And am I wrong? Are you going to tell us that no time in history has provocative dressing tempted a man to rape? What has this fact really got to do with my opinion?
I believe that we have evolved past that a long time ago. Some, however lag behind and still attribute a woman's dress as being a factor in a cause of her rape. Your saying that her dress somehow provokes the man takes away the blame from the man and places it on the woman. A woman can be dressed in a hessian sack and still be raped. The problem is in the rapist and his lack of self control. Not in his victim or how she dresses. A man's lack of self control is not the victim's fault, but the man's fault. Whatever tempts a man really means squat.
Here's you making a fool of yourself again. First you deform me for bring up provocative dresses, only for you to bring up a link reinforcing the fact that provocative dressing is a factor in rape.
I would suggest you re-read through the link again. Before you do however, you also need to learn the difference between myth and fact.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion, its a free world. I can decide not to report if a woman rapes me(laughs). At least I'm not fooling anybody or wasting anybody's time, I believe if a guy can have an erection during unconsensual intercourse, its not rape. What the fuck is your problem?
I don't have a problem. You, however, does.
Your misconceptions and inability to understand what constitutes a rape is a problem because you might find yourself a victim of a rape one day and not know it, or you might find yourself as a perpetrator without even knowing it or realising it. Ignorance is not a defence.
For example (notice how I say example and this entails that I am not putting words into your mouth), you say no to a girl and you do not have an erection. She then performs oral sex. That is rape. Even if you enjoy it and ejaculate, your
lack of consent means that
it is rape. Rape is not about erections. Rape is about sex without consent. Rape can be oral, vaginal or anal. Once consent is withdrawn or there was no consent to begin with, it is rape. Consent also means that it has to be given without duress (through threats or fear) or pressure (eg coercion) in the present instance (as in right then and there and not because the guy had sex with her yesterday so he can automatically assume consent the next day).
I would have assumed this was fairly easy to understand, but it seems I was mistaken.
No victim is ever to balme, I agree, I am not in the business of setting up a blaming comittee. However, I have to also call a spade a spade. Certain things like drugs, alchohol, and provocative outfits are factors in rape. All this things have nothing to do with me; I never forced anybody to do anything. I pointed out Viagra in my posts, why didn't you notice that?
You don't think any victim is ever to blame, but you think she wears or does (eg drugs or alcohol) are somehow factors. Ermm ok.
I never noticed viagra in your post. What you did mention was the percentage of rapists who are under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Again, drugs and alcohol are not an excuse. Your links are working against you. I really would advise you to contact your local police station and ask them to send you some information about rape and what exactly constitutes a rape. Also ask them to send you the commonly held myths about rape and how those myths (such as provocative dress).
For example:
Myth #1: Victims provoke sexual assaults when they dress provocatively or act in a promiscuous manner.
Fact: Rape and sexual assault are crimes of violence and control that stem from a person’s determination to exercise power over another.
Neither provocative dress nor promiscuous behavior are invitations for unwanted sexual activity. Forcing someone to engage in non-consensual sexual activity is sexual assault, regardless of the way that person dresses or acts.
Link
Pay particular notice to the bold bits. Provocative dress, drugs and alcohol are not invitations nor will a court view them as excuses for a rapist. No matter what a girl wears, once she says 'no', then it is no and if the guy persists, it is sexual assault. If he then goes on to have sex with her without her consent (eg she's said no), it is rape. Simple really. I am suprised you are having such an issue with it.
Syzygys said:
Here is an interesting take on it. I would take the pill, then do justice on my own, let's say shooting the person in the stomach or legs a few times. If he bleeds to death, hey, whose fault is it?
Now they would put me on trial, and I could say: I don't really remember why I shot him, but he did something bad to me...
Of course I could figure out a way to screw him without getting caught...
Nope. Vigilante actions aren't for me. I'd want the guy to get the maximum penalty.
Plus your original post stated that once you take the pill, you would forget, so if I had taken the pill, I would feel there was no reason to shoot him.
I would not take the pill, instead I'd want his backside in jail.