on about it because you acknowledged that it was in response to topic A but you put it in response to topic B and then said that I agreed to topic B (topic A and B are different). Going by your logic though, I should find some post of yours where you said "agreed" and simply slap that to what my view is for this debate. Seems ridiculous right, after all, it'd be for completely different topics. Well, that's exactly what you did.

[Sapphire]

Ugh, I had this all typed out and then lost it because VT had signed me out! Lol.
Rape is not about how attractive a man thinks a women is it's about showing that he has power over her and control her.
Agreed.How can you agree with that and still have argued that a woman making herself more attractive to men increases her likelihood of being raped?
Doesn't make sense.
This is how it was supposed to look like. Sorry but I had felt that it was clear that the "rape-play" bit was separate to this which it evidently wasn't.

Can you now see the huge contradiction in your argument?

Would you mind quoting where in this thread I said that?It hasn't been explicitly stated.


Fine, you win on the debate of the definition of empathy.Thank you.
So does that also mean that you acknowledge your lack of empathy with the victim is hindering you in this debate?


Well that general and all-encompassing manner isn't correct then. So I assume you'll continue on this incorrect one as you have already.How is it incorrect? Where is there reliable and valid support for victims having some blame for being raped?


What you said to me was that is was a fact. Your links to the sources you gave don't exactly explain it either. Both you and your sources say that my view is wrong but you don't give an objective reason for it.Yes, we have.
The objective reason as to why you are wrong is that is has been agreed (even by you) that rape is about exerting power and domination over another person and not about sexual attraction.
The fact that many rapes occur in communities where the women are completely covered is also objective proof that certain choices of attire do not render the wearer more likely to be raped.

Where are your objective and valid sources that support your view?

Well when you say that the victims are not at fault at all and the rapist is completely at fault, then that does give the impression that the victims are indeed helpless.It may give that impression but that is not my intention or what I've actually ever stated.

We're discussing rape as in the sexual act not as in the act of stealing something.They are both examples of when such precautions are relevant. If you are saying that women who don't follow such precautions are partly responsible for being raped then surely you apply the same apportioning of blame to victims of crimes like mugging.

But the problem is it hasn't been successfully explained WHY it's incorrect in an objective way. You've said over and over as have your sources that it is incorrect but you haven't managed to explain why successfully.I really don't want to have to repeat myself here again, but I will to prevent any further misunderstandings.

The objective reason as to why you are wrong is that is has been agreed (even by you) that rape is about exerting power and domination over another person and not about sexual attraction.
The fact that many rapes occur in communities where the women are completely covered is also objective proof that certain choices of attire do not render the wearer more likely to be raped.

Nope, it doesn't do anything to support or go against the debate about clothing for a simple reason: it never mentions anything along those lines and yet you're now somehow introducing that into those statistics.It shows that misogynistic views in communities provide support for those myths (one of which is very, very similar to your opinion) and that such communities are "rape prone". Seeing as these communities harbour attitudes towards rape similar to yours, it is very relevant. It shows us that the underlying attitudes to views like yours are more damaging than the clothing worn by the victims.

Yes, you've shown it to be false but not WHY in an objective way. And repeating that "it is fact" isn't an successful answer.I won't repeat myself a third time. I'm sure you are now clear as to the objective reasons as to why your view point is incorrect.

Nope it doesn't contradict it, it simply gives another possible reason for why women may be raped.No, it clearly asserts that misogyny is the root cause of rape and that the claim that certain types of attire can lead to women being raped is an excuse. This very clearly contradicts your assertion that clothing can inspire a rapist to attack one person over another.

OK I'll try to explain my rationale differently because you apparently didn't get it. You're saying that the clothes will give more attraction to the female wearing them. I'm pretty sure most men aren't going to be attracted to the female because they like the brand name of the clothing, most will be attracted because it is sexually-appealing to them. Yet somehow, with the rest of your quote, the men will be attraction yet it won't be in a sexual way. So tell me, if you see a female wearing revealing clothing, you're not attracted because she looks good, you're attracted because you like the colour of her clothing? You like the brand name of it? Doesn't make sense for most men.And where have I denied that certain styles of clothing attract sexual attention?
I have actually said to you "Inferno, the attire may make the woman more sexually appealing but that's hardly a green light to anyone who wants to be sexual with her."
I stand by this. A woman's clothing cannot be deemed to be her giving consent to sex - behaviour and words are what constitute as consent, not clothing. This is even more relevant if she explicitly says "no".

Didn't you read the link I gave? The link had nothing to do with 14-year olds, it was meant for adults. I wasn't attempting to show that the adults will go for the 14-year old girl, I was showing that adults find the idea of that type of clothing attractive (in a sexual way) and if other adults wear that or something similar, then the men may find her sexually attractive. I guess I should clarify what I mean by "revealing clothing", it can include clothing in the literal sense as being revealing or in the metaphorical sense of being attractive even if it does cover a decent amount of the female wearing them.I think you should read your own source again.
It is talking about Muslims who think that school kids wearing state uniforms incites rape and premarital sex.
A Malaysian group condemned the uniform worn by girls at government schools, saying it encouraged rape and pre-marital sex.No mention of adults wearing such outfits in there at all.

Either you are really bad at finding something obvious or you're purposely saying you cannot find and simply doddle. So, from the article:That quote very nicely supports the statement I made in my last post: "It shows that teens typically wear more revealing clothes than people younger than themselves - hence the disputes between parents and teenagers over their wardrobe choices."

It also clearly says that teenagers find fashion role models in people older than themselves or in materials created by people older than themselves (e.g. singers, magazine editors etc) as seen in the quote below.

And they observe what the characters in television programs and media advertisements are wearing. Further, they note the clothing worn by entertainers and pop musicians such as Britney Spears.And to support what I said above about clothing being more appealing (sexually) to the part where you tried to refute that:And where did I refute that wearing revealing clothing results in more attention from others?

I didn't notice that part in the link then, however, the numbers aren't terribly different.Ah, I've just noticed that it contains both figures - the ones you quoted (which are actually more relevant) and the ones I quoted. Sorry, my bad.

I'll clear this part of my view up now so it doesn't get confused later on. I believe that with rape, there can be multiple reasons why a victim is raped. I certainly do believe that their age can be a very large factor from a psychological standpoint. However, the debate I'm going with is about the clothing that is worn.Where are the details on the clothes that the victims in this age bracket wore?
Without those details you can't make valid or reliable conclusions as to the role their choice of clothes played in their being chosen as victims.

However, we have their ages and we all know that people of these ages are impressionable (hence the importance of trends and fads) and vulnerable. So we can clearly use this knowledge to make valid and reliable conclusions that their impressionability and vulnerability were important factors in being selected by rapists.

From above:Once again, the amount of sexual attention a person gets for dressing a certain way isn't proof that they are more likely to be raped. Nor is that quote enough to counter the fact that there are communities where women are covered from head to toe and many rapes are still committed within said community.

No it does matter quite a bit. You took the idea that I agreed about the definition of rape and then slapped that onto saying I agree that "rape-play" is about love and trust. When I said "agreed", that had nothing to do with "rape-play". So you quoted me saying "agreed" to something completely different than what you were talking about but you put it there anyways. Rape and "rape-play" are different.I hope I cleared this misunderstanding up at the beginning of this post.

Maybe you can now concentrate on explaining why you have so clearly contradicted yourself.

[antimonic]

"Some women can be blamed for having been raped!"

"No they cant, no woman WANTS to be raped!"

"Yes they do, look at Rape-Play, some women WANT to be raped!"

"But rape is UNconsented, rape-play is CONSENTED, so its NOT rape!"

"But what if she makes herself Prettier and more appealing? any responsiblility there?"

"Just because she wears a short skirt doesnt mean she WANTS to be raped!"

"But it increases her chances of being raped!"

"But she still doesnt WANT it!"

"But about when she DOES want it?"

"Then it isnt RAPE is it?"

"What if she changes her mind?"

"Then she has changed her mind and no longer WANTS it!"

"What if she changes her mind at the very last second before the guy/girl cums?"

"Any one of the people engaging should be able to stop AT ANY TIME, and with REASONABLE TIME!"

"But what about THIS case, with 1 second to go? Is that REASONABLE?"

"1 second is still more than enough time to stop sexual intercourse should it be in one of the parties wishes!"

"But what if the other party does not WISH to STOP?"

"However annoying it may be, they MUST respect the wishes of the other and STOP!"

"But surely that isnt FAIR?"

"C'est la vie!"

".........Shutup!"

"You Shutup!"

:D

[INFERNO]

Can you now see the huge contradiction in your argument?

No I don't for a simple reason. You're constantly saying that if a woman wears more revealing clothing then that won't make her more sexually attractive towards men. Yet whenever I ask this of you, you suddenly say you're not implying this. That is the big problem that somehow you seem unable to understand.


It hasn't been explicitly stated.

And has it been implied anywhere then?


Thank you.
So does that also mean that you acknowledge your lack of empathy with the victim is hindering you in this debate?

If I acknowledge that, then you'll have to acknowledge that you inability to understand your contradiction (stated above) is hindering you.


How is it incorrect? Where is there reliable and valid support for victims having some blame for being raped?

I guess you ignored the sources I gave and the last several posts I made.


Yes, we have.
The objective reason as to why you are wrong is that is has been agreed (even by you) that rape is about exerting power and domination over another person and not about sexual attraction.
The fact that many rapes occur in communities where the women are completely covered is also objective proof that certain choices of attire do not render the wearer more likely to be raped.

Yes, rape is about power and such. HOWEVER, the part where you're not understanding one bit is that the victim's clothing can increase the sexual attraction men can get from it (I've shown evidence for this in the last post already). If you agree with this then that immediately contradicts you.

The fact that women are raped while still being fully clothed doesn't serve as a contradiction towards my argument for the reason I explained already and repeating it seems to do no good for you to understand it.


Where are your objective and valid sources that support your view?

I guess the ones I gave you for some reason deem invalid and not objective suddenly.

It may give that impression but that is not my intention or what I've actually ever stated.


They are both examples of when such precautions are relevant. If you are saying that women who don't follow such precautions are partly responsible for being raped then surely you apply the same apportioning of blame to victims of crimes like mugging.

I guess the next thing you'll suggest is murder, suicide, etc... .


The objective reason as to why you are wrong is that is has been agreed (even by you) that rape is about exerting power and domination over another person and not about sexual attraction.

See above again.


The fact that many rapes occur in communities where the women are completely covered is also objective proof that certain choices of attire do not render the wearer more likely to be raped.

OK, I'll try to make it even clearer. Rapes occur when the woman is fully clothed. Rapes occur when the woman isn't fully clothed. Rapes occur when the victim is a man wearing whatever. Rapes occur whenever the precautions aren't taken. I guess you've missed the point I've said in several posts already and that is that rape can occur for numerous reasons. I'm only taking the one where it is about clothing. So if rape occurs for other reasons then that is not a contradiction nor is it a decent argument against my stance because I'm not saying it is due only to clothing.


It shows that misogynistic views in communities provide support for those myths (one of which is very, very similar to your opinion) and that such communities are "rape prone". Seeing as these communities harbour attitudes towards rape similar to yours, it is very relevant. It shows us that the underlying attitudes to views like yours are more damaging than the clothing worn by the victims.

I'm not debating whose views are more harmful, I'm debating simply why clothing can be a possible reason. Therefore, arguments about whose view is more or less harmful is completely irrelevant.

I won't repeat myself a third time. I'm sure you are now clear as to the objective reasons as to why your view point is incorrect.


No, it clearly asserts that misogyny is the root cause of rape and that the claim that certain types of attire can lead to women being raped is an excuse. This very clearly contradicts your assertion that clothing can inspire a rapist to attack one person over another.

Am I debating the root cause? No. Am I debating which reason for rape can be more damaging or is more often seen? No. Have I already said more than once that rapes can occur for numerous reasons and clothing isn't always the main cause? Yes.


I have actually said to you "Inferno, the attire may make the woman more sexually appealing but that's hardly a green light to anyone who wants to be sexual with her."

Notice the bold part. Now relate that to the first response I gave in this post. Perhaps now you can see the point I'm making and your contradiction.


I stand by this. A woman's clothing cannot be deemed to be her giving consent to sex - behaviour and words are what constitute as consent, not clothing. This is even more relevant if she explicitly says "no".

WTF? I'm not saying clothing gives her consent. I've said clearly I'm NOT saying this whenever you gave some of your sources that debunked that myth. Why do you persist on this?


I think you should read your own source again.
It is talking about Muslims who think that school kids wearing state uniforms incites rape and premarital sex.
No mention of adults wearing such outfits in there at all.

I'm aware it never mentioned the adults wearing them in that article. Amazingly, I even gave support of when if an ADULT were to wear similar clothing, then another ADULT may find that sexually appealing.


That quote very nicely supports the statement I made in my last post: "It shows that teens typically wear more revealing clothes than people younger than themselves - hence the disputes between parents and teenagers over their wardrobe choices."

It also clearly says that teenagers find fashion role models in people older than themselves or in materials created by people older than themselves (e.g. singers, magazine editors etc) as seen in the quote below.

I guess you're unable to see how the same source can support what you're saying and what I'm saying if we quote different areas.


Where are the details on the clothes that the victims in this age bracket wore?
Without those details you can't make valid or reliable conclusions as to the role their choice of clothes played in their being chosen as victims.

However, we have their ages and we all know that people of these ages are impressionable (hence the importance of trends and fads) and vulnerable. So we can clearly use this knowledge to make valid and reliable conclusions that their impressionability and vulnerability were important factors in being selected by rapists.

TEENAGERS wore those clothes. That my friend describes the age group without having to write out all the age groups in a numerical form. But if you need that, then TEENAGERS includes 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19.

I'm also really amazed at how you then suddenly (in the bold part) seem to know what those age groups are. I guess that answers your own question you posed.


Once again, the amount of sexual attention a person gets for dressing a certain way isn't proof that they are more likely to be raped.

Wait... you just acknowledged that a person's clothing can be sexually appealing. Interesting how I said that same thing earlier on. Now, if a rapist is to rape for power and such, then why not rape a lady who is a 6ft+ body-builder? Ah, I get it, the factor of how they look plays into that and the fact of clothing is part of how they look. But your stance (as explained in the first response of this post) shows how you imply that clothing musn't have anything to do with making oneself more sexually appealing. That is the contradiction on your part which you have not once been able to negotiate around.


Nor is that quote enough to counter the fact that there are communities where women are covered from head to toe and many rapes are still committed within said community.

That quote was never meant to counter that.


I hope I cleared this misunderstanding up at the beginning of this post.

Actually, your contradiction from the beginning of your post carried through to the end.


Maybe you can now concentrate on explaining why you have so clearly contradicted yourself.

The same is said for you.

[Sapphire]

Inferno, we cannot have a proper debate if it continues in this vein.

So I'm going to sum up my view concisely before I carry on with this.


Rape is not a sexual act.
It is an act of violence based on a will to exert power over another and to dominate them.
Rapists are more often than not at least acquaintances (if not friends, family or partners) with their victim.
Rapists are already effectively "programmed" to rape people before they commit their first offense.
The victim cannot be held even partially responsible because they never wanted it to happen and they never asked for it to happen.
Rape is the only crime where people try to blame the victim for their misfortune.
Victims are chosen based on their vulnerability and/or impressionability.
Victims are not chosen because of the clothes they wear.
Certain choices in attire will make a person more sexually appealing to others around them.
However, these clothes do not invite or incite rape.
Precautions are there to try to protect the women who are at risk of being raped by people outside of their social circles.
Consent can be withdrawn at any point.

Now you can see clearly where I am coming from and it is harder for you to try to twist my words.

You claim that I have contradicted myself. Please, show me where I have said that certain choices of attire won't lead to sexual attention.
I don't mean the instance when I shortened it to just "attention", I mean something which shows that I have in fact denied that clothing can have this effect.

You have agreed that rape isn't a sexual act and is in fact an act of violence and expression of power over another as shown in this quote. Rape is not about how attractive a man thinks a women is it's about showing that he has power over her and control herAgreed.You have also demonstrated that the amount of skin that a woman reveals isn't linked with her likelihood of being raped (even if it was unintentional of you to do so) which can be seen in the following.I’m sure if there is a survey in countries where the girls dress better you will find much less raping.OK, let's consider that. Consider countries where women are to be covered essentially head to toe. Do you think they are rarely raped? Nope, they are raped quite a lot. There goes your argument for the clothing.
These both directly contradict your assertion that wearing revealing clothing increases the chance that a woman will be raped and that this is enough to lay some blame at her doorstep.

You also say that you have used good, reliable and valid sources to back up your viewpoint and that I have simply overlooked them.
Good, reliable and valid sources are ones that deal with objective facts rather than subjective opinions and are directly concerned with the topic at hand (in this case rape and it's causes/contributing factors).

You have given me an article on teenagers and the importance of fashion to them (with no mention of rape), an article on some Muslims who feel that state school uniforms incite rape (with no reference to or mention of objective facts), an article based entirely on why "pop-feminists" are wrong in their approach to rape (with very little objective basis) and a list of statistics (with no reference to the choice of clothing of the victims or motives for the attack).

How are any of these good, reliable and valid to use as arguing points?

I gave you two pages written by a reputable academic which were both adapted from reputable published guides for students. They dealt with facts and separating them from commonly held myths.
The third was from a campaign run by Rape Crisis Scotland (a reputable organisation) that dealt again with separating fact from myth.

All three of these are directly relevant to what we are discussing and are based on objective facts.

We know the ages of those people included in the statistics you quoted because it gave the age brackets one in two rape victims are under age 18; one in six are under age 12 So we can clearly see that we are dealing with children and teenagers.
Now I have shown you that the ages are included, maybe you can show me how you know that these children and teenagers all wore revealing clothing?
The truth is that you have no way of knowing for certain what clothes they all wore as that information wasn't contained.
Any assumptions you make as to their attire cannot be taken as fact and so cannot be used as arguing points.

"Some women can be blamed for having been raped!"

"No they cant, no woman WANTS to be raped!"

"Yes they do, look at Rape-Play, some women WANT to be raped!"

"But rape is UNconsented, rape-play is CONSENTED, so its NOT rape!"

"But what if she makes herself Prettier and more appealing? any responsiblility there?"

"Just because she wears a short skirt doesnt mean she WANTS to be raped!"

"But it increases her chances of being raped!"

"But she still doesnt WANT it!"

"But about when she DOES want it?"

"Then it isnt RAPE is it?"

"What if she changes her mind?"

"Then she has changed her mind and no longer WANTS it!"

"What if she changes her mind at the very last second before the guy/girl cums?"

"Any one of the people engaging should be able to stop AT ANY TIME, and with REASONABLE TIME!"

"But what about THIS case, with 1 second to go? Is that REASONABLE?"

"1 second is still more than enough time to stop sexual intercourse should it be in one of the parties wishes!"

"But what if the other party does not WISH to STOP?"

"However annoying it may be, they MUST respect the wishes of the other and STOP!"

"But surely that isnt FAIR?"

"C'est la vie!"

".........Shutup!"

"You Shutup!"

:DThat does quite nicely sum up quite a bit of this debate :)

[growingjudy]

I think if we start this new thread we will get our answer:
"NEW POLL - RAPIST ONLY, Do you think that women that dress "provocatively" help cause you to do your act?"

[Sapphire]

I think if we start this new thread we will get our answer:
"NEW POLL - RAPIST ONLY, Do you think that women that dress "provocatively" help cause you to do your act?"
Lol, no we wouldn't. We would only be left with the answer you approve of - it would be incredibly biased and incorrect (as shown by my sources).

[liveyoungdiefast]

Not at all. I am a male. If I see a drugged out girl in skimpy clothing walking alone in a dark alley, do I think "I should totally rape her." Absolutely NOT.

[deadpie]

?????????????????????????????

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I think if we start this new thread we will get our answer:
"NEW POLL - RAPIST ONLY, Do you think that women that dress "provocatively" help cause you to do your act?"

Rapists don't mainly do it by how you dress but by your emotions and personality. Like if they see someone who seems weak or trashy. Allot of rapists like to take advantage of people who are also might seem to be outcasts. Mainly people everyone wouldn't listen to and people who they think might be able to hold the trauma on. I know all of this because I lived with a rapist for four years and know allot about what they pay attention for.


Any people that are talking about rape roleplay, it usually follows under two categories:

They think it's sexy.

They want to actually conquer the fear of it. I know many victims who thought if they did a rape roleplay it would help them move on with the problems. I know it sounds absolutely insane, but it's true.



And no, if someone orgasms during rape it doesn't mean they enjoy it. It's something that can't always be controlled by human nature.

I don't support rape or think it's ever ok. And all I've said may not be backed up by internet evidence, but I'm sure it's all out there. If you want me to get it I will.

[Insanity Fair]

Maybe she shouldn't have lead him on.

[deadpie]

Maybe she shouldn't have lead him on.

If the victim gets drugged then your statement doesn't work so well.

[Aspiringanonymous]

This was bumped from nearly a year ago. Feel free to start a new discussion on this topic. :locked: