Rape, Victim-Blaming, and... random stuff about religion

Post Reply New Topic

I like your signature. Unfortunately, you don't. Why is it so hard to discuss reality? In reality, men have to spend much more time, effort and money to get laid; men have to be dominant and responsible; first impressions divide men in groups. Those have been researched. That's reality - but often, people who don't like reality prefer to live in liberal wonderland, where racism and gender roles are archaic cultural items rather than deep-rooted human instincts, and people are all equal, and women get laid with Johnny Depp or Sean Connery whenever they want. Oh, and those are traditional alpha males, like almost all men women feel genuinely sexually attracted to.



Does 'who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth' mean 'who agree with me, and ignore or insult those who do not' to you?

Reality, ok, let's deal with some facts then HDM.

Your analogies are deeply flawed. A woman who dresses attractively is not foregoing any other precautions. It is not like leaving the keys in the ignition or leaving the door unlocked - it is simply like having something somebody would take. There is no other sort of reduction of security involved.

As Benjamin Franklin put it, "Those who would give up a little liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." And they don't get those things, either. Women in societies where they do abide by dress codes intended to achieve the effect you're looking for, are MORE likely to be subjects of rape and other sorts of abuse, not less. It doesn't work like you imagine it does; what you're proposing is precisely the wrong solution, and would result in more, not less, rape.

The facts could not possibly bear this out more abundantly than they do. It is in the societies where women have more liberty, that sexual assault rates are lower. Less liberty and forced to cover up more, means more sexual assault, not less. This is no coincidence. Blame is being shifted off the rapist and on the victim, making things easier for the rapist in society. You would not likely blame a person who had an obviously expensive car for having it stolen, if their precautions were otherwise normal. In a society where the owner was held to be slightly accountable by simple fact of possessing something desirable, one would expect more tolerance for theft and more thieves. This bears true in the case of sexual assault, as well.

There's a reality check for you.

Indeed, she is not foregoing any other precautions. However, she is foregoing one - a crucial one, in many cases.



As he also put it, "I am not satisfy'd with the doctrine that supposes particles of matter call'd light continually driven off from the Sun's Surface, with a Swiftness so prodigious!"



Please, tell me more about dress codes being a known causative agent for rape.



Often, insurance companies base rates on several factors that determine the risk of their investment turning into a loss. If you have a sports car, you're bound to pay more - it's more likely to be stolen, and it's more likely to be crashed into something because it invites certain types of people who will display certain types of behaviour. There are debates about the question if insurance companies can raise their monthly fee for smokers because smokers are simply much more likely to develop certain health risks related directly or indirectly to that known part of their daily life. Home mortgages, meanwhile, are often accepted or refused based on the postal code; some neighbourhoods are a bad investment because the local demographic is more likely to default on payments, and the house is more likely to be damaged or stolen from.

It's not shifting the blame. It's simply acknowledging that sometimes, women knowingly increase the risk of being raped by dressing in a certain manner. If anything, it's risk assessment.



And this is a reality checkmate.

Please, tell me more about where you get the idea that women get raped based on the way they dress, HDM. Do you know a woman who had that experience? Have you had it yourself? I'd love to hear your stories from reality to back up your claims.

Also, about the "insurance policy", the way you put it, it sounds to me as if you're saying that a woman reports a rape to a police officer, and then the officer asks her "How were you dressed?" and the woman describes revealing clothing, then the officer will say "Oh well, then it is your fault, and we won't press charges." Whereas if she described conservative clothing, then they will. Uh- I've never seen this in reality.

Right so your analogy can scrap all the keys left in ignition and notes and other stuff. It's just something desirable that some would take by force, same as an expensive car sitting in a driveway, no key in ignition or anything like that. Most of the time it's safe. Sometimes it's not. But it's not the owner's fault for having an expensive car; beaters get stolen too, and people aren't going to stop having nice cars just to keep thieves from stealing them (it wouldn't work anyway).



Aren't you the one proposing just that? Or do you mean the codes themselves? There's an incredibly consistent correlation between increased rates of sexual assault, and societies which place heavier restrictions on female dress. It's not hard to see why, if you think about it.



Whether you intend to do so or not, that's precisely what happens. If society at large were to agree with your reasoning - as it once did - rape would be viewed more tolerantly, as it once was.



Haha. I'm sure everyone was totally unaware of that, and all you're doing is informing us, right? Come on, give me a break.



No, you're not dealing with reality here. At all.

First, I really want to know where you found these causal links. Remember, correlation won't do, and if you even want to imply correlation, I'd like actual figures.
To be honest, I'm getting the feeling you said that randomly.



Anecdotes are a poor substitute for structural evidence.



Then you're perceiving this through heavily-colored lenses. What I'm saying is that it's all a matter of risk assessment. I'm not telling anyone to blame any victim, but I'm saying it's not a black-and-white situation if the victim knowingly entered a situation under conditions that greatly increased the chance of something bad happening. If you trade in a Citroën DS for a custom-modified Ferrari, the chance of you being involved in dangerous situations increase simply because of the car you're driving (that's the analogy), and insurance companies will be less lenient in determining your fees and rules for reimbursement in case something goes wrong.

You pay more because you knowingly subject yourself to conditions with a higher chance of something going wrong.



That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that these clothes do increase chances of something going wrong, much like having a 2012 Porsche instead of a 1986 Honda Civic on your driveway would increase chances of someone trying to steal it, or steal from it. The crucial difference is that it's an accepted consideration for insurance companies in one case, and an unacceptable consideration in the other.



Conservative dress codes and linked social pressure being a causative agent for rape. I'm asking for something to back that up, as I don't really believe it.



The wording is rather unkind, but I'm glad you agree with the essence of what I'm saying.



When people accuse me of that, they're usually just accusing me of not agreeing with them. Do I really care about your perception of reality, and your linked judgement of my character?
The answer is no.

Well let's have you start, then. Show us a causative link between how women dress, and getting raped. Correlation won't do.

Or we could just talk common sense here. Everyone knows that women are more often sexually assaulted in societies like the Middle East, and less in societies like the West. The statistics would not be difficult to show. Sure, it's just a correlation - that's all you ever get from statistics. Absent Vulcan mind-probes, we'll never have more than correlation because the causative mechanics are mental, and therefore hidden.



And yet you reject structural evidence, too.



Sorry but everyone knows about the risks - I don't for a minute buy that this is your agenda, just to be helpfully informative about the risks.



Yes, it is exactly that, black and white. All the burden of guilt lies on the rapist. If you deny this, you're trying to shift blame.



We're not talking about insurance here. It's not a good analogy; insurance companies deal with providing funds to replace something, which has no bearing on this discussion at all. In many cases, responsibility isn't even an issue (eg no fault drivers insurance), including insuring your hypothetical Porsche. But responsibility is key to this discussion.

A better analogy would be the law, which deals with defining what our rights are, what are considered wrongs, and who is responsible - and it actually is at issue in this matter, since rape is dealt with by the law. The law is pretty clear. In civil cases, complete liability for damages is upon the rapist, without regard for how the woman was dressed. Likewise in criminal court, there is no mitigation of sentences provided for in the law itself, either in legislation or caselaw, for a rapist who attacks a woman dressed in whatever manner.

While the guilt for the rape lies on the rapist, if the woman was in a high risk situation of her own creation, she must shoulder some of the blame for being in that situation. Clothes do play a part in some rapes, as some cultures tend to view "non-covered" women as fair game, however, I think its more a case of high risk vs low risk circumstances. As a man, I really shouldn't be walking around alone in certain parts of the city, lest I'm likely to become the victim of robbery or assault. As a man, I really shouldn't be issuing checks with my mouth that my fists and backup cannot cash in a public place where alcohol is being consumed.

I'm not guilty of assault or robbery if I get robbed in situations such as those described above, but I am guilty of getting myself into a situation where my chances of getting robbed or beaten up increases dramatically. In a similar manner, a person who is walking through darkened streets, late in the night, through a bad area of town, alone and intoxicated, is guilty of getting themselves into a dangerous situation. Deny this simple fact and you deny people the responsibility for their own actions and call into question their abilities to be responsible for their actions.

If I were to walk through London Central station with a stack of £100 notes sticking out of my back pocket and a pickpocket happened to take them from me, the reaction from most people would be akin to "It sucks that you got robbed, but you really should have put that money in your inside coat pocket, or in one of those ridiculous purses people wear around their necks."

Most acts of rape are committed by sociopaths(ASPD) too. So I guess it partly depends on if the stranger or acquaintance has ASPD and how severe it is.

Here's how it is:



Source: http://www.aaets.org/arts/art13.htm

Rape is a random act of violence? Please. Rape exists because rape culture exists, where men believe that it is okay to sexually violate women because women are "asking for it", based on the way she acts. They do not do so randomly. They do this on dates, thinking that a "no" really means a "maybe" or a "yes", or if she's too drunk to consent, it still counts as a yes. Sometimes they will even drug the woman, but this would be a planned attack, not something that is decided based on her clothing.

If you are going to go against the popular mode of thinking, anecdotal evidence is the only real evidence I can think of that would be valid, since facts and figures will disagree with you.

And no, I am not just saying this randomly. I just doubt that you can back this up with observation or experience, since you are not a woman.



Again, see above.



It would never hold up in a North American court that the man would be acquitted because the woman was dressed like a slut. Sure, there is a lot of victim blame, but that is one thing that doesn't hold true anymore. It's not seeing through coloured lenses.

Honestly, though, 84 percent of victims knew their attacker - that leaves 16 percent who did not, and how many of those were victims of random acts of violence, because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or because of a stalker or woman-hater? That would leave a very small percentage of women who were preyed upon randomly in a bad neighbourhood for being dressed too slu*ty.

And the analogy with the Ferrari has some kind of monetary value, which cannot be compared with women being safe. I honestly see no comparison. Keeping ourselves safe on the streets is something we can all worry about, but what you actually do to protect yourself (keep a phone on you, walking home at night with a friend, wearing light baggage, looking over your shoulder, etc) would do more to protect you than dressing conservatively, and even then, you should probably be more concerned about muggings or theft than rape. Most random crimes in bad neighbourhoods I would assume are about money, not fulfilling sexual needs (even then, rape is about violence towards women, not sex).

So if you have a computer and a television and your home gets burgled, you must shoulder some of the blame. That is what you're proposing.



Situations like this or your other example of wandering around with a wad of $100 bills hanging out of your pocket are exceptional situations, and therefore fail as analogies. Women dressing in some appealing manner is not at all an exceptional situation. It is everyday, commonplace, and socially sanctioned (indeed, it is sometimes required by social expectations). Your analogies don't work unless they're similarly everyday and normative.

Like simply having things that could be stolen. Such as, say, a television or a car. If you get robbed simply because you have a television, then no, you didn't put yourself in a dangerous situation, and saying so isn't depriving you of responsibility or calling anything about you into question. You were simply trying to live a normal life. And hard as it is for some people to accept, that's all that is happening.

Last edited by edgewaters on 25 Jun 2012, 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

9 times out of 10 the thief was someone that had been over there before at least once. Gotta be careful who you let in your house.

To be honest, you should - if they're visible. Where I live, police have put up signs in places where a lot of people park their cars.
"Lock your car, and remove any valuables you can." Why? Because police know having valuables out in the open will get them stolen.

If you report a stolen bicycle to the police here, they'll ask you if it was locked. If it wasn't, it's usually not worth their time to begin with, and they won't look for it.



Interesting, but not at all what I was asking for. It's like bringing a sword to a party. Looks nice, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what's going on here. The statistic I asked for, and that was aimed at edgewaters, was one showing that conservative dress codes have a causal link to more incidents involving rape. He's quietly skimmed over that request, but I'm still looking for it.



I don't think there's such a thing as "too drunk to consent" if she's capable of talking. In those cases, a woman often chooses to have too many alcoholic beverages, and then chooses to have sex with a man. Both of them are her choices, and both of them make perfect sense. Until the next morning, when he turns out not to be very attractive, and she's asked why the hell she slept with him. If you're able to say "yes", you're not too drunk to consent.



Now, that's a tactic of deflecting my point. What I'm saying, here is the following:

1. Women who dress provocatively are actively increasing the risk of something bad happening, just as someone leaving a Porsche in a bad neighbourhood is increasing the risk of something bad happening;
2. Until edgewaters provides me with a causal link between conservative dress codes and higher amounts of rape, I'm not able to address that. So far, I've seen very little supporting his view.
3. You're discussing something irrelevant, then claiming to be right based on it. Don't deflect. Provide me with a relevant causal link, or stop discussing this issue altogether.

Look, man, I'm not going to play into your games. I gave you the facts, and was on topic (the causes of rape), and was saying what causes the majority of rapes, and suggesting that even if what you say is true, it would be a very minimal concern that would basically never happen in real life. If you're looking for something for me to say that you can twist and turn around to prove your point, that's not going to happen.

If those are the facts about rape, I agree with them. However, they say absolutely nothing about a conservative dress code having a causal link to the prevalence of rape in society. We're discussing the chance of being raped when wearing certain types of clothes, not the overall chances of being raped. Additionally, I'll be the one to play the moral deficit card now. 'a very minimal concern' is an insult to those who have been raped.

Is having a computer and a television in your home a high risk situation of your own making? Having a computer and a television set unattended in the back of your truck on the other hand.

Just as a warning to you, cheap rhetorical tricks such as the one you're trying to pull here do not work on me. It's a straw man fallacy.





You did notice that my argument wasn't in regards to "women dressing in an appealing manner" but in regards to people getting themselves into high risk situations. I merely pointed out that in certain cultures uncovered women are considered fair game.

A woman walking, alone, in the middle of the night, on a darkened street, while intoxicated is in a higher risk situation due to her actions as is a person walking around with wads of hundreds sticking out of their backpocket.Thus analogy is apt as it is not about simply possessing that which could be stolen, but engaging in voluntary actions that increase the chance of it being stolen.