Blaming the victim

[Coop83]

So there's been a fair amount of talk in the news lately about the issue of blaming the victim, especially in regards to rape cases. Some of this is due to the case of the 11 year old from Texas:

Yes, because it's obvious that 11 year old Texan girls think about nothing but sex. Retarded argument number 1.

Another thing that stoked the fires was the recent comment of a cop in Toronto saying "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized."

While women don't have a leg to stand on if they dress in low cut tops or barely there mini-skirts and they get blokes leering at them, it's not like they are wandering around with a T-Shirt on saying "rape me"

The rules are clearly defined in this case - look, but don't touch. Generally, it's regarded as rude to stare and if you have to do anything else, there are cubicles in most pubs that you can go and take 5 at, before returning to your beverage. If you're going to try and take photos, ask. You never know, you might get her number. Probably not, but it's worth a try

I'm noticing a lot of blame being placed on men as rapists and women as false accusers and I would like to point out things go both ways. Yes those statistics are higher but it doesn't change the fact some men falsely accuse women and some women rape men.

I'm not sure what the law is elsewhere in the world, but if a woman forces a man into sex, it's called sexual assault, not rape. Technically, by getting aroused, the man becomes a willing party to this, so go figure.

Rape on a man would be buggery, but that's generally not what a "female rapist" would be after, I'd think.

 

[Togs]

As Mr Minchin put it- "a woman should have the right to wear the clothes she likes".

The number of people saying "its her fault" are quite frankly morally deficient.

 

[Rienimportant]

Yeah I think I'm with you on this. I dunno if I'd say we exactly coddle the attacker (usually, there are always exceptions), but it's just sick to ever blame the victim for a sexual assault. There's no reason to ever assault someone. Sure, you can judge people for their actions or whatever, say whatever you want to say (preferably in your head though, especially if it's twisted) but that's something we can't control. But there should never be any reason to blame the victim.

....except for men in nut-slinger speedo's. They're just asking for a swift kick to the balls. But not rape. Or anything.

*Note* This poster does not advocate violence except in cases of self-defense or video games, and occasionally regarding your mega-prick sibling. Any swift kicks to the balls perpetrated against you or your loved ones were not done by this individual due to multiple experiences he has undergone and his very, very deep understanding of the pain that those attacks can cause.

Also. I hope that my joke did not take away from the seriousness of this post or general topic thread. People should not be blamed for actions that are made against them. No one deserves to get raped or assaulted in any manner, sexual or not.

 

[PhiMed]

A lot of people are equating getting raped while wearing provocative clothing to provoking someone to physically assault you by insulting them. That's not really a good comparison. Here's one I think is more apt:

If you take a really nice car and park it overnight in a poorly-lit area in a neighborhood known for its high crime rate, and leave several expensive items sitting in plain view in the seats, you don't deserve to have your car broken into.

But you're not taking any steps to prevent it.

It's not your fault that someone broke into your car. It was completely the fault of the perpetrator.

But you should've known better, and you shouldn't have advertised yourself as a target. The world is a bad place. It's scary, and it's dangerous. Why paint a target on your back? Trouble may find you anyway, but you shouldn't hand it a road map.

The value of this type of thinking is not to the victim. It's to other women who are going out late at night and are staring in the closet, trying to decide what to wear.

Also: OP, could you please tell me an instance of a man falsely accusing a woman of rape? I know you've already stated that "the statistics are higher the other way", but I don't ever recall reading a single story like that.

 

[rapidoud]

Well if blaming the victim is disgusting, then christianity is disgusting. Hypocricy sucks huh.

Somewhere along the lines of, if they're raped in the city it's there fault and they're killed, if it's outside it's the rapists fault.

 

[cobra_ky]

I never understood why the cop's statement was so outrageous... oh wait, common sense is outrageous in the usa. We dress in a certain way, how we want to be perceived, and thus treated. She willfully made herself a more appealing target, the case would have been a whole lot worse if the cop had thanked her for baiting out a rapist.

Wrong. No one willingly make themselves a rape victim. The cop's statement is also wrong, because women who dress conservatively still get raped.

Rape, sexual assault and harassment all work one way, men as villains. We could call up this to our defence, but our pride among fellow men would be pretty much destroyed. Peer pressure among men is unbelievably high in certain areas. Not only for respect, but also for reproductive purposes.

Pathetic. Anyone with any pride as man wouldn't give into peer pressure. Hey, here's some peer pressure for you: Don't rape people.

You seem to think responsibility is a binary either it's the attacker's fault or the victim's fault that they were attacked. I'm saying that in some situations the victim was being an idiot and doesn't deserve sympathy for being a victim. If you walk through a dark alley with a bunch of thugs, odds are good you're going to get robbed. That's just common sense.

it is a binary. it is 100% the attacker's fault for choosing to attack. it doesn't matter how prominent the victim makes themselves, if they are within the law, then the attacker is 100% responsible.

i don't see what the difference is between 'blame' and 'fault'.

The difference is what they are being faulted for. They are not being held accountable for being attacked. That's completely ridiculous and something both of you have been reading into my words for some asinine reason. They are being blamed for making bad decisions that put themselves at risk. It's not that hard to protect yourself, all it requires is some common sense and a modicum of self control.

For the final time: the victim is not at fault for being attacked. When the victim does something stupid and gets attacked because of it, they are at fault for being stupid. That's literally all I have been saying, there is no hidden meaning or implication here. When people are dumb, they are at fault for being dumb, regardless of (or perhaps especially because) of the consequences. It's not their fault they were attacked, but they certainly could have made better choices, most of which probably would have negated the situation entirely, and the responsibility for those choices lay solely on the victim.

that's a distinction without a difference. you're blaming them for "being stupid", when the only "stupid" thing they did was leave themselves vulnerable to an attack. how is that not blaming them for being attacked?

"i'm not blaming her for getting raped, i'm blaming her for being stupid enough to get raped." Same. Damn. Thing.

So you're saying that stupid rape victims should be shot?

Actually no. I'm saying stupid people in general should be shot, rape victims or not. Stupidity in this case simply referring to the application of common sense to the real world.

so you're advocating that a group of stupid people, which includes some rape victims, should be shot. thanks for clarifying.

STUPID DECISIONS ARE THE FAULT OF THE MAKER OF SAID DECISIONS. Regardless of the consequences, said decisions are the responsibility of the chooser. If I were to stick my hand in a running lawn mower, it's my own stupid fault I no longer have a hand. Similarly, if I were to walk into a dark alley and get mugged, it's my fault that I'm in a dark alley with no way to call for help or be seen. It's not my fault I got mugged, but it is my fault I got mugged in a dark alley.

and there's nothing inherently wrong with being in a dark alley. just as there's nothing wrong with a woman wearing revealing clothing in public.

Also to those that are getting mad and saying that people here shouldn't be blaming the victim NO ONE HAS OUTWARDLY SAID "IT WAS HER FAULT SHE DESERVED TO GET RAPED" SO STOP FUCKING ARGUING THAT POINT BECAUSE IT ISN'T RELEVANT. All anyone has said is that if she dressed in a more conservative manner there is a possibility that she wouldn't of been the one that got raped which i agree with that doesn't mean i think she deserved to be raped and that it was okay i just think she's a fucking idiot and could of wore different clothing to perhaps prevent this happening from her.

Yep, and that's what victim blaming is. Thanks for demonstrating.

 

[MrStab]

I never understood why the cop's statement was so outrageous... oh wait, common sense is outrageous in the usa. We dress in a certain way, how we want to be perceived, and thus treated. She willfully made herself a more appealing target, the case would have been a whole lot worse if the cop had thanked her for baiting out a rapist.

Wrong. No one willingly make themselves a rape victim. The cop's statement is also wrong, because women who dress conservatively still get raped.

Rape, sexual assault and harassment all work one way, men as villains. We could call up this to our defence, but our pride among fellow men would be pretty much destroyed. Peer pressure among men is unbelievably high in certain areas. Not only for respect, but also for reproductive purposes.

Pathetic. Anyone with any pride as man wouldn't give into peer pressure. Hey, here's some peer pressure for you: Don't rape people.

You seem to think responsibility is a binary either it's the attacker's fault or the victim's fault that they were attacked. I'm saying that in some situations the victim was being an idiot and doesn't deserve sympathy for being a victim. If you walk through a dark alley with a bunch of thugs, odds are good you're going to get robbed. That's just common sense.

it is a binary. it is 100% the attacker's fault for choosing to attack. it doesn't matter how prominent the victim makes themselves, if they are within the law, then the attacker is 100% responsible.

i don't see what the difference is between 'blame' and 'fault'.

The difference is what they are being faulted for. They are not being held accountable for being attacked. That's completely ridiculous and something both of you have been reading into my words for some asinine reason. They are being blamed for making bad decisions that put themselves at risk. It's not that hard to protect yourself, all it requires is some common sense and a modicum of self control.

For the final time: the victim is not at fault for being attacked. When the victim does something stupid and gets attacked because of it, they are at fault for being stupid. That's literally all I have been saying, there is no hidden meaning or implication here. When people are dumb, they are at fault for being dumb, regardless of (or perhaps especially because) of the consequences. It's not their fault they were attacked, but they certainly could have made better choices, most of which probably would have negated the situation entirely, and the responsibility for those choices lay solely on the victim.

that's a distinction without a difference. you're blaming them for "being stupid", when the only "stupid" thing they did was leave themselves vulnerable to an attack. how is that not blaming them for being attacked?

"i'm not blaming her for getting raped, i'm blaming her for being stupid enough to get raped." Same. Damn. Thing.

So you're saying that stupid rape victims should be shot?

Actually no. I'm saying stupid people in general should be shot, rape victims or not. Stupidity in this case simply referring to the application of common sense to the real world.

so you're advocating that a group of stupid people, which includes some rape victims, should be shot. thanks for clarifying.

STUPID DECISIONS ARE THE FAULT OF THE MAKER OF SAID DECISIONS. Regardless of the consequences, said decisions are the responsibility of the chooser. If I were to stick my hand in a running lawn mower, it's my own stupid fault I no longer have a hand. Similarly, if I were to walk into a dark alley and get mugged, it's my fault that I'm in a dark alley with no way to call for help or be seen. It's not my fault I got mugged, but it is my fault I got mugged in a dark alley.

and there's nothing inherently wrong with being in a dark alley. just as there's nothing wrong with a woman wearing revealing clothing in public.

Also to those that are getting mad and saying that people here shouldn't be blaming the victim NO ONE HAS OUTWARDLY SAID "IT WAS HER FAULT SHE DESERVED TO GET RAPED" SO STOP FUCKING ARGUING THAT POINT BECAUSE IT ISN'T RELEVANT. All anyone has said is that if she dressed in a more conservative manner there is a possibility that she wouldn't of been the one that got raped which i agree with that doesn't mean i think she deserved to be raped and that it was okay i just think she's a fucking idiot and could of wore different clothing to perhaps prevent this happening from her.

Yep, and that's what victim blaming is. Thanks for demonstrating.

No it isn't i'm blaming her for getting raped i blame the person that raped her all i'm saying is that by acting in the manner that she did she made herself a more likely target there is a difference between condemning someone for there stupidity that have an effect on bad things happenin to them and condemning someone for someone doing something wrong to them i am doing the former. i'm not saying it is her fault she got raped i'm saying she could of done things to try and help avoid it.

 

[Wutaiflea]

I'm not sure what the law is elsewhere in the world, but if a woman forces a man into sex, it's called sexual assault, not rape. Technically, by getting aroused, the man becomes a willing party to this, so go figure.

Rape on a man would be buggery, but that's generally not what a "female rapist" would be after, I'd think.

In the UK, and a number of other parts of the world, rape covers penetration of the victim (which I believe also covers oral rape in addition to vaginal and anal rape) by any part of an attacker's body or by foreign object, so in my country, it's quite possible for a woman to rape a man rather than just cause sexual assault.

Also, it's not accepted that men only get erections when aroused- it can simply be an uncontrollable physical reaction.
I frequently hear from male victims that they "obviously deserved it" or they "must secretly be gay" because they got erections during abuse. It's just not true.

Also: OP, could you please tell me an instance of a man falsely accusing a woman of rape? I know you've already stated that "the statistics are higher the other way", but I don't ever recall reading a single story like that.

I haven't heard of it either, but I think that's mostly due to societal issues.

The vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults on men go unreported, and even less go to court. Many men wrongly feel ashamed of admitting to abuse, even if its violent, and as such, I think even less men would be willing to take a woman to court- that background would make it hard for someone to make a false claim.
I have heard of men making false claims of spousal abuse though, as real cases become more common, so perhaps one day, we will hear about it.

False rape claims are abhorrent, and undermine genuine victims.

 

[Sethzard]

Blaming rape on the victim for wearing "provocative" clothing is like blowing up someone wearing traditional Islamic clothing because 'they looked like they were going to do it'. People have no fucking right to do anything to someone because of how they dress. If they dress provocatively that's probably to attract someone who they want to have sex with and no-one has the right to force them on someone because of that.

 

[funguy2121]

Absolutely this. Excellently put, well beyond my ability at least.

What have psychological experts and profilers been telling us for years? Rape is about power, not about sex. That's why homosexual rape happens so much in prison even though statistically it has to be occurring with great frequency with offenders who would never even experiment out in the real world. The look of the victim has absolutely nothing to do with it. The case can be argued that looks may be a factor for perpetrators of date rape, for whom I believe an (at least perceived) inability to otherwise get laid is the prime motivator in the opinions of many, including myself. But rape by force is always, always about power. And possibly little dicks.

Uh huh. And who is more attractive to a sadist? The confident victim who knows they look good and dresses to show it or the unconfident one who dresses conservatively?

Sadist = rapist? No, usually not. Though there are some sick sociopathic sadists out there, and some are rapists, these people are usually not into the same things as the average guy. Plunging necklines and hotpants are not their thing.

"Uh huh." I like your idea that women who sex it up have more confidence than women who don't.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

That line of thinking is dangerous.
"You just shot that guy!"
"He was acting like a douchebag. He was asking for it."

"Asking to be shot?!?"
"Well, he was holding that girl down by her hair and trying to pour battery acid over her face because she wanted to be able to choose her own husband and he wanted his brother to be able to sell her to some dirty old man she'd never met. He wasn't so much asking to be shot in the head as asking to be shot in both ankles, both knees, both wrists and both elbows and then thrown into a crocodile farm, but ammunition's expensive and I don't want to get blood in the back of my truck."
"Ah, yeah, I see your point. Actually, that headshot? Really decent of you."
"Yeah, well, you know, European liberals are all about that decency thing."

These rapists are messed up, and if they are provoked, then rapists are probably going to rape, regardless of how 'dangerous' you think that line of thinking is. Same with your shooting analogy.

Yeah, but they can be provoked by wearing red shoes, by having a pony tail, but raising your voice to call to someone, by flicking your hair out of your eyes, by bending over to pick up a dropped shopping bag or by someone else entirely somewhere else several hours ago. You can avoid staring into a baboon's face in a challenging manner. You can swim strongly or in the pool and stay out of the surf around dawn and dusk. You can leave the wasp alone. Rapists get provoked by things you can't control even if you do know what they are.

There's too much victim blaming period.

I swear, it seems that the worst thing you can do is be the victim of a crime these days.

Everyone will bend over backwards for the rights of the criminal, even if the amount of solid evidence against him/her redefines the term "beyond a reasonable doubt," but no one seems to care about the rights of the victim.

"Well, the criminal is innocent till proven guilty."
Yeah, but the victim is guilty even when innocent.

Oh, so very true. Go to school, make a nuisance of yourself in class, push other kids down stairs, steal their lunch money and throw their books in the river and a social worker will come and buy you new clothes, new trainers, new CDs and DVDs and so on and even take you on holiday if you're bad enough, all to make you feel better about yourself so you'll be able to respect other people ... and she'll do **** all for the kid who hasn't eaten lunch this month because you took all his money. He's still behaving in class, so obviously he has respect for other people, so he clearly has respect for himself, so he must be feeling fine and not need her help. Yes, really. Funny how we don't see them trying that with dogs, isn't it? If kids are that easily programmed, you'd think the same logic would apply to puppies as to kids and any dog that attacks someone should be given a treat and called a good doggie.

No her wearing skimpy clothing won't be the sole cause of rape no it doesn't justify it, but if someone in small easily removed clothing walks around in the type of area this happens(or anywhere for that matter) is going to get prioritized over someone in a suit or other modest clothing.

Type of area where this happens? [http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.0625,-95.677068&spn=174.138334,266.484375&t=h&z=1]

As for clothing: wrong. Revealing clothing may well be a trigger for some rapists. Modest clothing may well be a trigger for some rapists. Earrings may well be a trigger for some rapists. Having no visible piercings at all may well be a trigger for some rapists. Being brown-haired may well be a trigger for some rapists. Wearing a suit may well be a trigger for some rapists. Being meek may well be a trigger for some rapists. Walking confidently may well be a trigger for some rapists. About the only thing that won't provoke a rapist is killing him.

Wait... she's been raped before? How many times has this girl been the center of a rape charge, and what is she doing if she's eleven and is getting consistently raped? Somethings off.

Welcome to the wrong side of the tracks. You can move out as soon as you've found yourself $500,000. Get scrimping.

Yes it can be the victims fault.
They can wear skimpy clothing and act slutty and taunt men. Get a bit drunk and then change their minds after the fact.

If she changes her mind after the fact, it's not rape because she was consenting at the time. By the same principle, making it illegal to protest within 1km of the Houses of Parliament some time in the '90s does not make people who chained themselves to to Downing Street railings to demand the right to vote back in 1918 criminals. If some attention whore gets her "friend" (your friend she may be, but her friend you are not) very drunk and pulls her clothing open and flashes her own breasts to attract men then leads a whole load of young men to a nightclub where a stripper's performing, encourages them to get her and her friend even more drunk, promises them "whatever they want" if they win a game of pool, loses, leads them all into the toilets for their prize and then abandons her friend with them in the bar to go back and hump her boyfriend ...

... well, the girl who's too drunk to even recognise people at elbow range and is hugging random men and telling them her room number in a very slurred voice has really shitty taste in "friends" and ought to find some better ones at the first opportunity, but meanwhile she may get really lucky and find some gentleman (in the sense old-fashioned gentlemen used to try to convince themselves and the rest of the world was true) who'll take her back there and make sure she sleeps in recovery position, and maybe even sit up with her and a bucket and get her some water in the morning, or she may go up on the karaoke stage with one of them, let him slide his hand into her knickers in full view of everyone, cling to him because her legs won't take her weight and then disappear with at least one of those young men and reappear the next morning with a massive hangover. If that happens, I would have to say she was too drunk to give morally valid consent and anyone who took advantage therefore did rape her, just as if he'd come into her room and found her already passed out drunk and taken advantage, and her "friend" who got her that drunk is guilty too.

*opens the first link, not suprised to see only black mug shots*

Six men whose lives have been ruined even if they turn out to be completely innocent by virtue of having been in another town at the time, and they're all black because ... hey, welcome to the wrong side of the tracks. History has biased the distribution of people across those tracks in racial ways.

 

[mrsultana]

The girl dressed sexy and acted provocatively, sure we can all agre that she a 'hoe, but that does not qualify rape. Nothing quaifies or makes rape okay, not even if Christ himself said that. In fact, if Christ did say that rape was okay I'd go ahead and give up Christianity or at least shoot the guy* because I know that's not my Jesus Christ of the Bible. Blaming he victim is retarded, it's like blaming a drive-by victim for standing in the bullets path or a cancer
victim for getting cancer.

*Note: the author of this comment is a devout Lutheran and would never harm the Messiah in his second coming should he be reborn in his lifetime. He is merely stating that the aforementioned act of violence would be committed to a mam who says he is Jesus Christ and begins to say that all we thought is wrong and immoral is really good and okay. He would feel severly insulted, and is assured that he is not the onl one who undergo the same actions should this occur.

For the record, the bible says if I want to rape a woman who has no husband or fiance, it is okay, so long as you pay back her father (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Or, if you are in the tribe of Israel and god didn't provide you with a wife (Judges 21:20-23). Better yet, try to rape a man! If you try, but stop, it is okay for you to rape TWO women instead (Judges 19:24-25).

I never would rape anyone. Not because I don't have $2350 to buy 50 pieces of silver, but because I find it to be very offensive. Also because, I already have a wife and have never found a male that couldn't beat me unconscious if I tried to get his pants off without his cooperation.

(Note: believe what you want, but don't try to act like Jesus, who is also god, wouldn't say rape was okay; he already has. Or don't you believe that Jesus is lord?)

 

[subtlefuge]

I feel that the police officer was only trying to offer what he thought was practical advice. If it had been specific, such as "If she didn't dress that way, she wouldn't have been raped," then it would be blaming a victim, but you can't harass someone for not blaming theoretical victims of a theoretical rape. It's silly, and goes completely against the spirit of what he was saying.

Calling attention to yourself is a risky behavior. It increases your chances of being raped. It does not put you at fault, but you would have to be fairly ignorant to think that being alone, at night, in a secluded area, dressed provocatively would not increase your chance of being raped. Rape is an unspeakably terrible crime, rapists are the scum of the Earth, and it is always, always, always their fault. However, you can't deny that trends exist.

 

[Marter]

In sexual assault/rape cases, no, blaming the victim isn't right.

I do think that people should always put themselves in the best position to avoid such things from happening. It's like the Boarding call in hockey nowadays. Victims often turn their back to an oncoming player, and when they get checked, it is partially their fault for putting themselves in a vulnerable position. Not that they should get the blame, just like in the case mentioned in the OP, but they should still avoid putting themselves in a potentially dangerous position.

 

[subtlefuge]

For the record, the bible says if I want to rape a woman who has no husband or fiance, it is okay, so long as you pay back her father (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Or, if you are in the tribe of Israel and god didn't provide you with a wife (Judges 21:20-23). Better yet, try to rape a man! If you try, but stop, it is okay for you to rape TWO women instead (Judges 19:24-25).

I never would rape anyone. Not because I don't have $2350 to buy 50 pieces of silver, but because I find it to be very offensive. Also because, I already have a wife and have never found a male that couldn't beat me unconscious if I tried to get his pants off without his cooperation.

(Note: believe what you want, but don't try to act like Jesus, who is also god, wouldn't say rape was okay; he already has. Or don't you believe that Jesus is lord?)

Your misinformed argument ignores the idea that we have made any moral progress in 5000 years. Most anti-Christian arguments concede the fact that Deuteronomy and Judges are highly highly archaic.

The Bible never says that it's okay to rape, only that reparations must be made. At the time, a woman's entire existence and livelihood was based around marriage and childbirth. If a woman was raped, she would be unable to ever be married, and would therefore be forced into poverty and be a social pariah for her entire life. Forcing her to marry the rape victim, while absolutely terrible, is an act of mercy on her behalf. Historically, rape victims outside of the Jewish community at the time had it much worse.

Luckily we have made significant strides in women's rights since then.

 

[UberNoodle]

A person doesn't lock his car == somebody elses right to steal it?

No.

A woman dresses provocatively == somebody elses right to rape her?

Hell no!

And yet not locking the door of your Mercedes in South Central L.A would make you an idiot.

I think there is a middle ground. No, it's not the victims "fault" but they sure as hell can do a lot to provoke it.

If a man can't keep his d**k in his pants, that's his problem not the woman's, unless he then rapes her, and in that case, he's a cruel, misogynistic bastard.

Most rapes aren't done by random psychopaths who jump out of a dark alley and have sex with the stranger. They are committed by people who the victim knows. Usually there has been mutual flirting all night, lots of alcohol and then when it comes to go time someone changes their mind and the other person looses control and does it anyway.

I'm a big believer in the concept of "if you don't want to have sex with a guy, don't lead him on". As a female, I can vouch that girls do lead men on and girls do flirt with dangerous people. Is it their fault that they end up being raped? No, but they were acting like idiots and they did a lot to make it happen. Just because they were raped and rape is such a taboo subject doesn't change this.

Back in England, I had a friend who had been flirting with some idiot jock boy at a pub for about six hours. He was known to be a loose cannon and she had no real intention of having sex with him, yet she was doing everything in her power to flirt with him. They talked and flirted at the pub, then she went to his house willingly, got into the bedroom, made out with him, flirted some more, then when it got down to business she tried to make him stop. He raped her.

Now, yes, that guy is a bastard and it is his "fault". But she acted like a five year old and brought it upon herself. She showed no street smart, no common sense and no safety. It may sound cold to say this, but it's true. I'd be willing to wager that most rapes happen like this. I think the really tragic and violent rapes are somewhat of a rarity that are overblown by the media due to how horrible they are.

I guess what I'm trying to say is don't bring crime upon yourself. Don't hang around sleezy areas whilst flirting with dangerous men because you are bringing it upon yourself. It's the same reason why you don't walk around the ghetto at 2am dressed in a suit with your Ipad and designer wallet on show.

You make interesting points but it doesn't matter. There's no excuse for raping somebody. Nobody is EVER 'asking for it' because of the way they dress or flirt. Sex appeal is a natural part of human expression. Flirtation is a natural part of it too. Showing skin or being flirtatious is not a 'rape pass' for the disgruntalled man who misses out. To say otherwise, as you kind of did, is to imply 'sex entitlement' for men. That's a load of crap. There's no such entitlement, and it takes a rapist, a criminal, to rape, nothing more or less.

It is incredibly stupid, as this thread has been, to say that women provoke their own rapes in this way? Not only that, it is insulting to men, as it implies that men are such slaves to their hormones and drives that their intellect cannot get in the way when the boner is raging. Regardless, rape is probably never for the love of a woman. It's entirely self-gratification with a goal to put somebody into submission and use them in perhaps the cruelest of ways.

Nobody asks for that, and no man should suggest that sometimes its deserved or unavoidable.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Wearing provocative clothing might make a woman a more appealing target, that doesn't make the perpetrator any less of a scumbag. The provocative clothing doesn't completely eliminate his ability to reason.

Pretty much this.

While on one hand, if you walk down the street at night in nothing but a bra and miniskirt while drunk and you get raped....You should REALLY understand that you put yourself at risk on your own.

On the other hand, rape is still a disgusting and terrible thing and whoever does it is a complete and utter !@#$wad, no matter the situation.

Also, I didn't read the whole topic, but if anyone thinks that men are the only sex that cane rape...That's not quite accurate. Women CAN rape men. It's usually just so much harder and more unlikely that you practically never see it.

 

[mrsultana]

For the record, the bible says if I want to rape a woman who has no husband or fiance, it is okay, so long as you pay back her father (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Or, if you are in the tribe of Israel and god didn't provide you with a wife (Judges 21:20-23). Better yet, try to rape a man! If you try, but stop, it is okay for you to rape TWO women instead (Judges 19:24-25).

I never would rape anyone. Not because I don't have $2350 to buy 50 pieces of silver, but because I find it to be very offensive. Also because, I already have a wife and have never found a male that couldn't beat me unconscious if I tried to get his pants off without his cooperation.

(Note: believe what you want, but don't try to act like Jesus, who is also god, wouldn't say rape was okay; he already has. Or don't you believe that Jesus is lord?)

Your misinformed argument ignores the idea that we have made any moral progress in 5000 years. Most anti-Christian arguments concede the fact that Deuteronomy and Judges are highly highly archaic.

The Bible never says that it's okay to rape, only that reparations must be made. At the time, a woman's entire existence and livelihood was based around marriage and childbirth. If a woman was raped, she would be unable to ever be married, and would therefore be forced into poverty and be a social pariah for her entire life. Forcing her to marry the rape victim, while absolutely terrible, is an act of mercy on her behalf. Historically, rape victims outside of the Jewish community at the time had it much worse.

Luckily we have made significant strides in women's rights since then.

Cherry-pick all you want, but strides in the rights of women have been DESPITE the bible, not because of them. If we are to believe the new testament, nobody would ever be convicted of rape. Nobody should listen to women anyway, right? (1Timothy 2:12)
Now, if we could only get anti-anti-christians to admit the moral progress we have made over five millennia.

 

[matt87_50]

hmm, I will say this on the issue:

someone is talking about a rape, or the rise in sexual assaults ect.

then someone says "well, maybe they shouldn't dress so sexily, or shouldn't drink so much, or should try and avoid the situations"

and then this person who says that will immediately be vilified and looked upon almost with the disgust with which they look upon rapists...


I find this to be the single most unhelpful, and frankly, dangerous response in this debate...


yes... them dressing sexily, then leaving all their friends and going and hanging out with a bunch of footballers, after getting insanely drunk... does NOT give them the right to rape her! and does NOT diminish their responsibility for their actions in ANY WAY!

WE KNOW THIS! THIS HAS BEEN SAID A THOUSAND TIMES! IT IS BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS!!! CAN WE MOVE ON!!

the simple fact of the matter is that if the girls DIDN'T get blind drunk, DIDN'T put them selves in stupid situations, and DIDN'T dress like whores, THEY WOULD REDUCE THEIR CHANCES OF GETTING RAPED!!!

sure you SHOULD be able to dress how ever you like, you SHOULD be able to get blind drunk, you SHOULD be able to put your self in compromising situations... and NOT have to worry about getting raped... but the reality is... YOU PROBABLY WILL!!


but no... we never get this far... the discussion stops the minute anyone tries to mention this as the feminists tare into people who bring this up... and then... they go out and purposeless dress even more provocatively as if as some sort of protest to this very advice!!



if a man covers him self in honey, then runs around the woods, and gets attacked by a bear... then someone says "well... he probably shouldn't have done that" we don't get all up in arms saying "hey!! it should be his God given RIGHT to cover himself in honey if he wants to!!"

we deprive our kids of candy offerings from strangers, and lifts from strangers...

of course it would be nice if kids could take all the free candy they get offered, and could get all the free, helpful lifts they could... it would be nice if any adult who tried to harm a kid spontaneously combusted before they could... but thats not the world we live in...


P.S.

I say this as a man that who thoroughly enjoys women in scantily clad clothing. also, I'm not a rapist.