Attitudes to rape

[Prince_James]

I'd also point out a famous case: Kobe Bryant was falsely accused of rape.

 

[draqon]

I am just a person who hasnt touched a woman ever in his life and will not harm woman in any way, but heard so much crap from women...that now I see them as evil creatures ready to kill anyone they dont like. Yes those who rape women are evil, they should pay for the evil they have done. But if women accuses an innocent man of rape she should pay for this accusation the same as though she did the rape.

 

[James R]

Prince_James:

Let's take this from the start. You said:

The following mitigate, in part, or in full, rape:

Woman was drunk at the time (i.e. got herself drunk).
Woman at no time clearly said "No" to sex.
Woman was in a relationship with the rapist at the time.
Woman was married to the rapist.

In other words, you believe that, all the requirements for rape (proven sex without consent etc.) being met in a criminal trial, you think that the offender ought to receive a lighter sentence if the woman involved was drunk, didn't say "no", or was in a relationship with the rapist at the time. Is that correct, or do you now want to change your views?

Assuming you stand by your views, let's take a look.

In regards to drunkenness: So long as she is not actively fighting to not have sex with you, or isn't passed out, and is just simply drunk, there is no "rape" whatsoever.

So, if a woman is so drunk that she doesn't know what's going on, then she is "fair game"?

If you were so drunk you didn't know what was happening, and some guy decided to take you into a dark alley and have his way with you, you think that would be "no rape whatsoever"? Let's assume you are too drunk to "actively fight not to have sex", but not passed out.

No rape whatsoever?

Rape is forced sexual activity. Being drunk does not count as "forced".

Here's an opportunity for you to learn something:

Rape is not forced sexual activity. No force is required. Rape is sex without consent.

See the difference?

Or do you think force should be required to establish rape? Do you think the current criminal law is wrong in this regard?

People can make decisions as to who they want to have sex with - and might even initiated sexual contact - when drunk. That they might regret it later matters not. One can be sober and regret it later.

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about sex without consent. The woman is assumed to be drunk and has not agreed to have sex or initiated the sexual activity.

If a woman never says "no" to sex, and presumably isn't fighting back, then again there is no rape.

So, to you it doesn't matter that she never said "Yes" to sex? You think you have a right to have sex with women unless they say "no"? Don't you think they should have to agree to have sex with you?

You don't have some God-given right to have sex with people without their consent. Whatever gave you the idea that you do?

If you do not show that you are not consenting to the activity, there is no way to judge it as rape!

Wait a minute! You're muddying the waters. There are many ways to "show that you are not consenting". Only one of those ways involves vocalising the word "No".

Also, what about the situation where a woman is confronted by a physically powerful man and is too scared to do anything while he has sex with her? That's not rape, according to you, because she did not show that she wasn't consenting?

Shouldn't she have to show that she was consenting?

Why do you place the onus on the woman to withdraw consent, rather than putting the onus on the man to first obtain the consent of the woman before starting to have sex with her?

Assuming that the relationship is all ready sexual, the woman in said relationship cannot rightfully proclaim rape if the activity is not violent. If she just didn't want to and he pushed it on her and was not harmed and could have theoretically stopped it if she took the time to leave, that isn't rape.

So, let's say a woman is sitting watching TV with her boyfriend, with whom she has already had sex in the past. He decides he is a bit horny and reaches over and starts undressing her. She says "PJ! I don't feel like it now", but he continues. She gets a little scared, but decides the best thing to do is just get it over with, so she lies back and the guy has his way with her. Theoretically, she could have confronted him, stood up and walked out. But she didn't. (Maybe this is at her house. What then? Does she kick him out? He's a big, muscley guy and might get angry if he thinks he is being rejected.)

No rape at all? This is just fine, according to you, and the guy is not at fault?

In marriage, one is essentially supposed to be sexually available to your partner.

With all due respect, PJ, this is a screwy idea of marriage. A husband does not "own" his wife, or vice versa. A person is not a thing. One person does not have a right to use another person's body any time they please.

Do you think they do?

I'd also add that sexy/revealing clothing, promiscuity (past and present), flirtation, and past sex with the rapist, whilst not taking away from its categorization as rape (presuming it meets that categorization) does place some of the blame for provoking the act on the woman. That is to say, we cannot say that a woman who is basically begging for sexual attention is not partially to blame for bringing herself into a position where she is raped.

As somebody else pointed out (Bells?), what one person finds attractive is very particular to that person. Do you think all women should cover up (in burkas perhaps?), in case men see them and can't control their passions?

What about the rapist who finds your 70 year old grandmother sexually attractive, just because something about old people turns him on? Should your grandmother try to appear younger then? Maybe a bit of makeup? Or, maybe she should cover her face completely, so nobody will know she is 70.

What do you think?

Also, I see very little reason to care about being raped (presuming one is not harmed in the act) if one is promiscious unless one is currently in a relationship.

This is interesting. Why the exception for being in a relationship?

Wait! I know. It's the whole "marry and you own your partner" thing again. Is it? If a woman is in a relationship, then her man owns her, and he should be the only one allowed to have sex with her.

Is that what you think?

Merely I see no reason why she would care. She wants to have sex with many men, so why not this guy? When one's standards are basically non-existent...

Again, a little education is in order.

Even a prostitute gets to choose her clients. She may not be picky - this is a job after all - but she still has the right to refuse a client. Ask prostitutes whether they ever refuse clients and they will tell you that they do. So, even at this "very promiscuous" end of the scale, women make choices.

Rape removes the woman's choice. That a woman agrees to have sex with one guy or ten guys or 100 guys does not mean she agrees to have sex with any guy, any time.

Come back to my argument about hockey players. A hockey player may put up with being hit in the shins with a hockey stick on the field. That's a choice he makes all the time. But it doesn't mean he agrees to be hit in the shins with hockey sticks in general. It doesn't mean I can come up to him in the street and whack him with a stick if the mood takes me.

A question: do you think it is possible to rape a prostitute?

And again: Why would a promiscious woman really give a damn about being raped non-violently?

Why would a hockey player give a damn if I came up to him and whacked him in the shins with a stick while he was shopping?

For instance, having sex with any drunk girls is an act of rape to some people. Yet this is clearly an absurd position.

No. Consent is everything. No consent to sex ought to mean no sex. If you live your life in such a way that you think women need not consent to your having sex with them, sooner or later you might get yourself into trouble with the law.

Do you really think this is reasonable? Certain clothing, in the proper cultural setting, implies sexual desire. For instance: Women who wear their thongs hiked above their low-rider jeans whilst wearing an exposed midriff shirt? That is an obvious sexually-focused attire.

But what is being invited? Rape? Are all bets off as soon as a woman wears a sexy top? Do all limits on reasonable behaviour go out the window?

Well, if one is unsure if one should "tempt the beast", perhaps one oughn't? Flirting with someone that you have no intent to be serious with even remotely, specifically if the flirtation becomes overally sexual (as opposed to more innocent) is again, a sure fire way to increase your chances of being raped.

You're getting away from the point of the thread here. You need to separate the issue of making yourself more likely to be victimised from the issue of whether victimisation itself is somehow "more justifiable" because of the flirting.

You will note that I have mentioned that the moral blame belongs solely to the rapist. I am only claiming that women can and ought to lower the possibility of rape.

But you are also claiming that the moral blame of the rapist ought to be reduced by the "contributory negligence" or character traits of the victim. Are you not?

Yet in many of the cases, one could not say it is rape at all. When someone never declares - verbally or unverbally - that they do not want to have sex...how is that rape?

Did they ever declare that they did want to have sex? No. That's how it is rape. Getting the message yet?

And how can rape occur when there is an explicit sexual contract between both parties?

Are you talking about marriage or "relationships" again? I repeat: marriage is not a contract for repeated sex. See how far you get if you ask your next girlfriend to sign a written agreement to have sex with you any time you feel like it, regardless of what she feels like, as long as you're in a "relationship".

If you bothered to read what I wrote, instead of responding with a hysterical emotional response, you'd see that I have always put the moral blame on the rapist.

But you keep saying that part of the moral blame is on the victim, especially if she is drunk, promiscuous, looks attractive or happens to be married.

Pure, unequivocal, nonsense. Women who make themselves sexually focused are attempting to convince men to have sex with them.

You think they'll accept all comers, indiscriminantly? You think that's what their clothes are saying? "I don't care who you are! Have sex with me!"

Can you see how unrealistic that attitude is?

Convincing the wrong man to have sex with them produces rape.

No. If they "convince" a man to have sex with them, with their (the woman's) consent, that is not rape. Consent is the thing.

I know I'm repeating myself, but you seem to miss the central issue over and over.

Consent consent consent. No consent -> rape. Simple.

Rapists most -certainly- target specific women. Rapists are -much- more likely to rape someone in a skimpy dress that forces a focus on her sexuality.

You're sterotyping rapists. I suppose you think of the rapist as some burly, biker guy, and his victim is probably a cute 20-something year old.

In fact, men rape other men. 18-year old men rape 60 year old women. 40 year old men rape 12 year old boys.

What attracts a rapist to his victim is enormously variable.

Your mistake is in assuming that everybody else in the world is attracted to the same things you are. In fact, a pedophile won't rape the 21 year old fresher girl. He doesn't find her "sexy". He will rape the 8 year old schoolboy instead.

Maybe we ought to ban school uniforms, because some sickos get turned on by them. What do you think?

"Sex is not available if one party does not want it, regardless of their marital status. Merely being married does not mean that the man, or the woman for that matter, can merely take whatever they so choose if the other party is not willing. If a woman says no to sex to her husband, he has no right to force her. Doing so is rape."

Then there is no reason whatsoever for marriage and, in fact, the marriage contract is explicitly broken. The purpose of marriage is sex. Sex for procreation and sex to socially restrain the influence of sex in general society. Barring sex, there is litterally no reason to be married.

It doesn't get more blatant than this. "The purpose of marriage is sex." How quaint.

How old are you? Have you ever had a serious relationship?

Don't bother answering this. It's personal, and I don't need to know. But if you think marriage is only about sex, you have a lot of growing up to do. Seriously.

As a rugby player, I'd find the experience far less horrible than were I a non-rugby player. Similarly, the idea of being tackled is not something which would cross my mind as something inherently bad, considering, as you noted, I volunteer for such regularly. Thus whereas I might have preferred it not to happen, I could not say that I was truly harmed by it.

A judge in Australia a few years ago made similar comments in sentencing an offender for the rape of a prostitute. He said a bit of "rougher-than-usual handling" wouldn't worry a prostitute too much - after all, she would be used to such things in her daily work. He said that the rapist should therefore get a lighter sentence.

How do you think the Australian public and experts on rape reacted to this judge's comments and decision?

How do you react to it? Fair enough? I suppose you agree with him.

 

[redarmy11]

You mischaracterize my argument. I have never said that promiscuity excuses rape (in fact I have noted that it does not). I have only said that I cannot understand any objections to a non-violent rape from a promiscious woman.

I'd like that to be kept in mind: I do not suggest that it is not rape to rape a promiscious woman. Only that I cannot see why the promiscious woman would care if the rape is non-violent.

Even the most promiscuous woman would 'object' to being raped because rape isn't just about sex. Bells thinks it's never about sex, and that it's always about power and control. I don't think this is always the case - I think there often is a sexual element, especially where the victim is a stranger. It's a very distorted and depraved sexual element, but a sexual element nevertheless.

However the elements of power and control (or the lack of these, in the case of the victim) define the situation much more strongly than any sexual element does. Removing control and freedom of choice dehumanise the victim in a way that normal sex doesn't. This is why they're always removed from prisoners of war (and why rape of POWs is such a common, and highly effective, dehumanising tactic).

Does this help to explain why rape differs from normal sexual encounters - and why even the most promiscuous of women might 'object' to it? Normally, even the most promiscuous woman has a choice of who to sleep with. When she's raped she doesn't. This takes away from her something that's essentially human.

 

[James R]

Pete:

I'm surprised at you.

I think that the deciding factor for the severity of the action would be whether the girl indicated that she did not want sex with the accused... so I left this unticked as it is covered by the "clearly said No" option.

i.e. consent or lack thereof is the deciding element. Right?

All else being equal, drunkenness doesn't mitigate. If anything, it makes it worse because the girl is at a disadvantage. If the accused is drunk on the other hand, that could be a different story.

Do you think drunkedness of the offender should mitigate against, say, a culpable driving charge, too? What about if somebody gets drunk and commits an act of vandalism? Should he get a lighter sentence as a result?

Can you explain your views on the drunkedness of offenders in rape cases, then?

I disagree on this one. I did tick it initially, but after consideration decided that it is the relationship that counts, not the state of marriage. If a couple are married, but not in a relationship (eg separated but not divorced), then the crime is not mitigated.

Do you think, like PJ, that being married or in a relationship is equivalent to an open-ended contract for sexual favors? Surely not. (?)

 

[draqon]

[inappropriate image deleted]

...ok I agree to you all.

 

[draqon]

what?! Why is it inappropriate image? James R.? what is inappropriate in it????
why cant I portray an image of a fully clothed boy? what is this?

 

[James R]

Oniw17:

Maybe not most, but I've been falsely accused of such.

It still happens. Going to court for a year isn't very fun.

But men can get into a lot of trouble over it.

Do you want to tell us your story?


dragon:

I am just a person who hasnt touched a woman ever in his life and will not harm woman in any way, but heard so much crap from women...that now I see them as evil creatures ready to kill anyone they dont like.

You seem to have some deep-seated issues with women in general. Have you ever talked to a professional about this?

It can't be much fun to go through life hating 50% of the population for no good reason.


Prince_James:

I'd also point out a famous case: Kobe Bryant was falsely accused of rape.

And so... ?

 

[draqon]

James why did u delete a picture of a fully clothed boy I posted? I did not violate anything. so please put it back.

 

[draqon]

It can't be much fun to go through life hating 50% of the population for no good reason.

I dont hate them, I just try to ignore them as much as I can, even though some of them are sooo pretty, sexy, and want me to notice them (cause I can see it).

 

[Oniw17]

Oniw17:
Do you want to tell us your story?

Do you want me to? Otherwise, no, I have other things to do with my time.

 

[Prince_James]

James R.:

So, if a woman is so drunk that she doesn't know what's going on, then she is "fair game"?

If she is consciously responding in a manner that implies or explicitly affirms consent (perhaps even INITIATING activity) then yes, she is fair game. However, if she is unconscious, that'd be a bit different.

If you were so drunk you didn't know what was happening, and some guy decided to take you into a dark alley and have his way with you, you think that would be "no rape whatsoever"? Let's assume you are too drunk to "actively fight not to have sex", but not passed out.

If I was refusing to have sex with that person, it would be rape. If I wasn't refusing, and was just sloppy drunk, then it would not be rape.

Rape is not forced sexual activity. No force is required. Rape is sex without consent.

See the difference?

Or do you think force should be required to establish rape? Do you think the current criminal law is wrong in this regard?

By forced I included "unconsented". I did not mean the use of physical force in this regard. Sorry for ambigious language.

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about sex without consent. The woman is assumed to be drunk and has not agreed to have sex or initiated the sexual activity.

Assuming she is conscious, is she showing any signs of not consenting?

So, to you it doesn't matter that she never said "Yes" to sex? You think you have a right to have sex with women unless they say "no"? Don't you think they should have to agree to have sex with you?

Yes. If a woman does not say no, nor non-verbally affirms she does not want to have sex through fighting back or something similar, then I must assume she consents to the activity.

Wait a minute! You're muddying the waters. There are many ways to "show that you are not consenting". Only one of those ways involves vocalising the word "No".

Note I said "presumably isn't fighting back" in the quote you addressed in the last paragraph I replied to.

Also, what about the situation where a woman is confronted by a physically powerful man and is too scared to do anything while he has sex with her? That's not rape, according to you, because she did not show that she wasn't consenting?

Yes. If she shows no signs of not consenting to sex, she is not being raped.

Shouldn't she have to show that she was consenting?

Not doing anything against it makes one complicit in the act.

Why do you place the onus on the woman to withdraw consent, rather than putting the onus on the man to first obtain the consent of the woman before starting to have sex with her?

The act of approach is a question for consent.

So, let's say a woman is sitting watching TV with her boyfriend, with whom she has already had sex in the past. He decides he is a bit horny and reaches over and starts undressing her. She says "PJ! I don't feel like it now", but he continues. She gets a little scared, but decides the best thing to do is just get it over with, so she lies back and the guy has his way with her. Theoretically, she could have confronted him, stood up and walked out. But she didn't. (Maybe this is at her house. What then? Does she kick him out? He's a big, muscley guy and might get angry if he thinks he is being rejected.)

No rape at all? This is just fine, according to you, and the guy is not at fault?

Was he also being violent or showing any signs of aggression? If no, then there is no rape. Rather brutish, unkind behaviour, though.

With all due respect, PJ, this is a screwy idea of marriage. A husband does not "own" his wife, or vice versa. A person is not a thing. One person does not have a right to use another person's body any time they please.

Do you think they do?

Yes, I believe it is implicit (and formally explicit) that both partners in a marriage have access to the other's body in a non-violent fashion.

As somebody else pointed out (Bells?), what one person finds attractive is very particular to that person. Do you think all women should cover up (in burkas perhaps?), in case men see them and can't control their passions?

I believe general conformity to cultural sense is required only. This is a general protection matter that doesn't take into consideration fetishes and kinks.

This is interesting. Why the exception for being in a relationship?

Assuming the norm of faithful monogamy, this woman would not wish said bond to be violated with her partner, nor would she be open to sexual encounters outside of it.

Wait! I know. It's the whole "marry and you own your partner" thing again. Is it? If a woman is in a relationship, then her man owns her, and he should be the only one allowed to have sex with her.

Is that what you think?

Yes. Presuming the relationship is not a polyamorous one.

Note: I would also claim a woman "owns" her husband as well.

Even a prostitute gets to choose her clients. She may not be picky - this is a job after all - but she still has the right to refuse a client. Ask prostitutes whether they ever refuse clients and they will tell you that they do. So, even at this "very promiscuous" end of the scale, women make choices.

I cannot really see why in a non-violent engagement.

A question: do you think it is possible to rape a prostitute?

If one does not pay her? Yes. If one does and isn't violent? I do not see why the prostitute would construe the act as rape, but perhaps I'd admit it as at least partially so. However, as he is paying her, the act was not nearly as egregious.

But what is being invited? Rape? Are all bets off as soon as a woman wears a sexy top? Do all limits on reasonable behaviour go out the window?

Sexual attention is being invited. This increases the likeyhood of unwanted sexual attention.

You're getting away from the point of the thread here. You need to separate the issue of making yourself more likely to be victimised from the issue of whether victimisation itself is somehow "more justifiable" because of the flirting.

This was basically a clarification that people debated me on.

But as noted several times before, and once again for clarity: Provocative dress does not mitigate the moral blame being on the rapist.

But you are also claiming that the moral blame of the rapist ought to be reduced by the "contributory negligence" or character traits of the victim. Are you not?

No. I am not. I am only claiming that there are times when women can act foolishly and bring about situations more likely to produce rape.

Did they ever declare that they did want to have sex? No. That's how it is rape. Getting the message yet?

No, I am not. For it is absurd. If you participate in the act willingly (which is implied in not verbally affirming non-consent or non-verbally doing so) then how can it be rape?

Are you talking about marriage or "relationships" again? I repeat: marriage is not a contract for repeated sex. See how far you get if you ask your next girlfriend to sign a written agreement to have sex with you any time you feel like it, regardless of what she feels like, as long as you're in a "relationship".

That was in reference to marriage, I do believe.

But you keep saying that part of the moral blame is on the victim, especially if she is drunk, promiscuous, looks attractive or happens to be married.

Actually, I affirm that there is no moral blame if she is drunk or is married to her "rapist". I claim that it is only unreasonable for women to be upset about rape if they are promiscious (although I still affirm it is immoral) and I claim that it is foolish for women to provoke certain behaviours but never claim they share in any immorality.

You think they'll accept all comers, indiscriminantly? You think that's what their clothes are saying? "I don't care who you are! Have sex with me!"

No, of course not. But they are implying a willingness to become sexual.

In fact, men rape other men. 18-year old men rape 60 year old women. 40 year old men rape 12 year old boys.

I am quite aware of that. But it is not as often that an 80 year old woman is open to being raped and most rape victims fit the cultural foundations for sexually desirable ages.

Also, we are only consider man-on-woman rape here, are we not? And I never said that one must be attractive in oder to be raped.

Your mistake is in assuming that everybody else in the world is attracted to the same things you are. In fact, a pedophile won't rape the 21 year old fresher girl. He doesn't find her "sexy". He will rape the 8 year old schoolboy instead.

Quite true.

Have you ever had a serious relationship?

Several, actually. Including an engagement, although I've never wed.

Don't bother answering this. It's personal, and I don't need to know. But if you think marriage is only about sex, you have a lot of growing up to do. Seriously.

The institution of marriage certainly is for sex. Sex, specifically, to produce children.

How do you think the Australian public and experts on rape reacted to this judge's comments and decision?

Probably mixed.

How do you react to it? Fair enough? I suppose you agree with him.

Assuming non-violence and paying said prostitute? I would agree that it deserves a lighter sentence.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Now guys ask yourselves the same question but consider the victim to be male this time

what is your response to a man raping another man for wearing sexy clothing, for being drunk, to having numerous sexual partners' etc. (note the victim is not gay)

Is it acceptable now?

No?

I see, so its a female thing.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Meanwhile, James R

If a woman did not say no to sex, I am assuming she also did not resist in other ways, thus how is lack of consent in such an instance understood by the male? Particulalry if the people concerned are in a relationship etc?

Also note, the law is about to be changed so that women who consent to sex while theya re drunk can also accuse a man of rape after, as the consent was not given while in a frame of mind capable of making a wise choice. No consideration for the fact the man may also be drunk and also not capable of knowing the female is not capable of knowing etc.

Do you see how this could be problematic for men?
the woman says YES is co-operative was NOT made drunk by the man, YET still she can accuse of rape.

Meanwhile in Islamic wedding one of the 'rules of marriage' (there are lots) is that the woman cannot deny her husband sex. It happens though, and does not end in rape anymore than it does in western marriages. Men either respect a womans wishes or they do not, not about rules.

 

[Bells]

bells only supports women, but cares not for men, but really the issue concerns both men and women equally.

Yes it does concern both men and women. But I am intrigued. Why are you so intent on defending the rapist? We are discussing here a situation where the man has already been proven in a court of law to have raped the woman. So why are you defending the rapist? Would you defend the rapist if it were a man who raped another man? Or if a woman raped a man? I wonder. Rape is rape. I have never once stated I do not care for men. On the contrary, I have represented many men against women (and other men for a matter of fact) who have sexually harrassed and assaulted them. Their right to consent and to choose is as equal as the woman's. However, I need to ask you, why do you hate women so much? I mean if your mother were raped (as an example), would you call her a liar or possibly a slut? Would you attempt to justify the rapist's actions in any way?

Why do you defend the rapist and his actions? Why do you deny that men and yes, women as well, do rape?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Again: I see no reason why she should care. It's just one more encounter.

But then again, I never said this -justified- rape. I just can't, for the life of me, see why she gives a damn.

Unlike fine wine, you just don't improve with time do you?

Lets assume you are a sexually promiscuous man. And one day you're walking down a street and you're dragged into an alley or building and raped by a man. Does that mean you simply should not care since it would just be another sexual encounter?

She would give a damn PJ because her rights have been violated. Her body has been used by another without her consent. If she is promiscuous and has many sexual partners, it is because she chooses to have sex with those particular men. If someone rapes her, she would care because she did not give consent to that particular individual nor did she choose to have sex with that individual. Do you understand it now? I assume you choose who you have sex with? What if that choice were completely taken away from you? That amounts to rape and believe me you would care if you were ever a victim of it.

Yet in many of the cases, one could not say it is rape at all. When someone never declares - verbally or unverbally - that they do not want to have sex...how is that rape? When they are drunk and try to have sex with -you-, how is that rape? When they are neither being treated violently, nor have any obligation to accept the sex, yet give in even after some protestation in a relationship, how is that rape? And how can rape occur when there is an explicit sexual contract between both parties?

If a woman were unconscious, would that not be rape also? If she is so drunk that she has completely lost control, does that make it ok for a guy to just have sex with her? So if she says no 10 times and her "no's" are ignored and after that she just gives up fighting or saying "no", it's not a rape? Don't you get it? Once she protests against having sex, and the guy keeps pushing and has sex with her without her consent, it is rape. And how can one have an "explicit sexual contract"? There's no such thing as an "explicit sexual contract".

Rape occurs when there is no consent.

Generally speaking, yes.

And yet, many covered up women are still raped. How would you explain it? Are they somehow outside what you would consider to be the norm? It's been pointed out to you, by myself and others, that not everyone finds the same thing to be attractive or appealing. For example, you seem to think that a woman wearing low cut jeans with a g-string hoiked up her backside and her back past the jeans is somehow appealing and sexually provocative. But not all men would. Some men may find it kind of repugnant actually. For example, as James pointed out, would you find an 80 year old woman to be sexually appealing? How about a 5 year old boy or girl? Would you feel a sense of arousal when confronted by such individuals? Some men however do find 80 year old women or 5 year olds to be sexually appealing and do rape them. So should they cover up just in case? Should they try to be older or younger so as to not attract the rapists attention?

Your protestations do not change human nature. Of course, she could also simply not care about being raped. Considering she is provoking the opportunity, that would all ready seem to be the case.

Do you think Muslim women who wear the hijab and burka are not raped? Do you think a woman if she's wearing long pants and a sweater to cover herself up is never raped? Again you are assuming that only if she dresses in a skimpy outfit she is somehow provoking a rape. But would you consider a child in a bathing suit at the beach to be provoking his/her rapist? Would you consider a woman who is raped and had been wearing jeans and a sweater to have somehow provoked her rapist?

Your words and arguments are so primitive that I am sometimes questioning whether you actually believe the drivel you are spouting. If it was human nature, then every man would be a rapist. And every woman for that matter. Do you think it's human nature for a person to rape a child because they found that child to be sexually appealing or somehow provoking them? Or does that individual have a problem? Is it human nature to rape? If it is, then you would be a rapist, so would everyone in the world. Yet not every man or woman rapes. Why is that? Not every man rapes a woman because he finds her to be dressed provocatively. How can that be? After all, you've just made the claim that it is human nature for a provocatively dressed woman to attract rape, why aren't they all raped? Why aren't all men raping women they might find to be sexually provocative? Do you rape a woman if she's dressed provocatively?

If you bothered to read what I wrote, instead of responding with a hysterical emotional response, you'd see that I have always put the moral blame on the rapist.

Ah yes. Yet you also blame the woman for being raped.

I'm not justifying a damn thing. I am simply making a comment on human nature.

Really? I fail to see where you've actually made a valid claim as such. If it were somehow human nature to rape, then we'd all rape. Yet we do not. At least I don't, my husband doesn't, my father doesn't, etc. Are we somehow acting outside of what you've deemed to be human nature? After all, you're excusing his behaviour if she's dressed a certain way (for one thing).. nooo not justifying at all..

Pure, unequivocal, nonsense. Women who make themselves sexually focused are attempting to convince men to have sex with them. Convincing the wrong man to have sex with them produces rape.

Certain behaviours, manners of dress, actions...all have a sexual overtone. Engaging in such things sexualizes the atmosphere more than not. Unless of course you think seduction has no foundation at all.

You equate seduction as being the same as a man forcing a woman to have sex with her? My my a date with you must be fun. Invite you up for coffee and you'd consider it an open invitation to rape her.

A woman can make herself as 'sexually focused' as she chooses, it still does not give any man the right to force her to have sex without her consent. Do you honestly believe that a woman, by the way she may dress, somehow convinces a man to have sex with her without her consent? What, you think the man may have not been that keen but then her cleavage was just too much for him to resist? What about men who rape children or the elderly? Do their manners, dress, actions, have a sexual overtone.. are they sexually focused? What about the woman who's merely jogging down a path wearing long track pants and a sweatshirt and is dragged into the bushes and is raped. Has she somehow made herself 'sexually focused'?

She can dress as she pleases to attract a particular man. But if he or any other man attempts to force her to have sex and do not have her consent, it is rape. Do you understand? My god even a person with minimal brain function has better understanding than you do. A person must have express consent before engaging in sex. Without said express consent, it is rape. Her dress is not consent. Her actions or flirting is not consent. If she bends down and flashes her butt or her boobs, it's still not express consent. I mean if you were out with a woman and she's been flirting with you all night, but when you get her home she merely says goodnight and walks into her house. Would you force the issue? After all, you've said it's human nature right? So would you think you'd be justified in forcing her to have sex with you? What am I saying.. after reading the things you've been writing, you probably would feel justified.

Not saying that all instances of rape are based on provocative dress. You are putting those words in my mouth. I am only saying that provocative dress can inspire more instances of rape than would be otherwise.

Ah no, you're saying it's human nature for a man to rape a woman if she's dressed provocatively. You still don't get it. Rape occurs when a person has sex with another person without their consent. What they may wear, say, do, have done in the past, been married to the rapist, been in a sexual relationship with the rapist, etc.. all that means nothing. In just about all cases, the man wanted to control her or teach her a lesson.. he wanted to make her feel like a zero... he wanted to take away her rights and her freedoms.. he wanted to be in power. She could have been wearing a bedsheet draped over her head to her feet, it would mean nothing. But it's telling how you keep trying to justify the rapists reactions or actions however.

Pathetic ad hominem.

------------

See above.

I am beginning to see here the famed "hysterical woman" popping up.

And I am beginning to see where the saying "men are bastards" came from. And you still think it was a personal attack on you? LOL! Believe me I was being quite polite.

Sometimes, they might, but actually the over whelming impetus to rape is not "power" but "sexual gratification". Some men might get off on the power experience of it, but the act is also chiefly sexual.

I disagree. The sexual gratification is a prt of it, but the rape of a person involves taking all aspects of control away from the victim. All their power and choices go out the window. The rapist rapes because he wants to subjugate his/her victim. They want that control and that power over that individual. Hence why serial rapists can never stop at one. They get their gratification not just out of the sexual act, but out of demeaning and removing all forms of control and power the victim may have over themselves.

Morally no, but pragmatically yes. He had more of a reason to rape the woman in provocative dress (not good reason, mind you, but a foundation).

Why do you think he has more of a reason to rape a woman who's dressed in a manner he considers to be provocative? Why do you even think any person can have a reason to rape another? Do rapists need a reason?

Human nature says otherwise. If she wishes to buck against it, then she must suffer the likelyhood of her chances to be raped increased.

She could be dressed in a manner that has her covered from head to toe and she'd still be raped. You're basically saying that if a woman wishes to not be raped or wishes to reduce her chances of being raped, she should dress differently, but the truth is it wouldn't matter. If what you say were correct, then rapes would not occur in countries where women are forced to cover up (eg. Iran). A woman has no say in who will rape her. She is not raped by choice. Nor can she dress in any fashion to prevent a rape as not everyone is attracted to the same thing. For example, a woman can be at home and a man can break in and rape her, regardless of what she's wearing. She could be wearing long pants or a long skirt with a sweater, with her whole body covered up by clothing and still be raped. For example, an elderly patient in a home cannot know that one of the male employees is sexually attracted to elderly patients. How can she somehow protect herself against it? Do you think a child "bucks" against being seen to be sexually attracted to a paedophile? Why do you place the onus on the woman to not be raped, instead of placing it on the man to not rape?

That is absurd and ridiculous and I am fairly certain even -you- know it. Rapists most -certainly- target specific women. Rapists are -much- more likely to rape someone in a skimpy dress that forces a focus on her sexuality.


Could be, but -far- less likely.

You honestly think that? Then show proof of it. Show me the statistics from say the "Bureau of Statistics" in your country, which shows that a woman dressed in a skimpy outfit gets raped more than any other woman.

Some make weird justifications, of course. Some are going to target anyone and probably have targetted beforehand. Many others will not.

Interesting. Weren't you the one just saying that a woman is more likely to be a target if she's dressed in a certain manner? Rapists will see and take what they wish to. You might not consider a particular woman to be appealing at all, but a rapist might feel differently. Any justification for a rape is invalid because there can never be a justification or a mitigating factor into forcing a person to have sex. This is something you keep missing. A rape is just that. Taking away a person's right to choose what happens to their body. If someone raped you, would you consider any situation that may present itself as somehow mitigating their actions towards you? Say if you're walking down the street in a pair of shorts and no top and a guy walks up and forces you and rapes you, do you think that because you were dressed provocatively for that individual, that it somehow mitigates what he's actually done? Would you be happy with a judge, who takes the fact that you were dressed in a manner the rapist considered to be sexually provocative, into consideration and lessened his sentence as a result?

Because men are also raped. Do you think if you were drunk, dressed a certain way, unconscious, had been sexually promiscuous, that it somehow is not rape if a man forces you to have sex with him without your consent? Do you think a judge should take the fact that you may have been drunk, dressed a certain way, unconscious, etc, into consideration when sentencing your rapist?

In a common cultural milieu? For the most part, yes! That is how -social discourse- works.

I see. So you like and are attracted to all types of women then? Some men like women who are skinny as planks and others like women who are overweight or even obese. Some like women who are really old and others like young girls and even children. Tell me, will all these men be attracted to the type of woman you might be attracted to? Do you think all men like blondes for example? Are all the men you know within your 'cultural milieu' attracted to exactly what are attracted to?

Then there is no reason whatsoever for marriage and, in fact, the marriage contract is explicitly broken. The purpose of marriage is sex. Sex for procreation and sex to socially restrain the influence of sex in general society. Barring sex, there is litterally no reason to be married.

I see. So because a woman is married to a man, he somehow has general licence to have sex with her whenever he so chooses, even if she is not willing? Be sure to tell any woman you wish to marry that PJ. I can assure you that your doing so will result in a very short engagement. Actually, you should be sure to tell any woman you date that. Warn them in advance of what kind of person you are. Otherwise you can find yourself in handcuffs being driven away by a couple of police officers.

Tell me PJ, where in the vows of marriage does it say that marriage is about sex? Where in any legal definition of marriage, does it say that the purpose of a marital union "is sex"?

 

[Bells]

Meanwhile, James R

If a woman did not say no to sex, I am assuming she also did not resist in other ways, thus how is lack of consent in such an instance understood by the male? Particulalry if the people concerned are in a relationship etc?

Would you consider a woman who is unconscious as being able to give consent? Do you think that silence is express consent? Would you consider a woman who has been terrorised by say a person holding a gun or a knife telling her that if says a word he'd kill her as having consented by the fact that she remained silent? How about a woman who is in an abusive relationship and is simply scared to say no or to resist because when she's said no or resisted in the past, she's been beaten, so prefers to save herself from a possible beating and just remains silent and does not fight back? Has her silence or her lack of resistance indicated consent?

Also note, the law is about to be changed so that women who consent to sex while theya re drunk can also accuse a man of rape after, as the consent was not given while in a frame of mind capable of making a wise choice. No consideration for the fact the man may also be drunk and also not capable of knowing the female is not capable of knowing etc.

Do you see how this could be problematic for men?
the woman says YES is co-operative was NOT made drunk by the man, YET still she can accuse of rape.

The law would be changed because a person who is that drunk is not in a competent frame of mind to give consent. Just as an adult who is mentally disabled and has the mental capacity of a 5 year old cannot be seen at law as being competent to give consent. For example, would you consider a woman who is so drunk that she cannot remember what her full name is, or where she lives, to be in a comptent state of mind to give consent to having sex?

The courts would take into consideration that both were consenting to having sex and that both were drunk. The issue in regards to the victim being drunk at the time of the rape has more to do with a situation where the offender is not drunk or is seen to be in a frame of mind that the law would consider to be competent at the time the rape occured.

Meanwhile in Islamic wedding one of the 'rules of marriage' (there are lots) is that the woman cannot deny her husband sex. It happens though, and does not end in rape anymore than it does in western marriages. Men either respect a womans wishes or they do not, not about rules.

Do you think it "only ends in rape" when she reports it? Do you think that a rule of marriage that states a woman cannot deny her husband sex, and the husband does not get his wife's consent before having sex with her, that it is somehow not rape?

Islam states that while a man who sleeps with his wife without her consent will not be stoned to death (as is the usual punishment for rape), if he does sleep with her without her will or force her to do something in their marital bed that she does not wish to do, he will have displeased Allah and must fear Allah for having done so (Quran, 2:223). The Quran also states that a man who sexually abuses his wife will have to be held accountable to Allah when he dies. So in light of that, if a Muslim man decides to rape his wife, he does so knowing that he will have to face the full wrath of his god for having done so.

 

[leopold]

there is only one response i chose and that is the woman did not clearly say no.

the word "no" need not be spoken it can be asserted in other ways.

this brings us to a comatose waman or a woman that is incapable of enforcing her will, in this case even the above wouldn't apply.

given the rules of the first post then there is no reason for rape. the only conceivable reason is that the woman never asserted her will to the contrary.

 

[Prince_James]

Bells:

Lets assume you are a sexually promiscuous man. And one day you're walking down a street and you're dragged into an alley or building and raped by a man. Does that mean you simply should not care since it would just be another sexual encounter?

Homosexual behaviour may be classified as a "legitimate reason to be offended" if one is not homosexual. This is substantially different than "why would she care, it's just another guy?"

She would give a damn PJ because her rights have been violated. Her body has been used by another without her consent. If she is promiscuous and has many sexual partners, it is because she chooses to have sex with those particular men. If someone rapes her, she would care because she did not give consent to that particular individual nor did she choose to have sex with that individual. Do you understand it now? I assume you choose who you have sex with? What if that choice were completely taken away from you? That amounts to rape and believe me you would care if you were ever a victim of it.

Assuming a reasonable attractiveness of the -female-, as well as all other things being equal, chances are I would not significantly care, no.

If a woman were unconscious, would that not be rape also?

Yes, I do believe this would constitute rape, considering the impossibility to render implied and explicit consent.

If she is so drunk that she has completely lost control, does that make it ok for a guy to just have sex with her?

If she is neither resisting or affirming her non-consent? Yes.

So if she says no 10 times and her "no's" are ignored and after that she just gives up fighting or saying "no", it's not a rape?

Yes. It is no longer a rape if her continued non-consent is not present.

And how can one have an "explicit sexual contract"? There's no such thing as an "explicit sexual contract".

Actually there is. Prostitutes enter into an explicit sexual contract when they exchange sex for money, and legally wives were mandated to provide sexual services in exchange for material support to their husbands for many years and until relatively recently.

And yet, many covered up women are still raped. How would you explain it?

I never claimed that a woman required to be provocatively dressed to be raped.

It's been pointed out to you, by myself and others, that not everyone finds the same thing to be attractive or appealing. For example, you seem to think that a woman wearing low cut jeans with a g-string hoiked up her backside and her back past the jeans is somehow appealing and sexually provocative. But not all men would. Some men may find it kind of repugnant actually. For example, as James pointed out, would you find an 80 year old woman to be sexually appealing? How about a 5 year old boy or girl? Would you feel a sense of arousal when confronted by such individuals? Some men however do find 80 year old women or 5 year olds to be sexually appealing and do rape them. So should they cover up just in case? Should they try to be older or younger so as to not attract the rapists attention?

Cultures tend to agree on a common foundation for attractiveness. Fetishes and other outside-the-norm would not be considered in such situations and could not be prepared against.

Do you think Muslim women who wear the hijab and burka are not raped?

I believe there have been complaints about that in Afghanistan following the removal of strict shariah law.

Do you think a woman if she's wearing long pants and a sweater to cover herself up is never raped? Again you are assuming that only if she dresses in a skimpy outfit she is somehow provoking a rape. But would you consider a child in a bathing suit at the beach to be provoking his/her rapist? Would you consider a woman who is raped and had been wearing jeans and a sweater to have somehow provoked her rapist?

As I have noted several times: Provocative dress does not AUTOMATICALLY GET ONE RAPED. IT simply -raises the chances-.

And no, I don't think a child - or anyone within reasonable decency at a beach - is attempting to provoke any sexual contact.

If it was human nature, then every man would be a rapist.

Rape is pretty common culturally to say to say that men are vulnerable to tartish looking women.

Do you think it's human nature for a person to rape a child because they found that child to be sexually appealing or somehow provoking them?

Desire tends to precede action, so yes, I do believe it is a human response to rape a child if one is turned on by such a thing. That one can exercise one's will against such andthat not everyone has such feelings simply affirms that we have control over ourselves, which I never stated otherwise.

Is it human nature to rape?

Rape is a common human behaviour. So yes, rape is one of the "darker" parts of human nature.

After all, you've just made the claim that it is human nature for a provocatively dressed woman to attract rape, why aren't they all raped?

To attract more instances of rape, not to necessarily attract rape as magnets attract iron.

Ah yes. Yet you also blame the woman for being raped.

Please tell me where I blame women for rape? Where do I claim women are evil for being raped?

After all, you're excusing his behaviour if she's dressed a certain way (for one thing).. nooo not justifying at all..

I'd have you present where I have excused anything. Show me one instance where I have explicitly noted that "it is not as bad to rape a provocatively dressed woman"?

You equate seduction as being the same as a man forcing a woman to have sex with her? My my a date with you must be fun. Invite you up for coffee and you'd consider it an open invitation to rape her.

No, I equate seduction with provocative dress.

A woman can make herself as 'sexually focused' as she chooses, it still does not give any man the right to force her to have sex without her consent.

I agree.

Do you honestly believe that a woman, by the way she may dress, somehow convinces a man to have sex with her without her consent?

She arouses him enough for him to consider it, yes. But no, she is not asking to be raped explicitly. She's asking to be sexually focused upon, though.

What, you think the man may have not been that keen but then her cleavage was just too much for him to resist? What about men who rape children or the elderly? Do their manners, dress, actions, have a sexual overtone.. are they sexually focused? What about the woman who's merely jogging down a path wearing long track pants and a sweatshirt and is dragged into the bushes and is raped. Has she somehow made herself 'sexually focused'?

No.

She can dress as she pleases to attract a particular man. But if he or any other man attempts to force her to have sex and do not have her consent, it is rape. Do you understand?

Show me where I claim otherwise?

I mean if you were out with a woman and she's been flirting with you all night, but when you get her home she merely says goodnight and walks into her house. Would you force the issue? After all, you've said it's human nature right? So would you think you'd be justified in forcing her to have sex with you? What am I saying.. after reading the things you've been writing, you probably would feel justified.

Were I sexually interested in her, I'd certainly attempt to seduce her. But no, I would not rape her, as I do not think rape is justified.

Ah no, you're saying it's human nature for a man to rape a woman if she's dressed provocatively.

It's human nature to provoke more instances of such, yes.

I disagree. The sexual gratification is a prt of it, but the rape of a person involves taking all aspects of control away from the victim. All their power and choices go out the window. The rapist rapes because he wants to subjugate his/her victim. They want that control and that power over that individual. Hence why serial rapists can never stop at one. They get their gratification not just out of the sexual act, but out of demeaning and removing all forms of control and power the victim may have over themselves.

One can gain all of this through other means. The sexual aspect to it would seem to imply an extensive sexual principle within it.

Why do you think he has more of a reason to rape a woman who's dressed in a manner he considers to be provocative? Why do you even think any person can have a reason to rape another? Do rapists need a reason?

Yes, rapists need a reason. Of course they do. All actions have reasons. A rapist doesn't rape as some bizarre, uncaused action, stemming from the cosmic interaction of superstrings or some nonsense. He wants to rape that person because he is sexually interested in that person, in one way or another, and possibly with some of the power things you want to add.

You're basically saying that if a woman wishes to not be raped or wishes to reduce her chances of being raped, she should dress differently, but the truth is it wouldn't matter

If this were the case, sexual dress or mannerisms would not exist.

Nor can she dress in any fashion to prevent a rape as not everyone is attracted to the same thing.

One can dress in a manner not considered sexually focused in that culture.

Why do you place the onus on the woman to not be raped, instead of placing it on the man to not rape?

The onus is not upon her, simply common sense if she wants to not be placed in those situations as likely as another woman.

You honestly think that? Then show proof of it. Show me the statistics from say the "Bureau of Statistics" in your country, which shows that a woman dressed in a skimpy outfit gets raped more than any other woman.

If youth = generally greater attraction, then...

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

About 44% of rape victims are under age 18, and 80% are under age 30.

Who are the most likely in society to be wearing provactive dress?

Interesting. Weren't you the one just saying that a woman is more likely to be a target if she's dressed in a certain manner?

Provocative dress = Culturally sexually arousing = More likely to provoke sexual actions, including rape. Yes.

If someone raped you, would you consider any situationthat may present itself as somehow mitigating their actions towards you? Say if you're walking down the street in a pair of shorts and no top and a guy walks up and forces you and rapes you, do you think that because you were dressed provocatively for that individual, that it somehow mitigates what he's actually done?

I never claimed it does. It certainly gives him a reason, though.

Because men are also raped. Do you think if you were drunk, dressed a certain way, unconscious, had been sexually promiscuous, that it somehow is not rape if a man forces you to have sex with him without your consent? Do you think a judge should take the fact that you may have been drunk, dressed a certain way, unconscious, etc, into consideration when sentencing your rapist?

If I am drunk, conscious, and I do not show any non-consent or fight back, then yes, the judge should consider me as having consented and throw out the case.

Unconsciousness would be rape.

So you like and are attracted to all types of women then?

Actually, I do have a wide spread and general like of women. But that is pretty much irrelevant.

Some men like women who are skinny as planks and others like women who are overweight or even obese. Some like women who are really old and others like young girls and even children. Tell me, will all these men be attracted to the type of woman you might be attracted to? Do you think all men like blondes for example? Are all the men you know within your 'cultural milieu' attracted to exactly what are attracted to?

Most men I know can agree on the general attractiveness of most women, actually. Do we have individual tastes? Of course. But societies tend to favour one aesthetic preference over another and makes such desirable to a larger audience.

I see. So because a woman is married to a man, he somehow has general licence to have sex with her whenever he so chooses, even if she is not willing?

Because -people- are married, yes. Not just women.

Be sure to tell any woman you wish to marry that PJ. I can assure you that your doing so will result in a very short engagement.

Most women I have been involved with have had little problem with my sexual politics, thank you.

Tell me PJ, where in the vows of marriage does it say that marriage is about sex?

The notion of honouring one's spouse generally included sexual gratification. Also, the idea that man and wife are to be considered as one flesh. One flesh having also a very physical foundation in the sex act.

Where in any legal definition of marriage, does it say that the purpose of a marital union "is sex"?

No longer, but it used to for the woman. However, we can dissect and deconstruct the social role marriage plays and find out what it is all about.

Kant was pretty on the mark when he said that marriage is basically a license to have access to one another's genitals.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

there is only one response i chose and that is the woman did not clearly say no.

the word "no" need not be spoken it can be asserted in other ways.

this brings us to a comatose waman or a woman that is incapable of enforcing her will, in this case even the above wouldn't apply.

given the rules of the first post then there is no reason for rape. the only conceivable reason is that the woman never asserted her will to the contrary.

it goes without saying if the woman is unconscious she has not consented? credit sciforum posters with some intelligence leo???

Meanwhile I chose the same as you.

Rape is when a man forceabley against the wishes of the female has sex with her, I guess it becomes a tad ambiguous in the situation I cited previously, thus it is not a case of whether rape is permissable but rather a case of is it rape?

If both parties are dating, both drunk, both engaging in the act blatantly with consent, to then call it rape afterwards is a nonsense as far as I am concerned. Many people regret what they get up to when drunk or after taking (willingly) drugs, but they understand they did it all willingly at the time.

It is VERY difficult territory, but if you can't handle your drink or are worried about how you behave with drink, do not drink. Do not flirt, so not engage men in physical activity. Do not say yes, grab his cock and ask for a fuck when in the morning you may think, oh shit what did I do last night?

People need to take responsibility for their actions.

All the men I know will leave a blatantly drunk to the point of falling over female alone when she makes sexual advances, because they know she may not be fully in possession of her faculties and in that state she is not very appealing.

But the others, who can stand and hold a decent level of conversation? They should know what they are doing. If they don't then I hope their pals look after them.

 

[Bells]

Homosexual behaviour may be classified as a "legitimate reason to be offended" if one is not homosexual. This is substantially different than "why would she care, it's just another guy?"

So if the woman were a lesbian, it'd be more of a crime to you or she should somehow be more affected than a heterosexual woman? Your arguments get more and more pathetic.

Rape is pretty common culturally to say to say that men are vulnerable to tartish looking women.

I see. So you know many rapists amongst your acquaintances? A man can be as vulnerable as he wants to how a particular woman looks. It still is not an invitation by her to be raped. It is still for him to exert control over himself and not the other way around. It is for the man to not rape.

Please tell me where I blame women for rape? Where do I claim women are evil for being raped?

Read through your whole post. Better yet, have a woman you know read what you've stated in this thread. If she has half a brain cell, she'll be able to point it all out to you. She may also castrate you, but you should give it a go regardless. If you really feel justified in what you have said in this thread, have your mother, sister, girlfriend, wife, etc read what you've said and see if they agree whole heartedly with you. Better yet, go to a rape crisis centre and have a woman who's been a victim of rape read your words and see how well she agrees with you.

About 44% of rape victims are under age 18, and 80% are under age 30.

Who are the most likely in society to be wearing provactive dress?

Maybe I failed to make myself clear. Show me the specific statistics which state that women who dress provocatively are raped more than women who who dress conservatively. You are assuming that younger women dress more provocatively and the link you have provided says nothing at all to support your claim. Until you can show the exact statistics from a reputable site (eg police statistics, State or National statistic Bureau's, from an educational study - as in from a university study or thesis which shows a distinct figure that women who are dressed provocatively are raped more than other women) which gives the figures that show that women who dress provocatively are raped more than women who do not, then you basically do not have an argument or a leg to stand on.

Because -people- are married, yes. Not just women.

Again, be sure to tell her that once that ring is on her finger, she's no longer allowed to say the word "no" because you happen to want some and she does not. Be sure to tell her that because she's married to you, she no longer has any rights over her own body and that you own her sexual organs, just as much as she owns yours. And then pray to whatever it is you believe in that you don't wake up one morning and find your dick and your balls in a jar on your bedside table after you've forced yourself on her.

Most women I have been involved with have had little problem with my sexual politics, thank you.

Ah so you've managed to find some women who accept the fact that they no longer have any rights over their bodies or sexual organs once they are involved with you and that you effectively now own her? My how lucky you must be. So most huh? What happened to the others? Did they run a mile when they saw you coming? Or have you learnt now to just keep quiet about how you really feel and just find women too stupid to realise what kind of bastard you really are?

And yes, that was an honest statement as to how I actually view you as an individual. I actually think you no better than a pathetic runt and a piece of turd left out to try on a sidewalk. But that's a matter for another thread.

The notion of honouring one's spouse generally included sexual gratification. Also, the idea that man and wife are to be considered as one flesh. One flesh having also a very physical foundation in the sex act.

So you think that in gratifying your own sexual needs by forcing yourself on your wife, you are somehow 'honouring' her? My god you are a pathetic human being. So "one flesh" also includes the clause that the woman has no rights over her own body and cannot say not to sex? My god your interpretation of what constitutes a marriage is warped in the extreme.

No longer, but it used to for the woman. However, we can dissect and deconstruct the social role marriage plays and find out what it is all about.

Yes it used to be for the woman. Thankfully society evolved past the primitive notions of viewing women as forms of property and came to realise that a woman has rights not only over property, but also over her body as well. It's a shame you've failed to catch up on the rest or society, isn't it.

Kant was pretty on the mark when he said that marriage is basically a license to have access to one another's genitals.

Kant's words to be exact were stated in The Science of Right:

"The latter is marriage (matrimonium), which is the union of two persons of different sex for life-long reciprocal possession of their sexual faculties."
Please take note of the fact that he also saw it as being something that was 'reciprocal'. I even highlighted the word for you.

Kant also argued that everyone has a moral duty to respect others as persons, and that such duty is derived from our dignity as rational beings. Now in light of that, do you think he'd agree with you that a man can force his wife to have sex with him whenever he so chooses, without her consent.. do you think Kant would argue that such an act was a sign of respect to the wife?

"In other words, if a man and a woman have the will to enter on reciprocal enjoyment in accordance with their sexual nature, they must necessarily marry each other; and this necessity is in accordance with the juridical laws of pure reason." (Kant, I. The Science of Right)...