Flirty women responsible for rape?

Post Reply New Topic

this is absolute madness! how can a anybody possibly believe that a woman's alcohol intake or sexual history etc, gives someone the right to rape her?

personally, i try to avoid giving people the impression that i am interested in them, unless i genuinely am, just to save myself from the awkwardness of rejecting them. despite this, men frequently misinterpret my behaviour but, in my opinion, that's their problem. i'm not going to stop wearing revealing clothing, etc, just because some stupid men don't understand the meaning of the word "no."


mods: i will understand if you have to move this to the mature forum but hopefully it will be able to stay where it is for everyone to see.

There's no other reason to wear revealing clothes other than to get the attention of men. So if you don't want that attention then stop wearing a big sign that says "Hit on me!"


I agree that there is no justification for rape. It's a crime, and a bad one.

I'm curious to see exactly how those polls were worded. I can't imagine any sane person justifying rape that way.

On the other hand, I know a couple of people who have worked in the sex industry: one a stripper, and two who were legal prostitutes in Nevada. They face a lot of discrimination from the legal system (even though what they do isn't against the law) because juries and judges have a hard time believing that someone who has sex for money could really say no and mean it. They always assume that when a prostitute cries "rape" it's just to make a quick buck. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised at a survey like that.

If a woman wore revealing clothes and flirted with me, and then said she wasn't interested...well, I'd be disappointed, probably, but no way in hell would I think that was a reason to ignore her wishes.

Jeremy

Just because you want attention from men doesn't mean you want to sleep with them.

Jeremy

I didn't say anything about sleeping with them.

I guess I can see saying it's partly the woman's fault if she drinks too much and is then "raped" in the sense that she agrees to sleep with someone because her judgement is impaired. If you choose to drink to excess, the things you do while drunk are your responsibility. That includes who you sleep with.

Just to be perfectly clear, this only applies to "rape" in the sense of the woman being too drunk to give informed consent at all, not in the sense that the woman clearly said no and was then forced to have sex.

Jeremy

Last edited by toddjh on 21 Nov 2005, 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I guess I'm not clear how your comments apply to the topic of the thread, then. Would you mind clarifying?

Jeremy

i've been listening to this debate on the BBC. seems to me that the police and CPA have woken up, finally, to this issue.

thank the gods something is happening about it at last.

rape is about power and consent, not sex, in actual fact. if someone is unable to give informed consent (i.e. not completely drunk, or unaware of what's involved, or unable to understand what's going on), then it's rape. simple.

Hecate said: "i'm not going to stop wearing revealing clothing, etc, just because some stupid men don't understand the meaning of the word "no." "

I was replying to that.

So if my wife gets completely plastered and gets into a, er, kinky mood, and I take advantage of the situation, I'm committing rape? If so, I'm a serial felon.

I don't think that line of reasoning holds water. For one thing, it places the burden on the man to know how drunk a woman is, as well as to know how drunk is too drunk. The first is sometimes very difficult because different people display inebriation in different ways, and the second is something that reasonable people can disagree about.

It also removes the responsibility the woman shares for willingly putting herself in a position where her judgement is severely impaired. If a woman were to get drunk and then kill someone trying to drive home, we'd hold her criminally liable for that poor judgement, so I don't see why the decision to have sex should be treated differently.

ETA: If two really drunk people have sex, are they both rapists?

Jeremy

hmmmm - good points - i didn't word it very well, did i?

okay, in the first instance, the implication is that your wife is consenting - "gets into a kinky mood". so no, of course it's not rape, or even sexual assault.

i think there's a big difference between handing responsibility over to the man to behave, and saying no and being raped cos one was too drunk to get out of the situation.

however, i do believe that people must take responsibility for their own behaviour. (personally, i think that one does have to protect oneself, and making oneself vulnerable in that way is always risky - particularly for those of us who can't read signs very well). and that means men, too. all this about "provocative" behaviour and clothing is a smoke screen - the bottom line is that a bit of self control is required. yes, yes, i know all about hormones and sexual urges - been there, done that, designed the t-shirt. but, apart from those who have no idea about responsibility - such as children, people with certain psychological/mental conditions - there is absolutely no jusitification for the "i couldn't help myself!" excuse.

that holds no water in any civilised society at all. (or should not). non-consensual is non-consensual.

This idea makes me sick! No man has the right to force a woman into a sexual act because of what she is wearing. What garbage. Isn't it awful that rape is still seen as the woman's fault - she did something to deserve it. Rape is an act of violence against the woman. It has nothing to do with a sexual act. Just a man over powering a woman. How sad this mentality still exists.

But the issue is whether someone who is drunk is capable of consenting. Some people would say that, even if a drunk person says yes, there's still no consent. In my example, I suppose you could argue that there is implied consent since she's my wife. But what if she were just my girlfriend? How many dates would we have to have before that implied consent existed?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, I just think it's an interesting ethical dilemma and I'm kinda talking to myself.



Agreed. Any situation where the woman says no, or isn't capable of making her feelings clear (e.g. passed out) is rape. I'm 100% on board with that.

I think the only gray area is when the woman says yes but is too out of it to know any better. Now, if she's "out of it" because she's mentally ill, or she's been drugged without her knowledge or something, then I have no problem calling that rape too. But if she intentionally puts herself in that position? I think that's not so clear.

Jeremy

1 in 3 women get raped.

A lot of people repeat the idea that rape is about power, not sex, but I'm not sure how true that is. Certainly you could make a good case that some rape is about sex. In ancient times after a war, it was often expected that the winners would rape the losers' women. In some places it was even considered part of the "pay" of being a soldier.

There is an evolutionary imperative at work there: an opportunity for the "fitter" group to spread its genetic material. In that case, I believe that it is indeed about sex (or, more specifically, reproduction) rather than power or control.

Jeremy

yes, it's true that sometimes i dress with the intention of impressing men. and if a man wants to try to chat me up, then that's fine- i'd take it as a compliment. what i mean is when a man doesn't take "no" for an answer.

there's a big difference between encouraging attention and wanting physical contact.