'Slut' Parade

[SillyBear]

It's just a shame you cannot admit your error and mend your statement for the sake of the forum.

You know what's really funny? I just looked back over my post in question and it seems I am right either way.

Here is my original paragraph you hated so much:

Most rape is committed by someone the victim has been acquainted with previously and has spent the night with them. A typical rape scenario goes like this:

Even with children, most rapes are carried out by people they know. Obviously the contextual line "spent the night with them" would have to be taken out because children don't spend nights out at bars - but that was my whole point in the first place.

And, after research, only 44% of rapes involve children. So no, "most" rapes don't involve children. You missed a trick there. If I was as equally as anal and cared as much as you - you'd be in for hell right now.

So my statement was 100% correct either way. Haha!

Nice nitpicking!

 

[Terminal Blue]

Anal stimulation also directly stimulates the prostate, prompting physical arousal. i've gotten erections from farting before; it doesn't mean i subconsciously enjoying farting. (to be quite honest, it bothers me a great deal) you seem to think that unconscious physical responses to unwanted stimuli are relevant for some reason.

That's interesting..

I don't mean to be insensitive. It sounds very awkward, but I totally did not know that could happen. I guess my body just isn't very receptive.

I guess it just goes to show that you can't easily generalize about human physiology.

 

[Clankenbeard]

Hmmm. Evolution of wording is a gradual thing. Forcing it through active protest may be the only obvious way to get it done, but it's gonna be tough. The article claims that the gay community owned the word "queer". But their approach of owning it was a little different. They already had selective gay gatherings and events where they could continue to have this message heard. The "sluts" do not have this system in place. If you hear something enough, you will eventually accept it to be true. If someone yells something in your face a few times, you are much more likely to dismiss it.

And why is the word "SLUT" on this lady's sign in quotation marks? This lady needs to commit to the cause. And what font is she using? As for the other sign, "Sluts say YES" completely misses the the point of the protest. Or perhaps the reporter did.

 

[cobra_ky]

On the other hand if you pull a lion's tail you can't be surprised it it turns round and rips your face off.

It is a truism that if men are "distracted" by women's bodies then that is DE JURE the man's problem (he must bear the burden of self-restraint), not the woman's. But when it comes to sexual harassment/assault that is when it becomes DE FACTO the woman's problem.

For example why is it OK for a Park Warden to lecture the family of a dead hiker "ooh well he shouldn't have provoked that wild bear by playing with it's cubs, that bear was only responding instinctively." when saying the equivalent for a human-human assault would be so insensitive? What is so special about humans compared to wild animals? Why is it because animals are EXPECTED to be animalistic is the burden of responsibility shifted to the human, yet with humans who are quite frankly insane do they retain responsibility.

because bears aren't sentient and therefore can't be held legally responsible for their actions. animals are animalistic, so it's expected that they can react violently if provoked. humans, on the other hand, are expected to be humane; if they choose to instead violate the rights of others, then they are responsible for failing to live up to the basic requirements of humanity.

people who aren't mentally competent are a different matter. they can't be held accountable for their actions because they are fundamentally incapable of comprehending them.

A lot of males that are living freely in society are more like animals, they think with their base instincts and use violence to get what they want, you do not want to provoke these people even if you have every legal right. As when some sociopath with 50lbs more muscle than you attacks you then it's the law of the jungle and the strongest will prevail, not the just.

I think it is important in a functional society to know the extent and limitations of Civil Rights and Practical Rights.

a society where people act on their basest instincts without regard for others isn't a functional one. people don't get to be animals. we're supposed to be smarter than that. we're supposed to be responsible for how we treat others. people who can't handle that simple responsibility have no place in society and should be separated from the general public for the safety of all.

The law is not and cannot be everywhere. The police cannot stop every assault, it cannot track down every rapist, hell It can't even give a proportional punishment for rape, there is no way of matching that.

This is why I think the power protecting rights - what makes civil rights practical rights - should be in the hands of people that actually need them. I think that extends to things like the 2nd Amendment, which are all about putting power in the hands of those that need it such as arming women to level the playing field with men who get what they want thanks to the testosterone induced strength advantage.

this is all well and good until rapists start carrying guns.

 

[maninahat]

Except for the statistics that state that women who are raped because of their clothing are the overwhelming minority. Dressing soberly is, statistically, more likely to end up with the victim raped.

Good of you to mention the word "statistically". The majority of rape victims are familiar with the rapist, and as such, are already a target regardless of what they are wearing. They are more likely to be attacked in their own home, rather than out on the town. For that reason, it would be incorrect to infer that it is the conservative dress that increases the chances of rape. In the minority of instances where a woman is targeted by a stranger, it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to assume the rapist would be most attracted to the one with the revealing outfit who already appears to be "asking for it".

 

[agrajagthetesty]

You may say it's blaming the victim or sexism (how is it an open display of hatred or contempt for women? If anything it's actually more prejudiced against promiscuouity in which case I fail to see the problem) but in some cases the victims do bare some of the blame for what happened, look at it this way, who is a prospective rapist going to be more interested in? Someone with less clothing or more?

Now I think about it, this isn't even blaming the victim, that would be if you were faced with a case of something that was completely unavoidable and could not be helped then berating the victim would be somewhat harsh (what were they supposed to do about it?) but if the request here is 'if you're worried about sexual assault then don't dress provocatively' then that's not really 'blaming the victim' as much as telling someone 'don't run with scissors' is.

Don't get me wrong, my sympathy goes out to rape victims (it is a horrible and unforgiveable crime) but this just reeks of 'I wanna do as I please but still be allowed to wail as loud as possible if it comes back to bite me' to me.

Saying that the victims bear even some of the blame (which you just did) counts as blaming the victim.

Also, there is no evidence to back up your implication that rapists are more likely to target scantily-clad women. You may think that it's "obvious" or "logical" that this would be the case, but until there's evidence, you cannot use this assumption to justify telling women how they should dress. In fact, as has already been stated in this thread, 89% of rapists say that their victim did not provoke them in any way and that they were not sexually attracted to their victim. Rape isn't about the perpetrator being overwhelmed with lust. It's about power. Any person, no matter their gender, age or manner of dress, is a potential target, and nowhere is there evidence that dressing provocatively makes you a more likely one.

Running with scissors makes you more likely to stab yourself with scissors. Dressing provocatively does not make you more likely to be raped. It's not a valid comparison.

 

[maninahat]

And why is the word "SLUT" on this lady's sign in quotation marks? This lady needs to commit to the cause. And what font is she using? As for the other sign, "Sluts say YES" completely misses the the point of the protest. Or perhaps the reporter did.

She is referring to the way in which her promiscuity is decried as "slutty", a pejorative term used to imply that women shouldn't behave that way. She is happy to be promiscuous, but she doesn't appreciate being looked down on for it.

 

[cobra_ky]

Anal stimulation also directly stimulates the prostate, prompting physical arousal. i've gotten erections from farting before; it doesn't mean i subconsciously enjoying farting. (to be quite honest, it bothers me a great deal) you seem to think that unconscious physical responses to unwanted stimuli are relevant for some reason.

That's interesting..

I don't mean to be insensitive. It sounds very awkward, but I totally did not know that could happen. I guess my body just isn't very receptive.

I guess it just goes to show that you can't easily generalize about human physiology.

i'm kind of unique in that i have a bowel condition that causes a lot of pressure to build up in the colon. it's also tremendously painful so i probably fixate on it a great deal more than usual.

 

[Hive Mind]

Even with children, most rapes are carried out by people they know. Obviously the contextual line "spent the night with them" would have to be taken out because children don't spend nights out at bars - but that was my whole point in the first place.!

"Rape is considered a 'crime of youth,' where fifty to sixty-three percent of reported rapes were of women under age 18, while sixteen to twenty-nine percent were under age 12." (Greenberg, Bruess and Haffner, 572; Lips, 233)

"Seventy-four percent of females under age 14 who have had 'sexual relations' are survivors of rape." (Greenberg, Bruess and Haffner, 572)


"Females ages 16-24 have the highest likelihood of rape - two to three times higher." (Norment, 152; Rathus, Nevid and Fichner-Rathus, 565)

"Teens 16 to 19 were three and one-half times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault." (National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)

"According to the Justice Department, one in two rape victims is under age 18; one in six is under age 12." (Child Rape Victims, 1992. U.S. Department of Justice.)

One quarter of rapes in the U.S are committed by a stranger (US Bureau of Justice Statistics)

There you go.

Now, don't backpedal. One cannot make a statement and then latter request the reader add or remove words. You said most rapes occur between individuals who have had sex in the past. This is incorrect. Simple.

Why can you not simply mend your error and move on?

 

[Jimbo1212]

Hmmm. Evolution of wording is a gradual thing. Forcing it through active protest may be the only obvious way to get it done, but it's gonna be tough. The article claims that the gay community owned the word "queer". But their approach of owning it was a little different. They already had selective gay gatherings and events where they could continue to have this message heard. The "sluts" do not have this system in place. If you hear something enough, you will eventually accept it to be true. If someone yells something in your face a few times, you are much more likely to dismiss it.

And why is the word "SLUT" on this lady's sign in quotation marks? This lady needs to commit to the cause. And what font is she using? As for the other sign, "Sluts say YES" completely misses the the point of the protest. Or perhaps the reporter did.

The issue is though, that slut has never meant anything else and it would still mean the same thing, they just don't want the negative connotation that comes with it. This is not an issue with grammar but with societies view on girls who sleep about and I doubt some silly protest will change that, especially when biology would disagree with them.

 

[SillyBear]

Now, don't backpedal. One cannot make a statement and then latter request the reader add or remove words. You said most rapes occur between individuals who have had sex in the past. This is incorrect. Simple.

Wait, what? I never said anything about most rapes occurring between people who have had sex before. I said most rapes occur between people who know each other. "Spent the night with each other" was meant in a literal sense. It was not a bad euphemism.

You're the only one who has such a huge problem with this and you have completely dragged this thread off topic. Discuss the issues. You are so incredibly anal and pedantic I'm starting to think you are probably just doing this for kicks and giggles.

 

[cobra_ky]

The issue is though, that slut has never meant anything else and it would still mean the same thing, they just don't want the negative connotation that comes with it. This is not an issue with grammar but with societies view on girls who sleep about and I doubt some silly protest will change that, especially when biology would disagree with them.

and what exactly does biology say about society's view of women who sleep about?

 

[Hive Mind]

"Spent the night with each other" was meant in a literal sense. It was not a bad euphemism.

So now you're claiming most rapes occur between people who have slept in the same bed?

Yeeeaaahhhh, I'm gonna need a source or two or three.

One quarter of rapes in the U.S are committed by a stranger (US Bureau of Justice Statistics)

So most rapes ARE committed by those who know the victim. So you're being an agressive dickhead towards someone who is pretty much right. (yeah I know calling someone a dickhead's pretty agressive, too) Kindly sod off

Actually, if you had bothered to read the thread, you would notice the debate is about their assertion that most rape victims have had sex with their attacker.

Kindly sod off

 

[sageoftruth]

I think what many of us have been trying to state in the above posts is, haven't protests always been about opposing laws or actions taken by the government or some powerful entity (I think)? Unlike the government, rapists usually don't care much about public opinion (unless the rapist is a politician), so I doubt this protest will have any impact whatsoever on the frequency of rapes.

 

[Hive Mind]

snippety snip]

There's more 'date rape' than 'penis ambush' in the world. What about that are you finding so hard to understand?

Your attitude and language in this post are disgusting and immature. You didn't even provide any references or sources. Also, we have already established that the majority of rapes occur upon children.

Please, do some research before flinging mud and attempting to insult others.

 

[SillyBear]

"Spent the night with each other" was meant in a literal sense. It was not a bad euphemism.

So now you're claiming most rapes occur between people who have slept in the same bed?

Yeeeaaahhhh, I'm gonna need a source or two or three.

What is wrong with your brain? Seriously. I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I'm generally interested. I've done a bit of psychology in university and this kind of behaviour usually indicates you are either in an extremely bad mood or you have some disconnect between reality and your unique perception of things. You are the only person who even cares about this and it is so baffling I am intrigued. I've seldom seen this level of pedantic behaviour in someone. Granted, this is a forum and you are probably just doing it to annoy me and everyone else.

Once again, "spent the night with each other" meant they have spent time with each other. I was directly talking about people who are raped after going out to bars - which is so painfully obvious I can't even understand how you couldn't grasp that. So, by "spent the night with each other" I meant people who have spent the night at bars with each other before they go home together. I was not talking about people sleeping in the same bed. I was not talking about children.

Context of a conversation between two people is incredibly important, Hive Mind. The overall context of WolfThomas' and my conversation makes it very clear what I was talking about. You have completely overlooked this.

You can't just jump in and start crying because someone didn't include some specific word you wanted to. We were talking about people who go out to bars in skimpy clothing and end up being raped. We were not talking about children so I felt no need to include the word "adult" - because he understood that I was talking about adults. Most cases of rapes involving adults (and children) are carried out by someone the victim knows. This was the only point I was making.

Have a step back and think about what you are doing here. You are creating a fuss because I did not include one word you wanted me to.

The reason why I am not going to go back and change it is because I was not talking to you. I was talking to WolfThomas and he understood what I meant. Everyone else has also understood what I meant. I won't bow to your strange behaviour and amend it. Sorry.

I'll make you a deal. If you can get two other people to take your side here I'll change it for you! How's that sound? =).