Counterproposal: Don't dress like a slut...

[lepustimidus]

I'm sorry that you are against women's rights,

No I'm not. I'm against feminists and their bullshit double standards and hyperbole.

Things that are considered part of "human nature" are usually associated with men. To stay on topic, I'll use sex drive as an example. When a man as many of you have mentioned can't seem to control himself in a sexual situation or has an insatiable sexual drive. Thats to be expected, but if a woman has a strong sex drive and isn't offended or put off by dirty jokes then she's just acting like a guy or behaves too much like a man. Because real women don't like sex and they are offended by off color jokes, they are only interested in love, and babies, and vacuums, and more babies.

I don't believe what you've written above, and neither does any man that I have met. So you and Tiassa can stick your broad brush right up the collective feminist asshole. I'm fed up with being told what I (and other males) think, especially by losers who don't have a friggen clue. It's both insulting and sexist.

 

[Gustav]

I think at some point it becomes incumbent upon the attire advocates to proscribe the boundaries of their precaution argument as they see it. This would help others understand something about what seems so obvious to them. But left as a general, potentially infinite cycle of suppressing oneself for fear, it really does seem a strange argument difficult to justify. (#1884434/244)​

Look, I'm aware that it's a difficult list to conceive. But you're pushing an amorphous theory on fallacious appeals to emotion. One wonders why the precaution advocates are so unwilling to even try.

thats cos it an obvious setup. whatever precaution one may offer is not an iron clad guarantee of safety. the benefits are more nebulous than that. it deals with probabilities and likelihoods. on that basis you will huff and puff, then dismiss. why because you favor the grand social experiment and its human sacrifices over something that is quite mundane and superficial at best.

witness mel and his daughter cher

Mel: What the hell is that?
Cher: A dress.
Mel: Says who?
Cher: Calvin Klein.
Mel: It looks like underwear. Go upstairs and put something over it.
Cher: Duh, I was just going to.​

Paramount Pictures

so she puts her little coat on and goes to the nightclub
once in, she take it off to reveal herself in all her glory

absolutely fucking vicious, ja?
no woman should ever have to go thru that pain and anguish

/snicker

the paradigm of propriety we are to be dealing with is the era of your parents. the goddamn 50's. a time prior to the so called sexual revolution. it was a time when clothes concealed more than it revealed. "slutty" is when the opposite is true. that is the only true criteria

 

[Randwolf]

Tiassa

I wanted to acknowledge your efforts...

OMG! You are extemely good at what you do! Thank you for your detailed and extremely comprehensive response.

(Have to admit though, pretty much what I expected after reading some of your other works. As some of the members have suggested, why don't you collect your posts and create a novel?)

To engage at this level will take me, a naive noob, a minimum of two hours, just to formulate a response - two hours that are not available at the moment, but will be on the morrow.

Rest assured, however, that I will take your post apart, point by point within the next twenty-four hours...

Meanwhile, and without attempting to duck the issues, I must point out that the following are assertions made and positions held by others, that apparently you hold me responsible for supporting. I will not neglect these arguments in my (hopefully) more thorough response, but I can't resist discaiming any responsibility for the following:

(in other words, the views expressed hereafter may or may not reflect those of management, etc...)

• The problem is that the current advocacy of precautions seems unwilling to discuss the full range of those precautions, preferring instead to exploit a really cheap men's sexual fantasy about a scantily-clad, innocent woman wandering alone through dark alleyways as the sex-hungry pervert vampires assemble and consider the harm they can do. (#1878030/90)

• I have attempted repeatedly to address the implications of the excuses put forward according to this scenario, and get nothing in response except a blind repetition of the excuses. (#1879170/123)

• The whole precaution argument is left open-ended—this is the very problem the topic post addresses—and while its advocates seem to resent the implications of misogyny, they really don't seem interested in establishing the boundaries of their argument. (#1884434/244)

• As I said, these precautions are an open-ended proposition. And they fail to address the perpetuation of ideas justifying or even encouraging rape. (#1884557/253)

• Furthermore, even when prodded to clarify in ways that might defuse people's disgust, they're providing only the most general of outlines. "There are heaps of clothing that ... aren't designed to get male attention." That's ... well, it's not exactly helpful, is it? (ibid)​

It should be noted that Codanblad offered a general and, ...(text deleted)... Indeed, that boundary was more of an anti-response, as it gave a vague suggestion that there are "heaps of clothes" that apparently do not inspire rapists, and is a bit more specific about what does apparently inspire rapists.

... (text deleted) ...

Furthermore, let us consider the evolution of the discussion as relates to the phrase "asked for it". Our neighbor Francois wrote, in the early going:

"I think any idiot, whether a feminist or not, would agree that a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it." (#1869513/13)​

And this is where a dying thread suddenly launched into the stratosphere. Accused of attempting to "mitigate, justify, or otherwise advocate" rape, he focused on the word justify and chose the belligerent response. Yet despite his anger, he chose to blame victims for being raped.

Seriously. Admittedly, the discussion was a mess by the time you joined it. Perhaps you overlooked that part:

"I'm also saying that rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make." (#1871614/21)​

And so on:

"Anyway, as I said, obviously one of the reasons women get raped is because there is a motivated rapist. But it seems like you're saying that's the only reason it happens. That's where we disagree. Unlike you, I acknowledge that events can have multiple causes." (#1871793/24)​

He even compared what a woman wears to the provocation of assaulting someone:

"If I said that a person who walks up to a dangerous looking thug at night and starts pushing him around is asking to get murdered, does that "uncover my Misanthropy"? No, all it means is that the person is fucking stupid." (#1876836/56)​

And repeated the point:

"For example, if you walk out of your doorstep and get murdered instantly for no apparent reason, that's different from provoking a thug in a dark alley and getting murdered: there are different levels of culpability here. The same is true for all crimes, including rape." (#1877762/68)​

It is worth pointing out here, also, that as some of us live in a country where asking directions or being a homeless kid looking for food in a trash can is sufficient cause for someone to shoot you to death, it's a hard case to sell that someone who kills you in self-defense is murder.

And all the while, he remained belligerent. In an interesting twist, Francois attempted to assert that the phrase "asking for it" is synonymous with "you should expect a much greater than average probability":

" Here, 'asking for it' means the same thing as 'should expect a much greater probability of getting raped'.

So let's paraphrase it. This is not changing the meaning at all, but it might elucidate how absurd your qualms with this statement are." (#1878006/87)​

And he was emphatic:

"They. Mean. The. Same. Thing." (ibid)​

In the face of overwhelming opposition, Francois reconsidered his statement—

"If I'm to be completely honest, I originally carefully considered whether or not I should have used the phrase "asking for it." I thought about it, and it means the same exact thing. How does it not mean the same exact thing?" (#1878036/91)​

—and reaffirmed himself.

He even claimed that by not blaming the woman, we are insulting rape survivors—

"All I'm saying is that there's a difference between a scenario in which a rapist breaks into a woman's apartment and rapes her, and a scenario in which a woman walks alone scantily clad in a dark alley and gets raped. You're not allowing for a difference. How insulting to women who have had rapists break into their homes to rape them! If you're going to be so insulting to those women, why don't you complete the deal by slapping them in the face and calling them whores?" (#1878120/101)​

—and accused people who disagreed with his equivocation of being crazy:

"Alright man. You see no difference. Fine. I call that crazy, and I believe other rational people would too." (#1878184/103)​

Francois withdrew or temporarily exited the discussion two-hundred posts ago, still holding the line.

Moving on ....

Codanblad's part is a bit shorter. He entered the discussion by picking up Francois' point—

"a man's sexual urges are a powerful force. rape is wrong, but dressing sexily is literally providing motivation. i agree with 'girls who dress like sluts are asking for it' because just about every creature is designed for sex ...." (#1878878/119)​

—and even attempted to reduce men to unthinking sex machines:

"i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission." (ibid)​

And while he tried to claim that he was "in no way encouraging or condoning rape", it seems rather fallacious to say that something is the way it is, but he's not encouraging or condoning it; rather, if it is the way it is, there is no encouraging or condoning it.

Reducing men to unthinking animals or machines—

"... if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up?" (ibid)​

—is a mitigating assertion.

Here we return to my first response to the "asking for it" rhetoric. Acknowledging that rape is a fact, I told Francois to "Stop trying to mitigate, justify, or otherwise advocate it".


... (text deleted) ...

Codanblad even expressed sympathy with the rapists:

"i'm saying i understand why people would rape people, and i understand how seeing a scantily clad woman would incline a person towards raping her, especially given the nature of people being animals" (#1879105/121)​

I find that point particularly unsettling.

But he did try to distance himself from his statements in the course of a couple of posts (#130, #132), and while he would still place the burden of calculating men's minds, intentions, and behavior onto women, he has, over the long run, taken a slightly more moderate approach.

What we are dealing with is more than "position founded on an implicite interpretation of a particular post". The amount of interpretation involved is minimal, and pertains largely to people's understanding of the definitions of words.

... (text deleted) ...

And yet we find all those women, apparently encouraging rapists. Or, as the arguments have them, "asking for it", attacking people, or pulling the pin on a grenade.

... (text deleted) ...


The goal is to eliminate ignorance. Unfortunately, it might be that the only way to separate the stupid from the ignorant is when the failure to understand is manifested in a rape. Given that these rapes will include dramatic proportions that have nothing to do with a woman's dress—e.g. marital and date rape, and, also, as Deep Thought has noted

... (text deleted) ...

Seriously, how do you do it? Where do you find the time? I know, I asked for it, and I will respond in kind, but geeeez?!?!

 

[codanblad]

to lepustimidus

when you tell a girl to act more feminine, do you think that's how nature intended her to act? at what point did etiquette and good taste let her fight off tigers (or leopards, or bears. maybe even rhinos. maybe even the dreaded sasquatch.) i mean do girls really fart less than boy? at what point did zero sex drive help the species.

compare it with telling a guy to 'be a man', its working hard, being tough, protecting your woman. survival stuff.

i figured that's what cutsiemarie's talking about is women have to make a far greater leap to fit into society, than men do. expected male behaviour is much more primal.

note: the argument revolves around belief in natural selection. if god made us, maybe he did design women to sew, cook and clean (in my opinion: Ha! ridiculous).

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

not too shabby
you introduce rapist with a fetish as an argument against precautionary measures?

What business attire? You consider that a fetish?

Dude.

Dude!

I mean, it's not my thing, per se, but come on.

• • •​

I'm fed up with being told what I (and other males) think, especially by losers who don't have a friggen clue. It's both insulting and sexist.

A question: Are you an animal or machine without thought or will?

• "i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission." (#1878878/119)

• "... if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up? when a man sees cleavage/legs/whatever, there's a lot of chemical reactions going on in his body." (ibid)​

Or are you not offended when a masculinist tells you what you and other males think, or, in this case—since thought and will apparently aren't part of the process—are?

Where's the venom and vitriol?

• • •​

Meanwhile, and without attempting to duck the issues, I must point out that the following are assertions made and positions held by others, that apparently you hold me responsible for supporting.

Two points. First, I assure you that I will not hold you responsible for the things I post. Second—

Who here, or anywhere else has "advocated" rape, explicitly or de facto? Isn't this position founded on an implicite interpretation of a particular post? I highly doubt anyone is condoning rape. Of course, you can argue that "they don't know they are doing it, it's subconcious", but I just don't buy it. Where is your evidence of this "advocacy of rape", de facto or otherwise?

(#1886464/294)

—you asked. I mean, I know you acknowledge that you asked, but how, exactly, am I holding you responsible for assertions made and positions held by others by providing the evidence you asked for?

As to the rest: Writing words is what I do. Writing for Sciforums is easy. Writing a novel is quite a bit tougher. Blogging, even, is harder than this. At Sciforums, people give me plenty to work with. And, given how basic most of that is, the harder part of writing here is keeping track of links and making sure I don't misattribute a quote.

 

[DeepThought]

Ok, as that split hair means so much to you, I'll replace the word rape with sexual assault. Now answer my question. And I'm not little, I'm slightly over average height, just for the record y'know?

Your question was naive to say the least.

Why, for example, would you need to use a tranquilizer dart to subdue a man? Ponder that and see what you come up with.

Bollocks. If someone takes one look at my leather jacket and camouflage pants and thinks 'destructive violent mosher girl' that's their problem, not mine.

And what if that someone decides to attack you? Is self expression really worth the hassle sometimes?

And stop pretending society doesn't exist.

Women in burkas do get raped. I heard of a woman in some far eastern country who got assaulted, I think, because the wind blew the burka close to her body so the outline of her breasts was visible. (sorry, it was ages ago, I can't provide a link.)

But your agreeing with my position, since it was the sight of a womans form which prompted the rape.

EARTHQUAKES DO NOT CHOOSE TO HAPPEN! RAPISTS CHOOSE TO RAPE!

Rapists do not choose to rape, they may choose to ignore the social taboo of having sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, but the driving force behind the act is a natural imperative, which is stronger than social mores.

Which is, obviously, why humans have persisted through all forms of social configuration, regardless of how horrifying they may appear to our modern sensibilities.

DT, I feel the need to ask you something. If you saw a scantily dressed woman out at night, would you actually rape her?

Mmm, perhaps a far more fascinating question for this discussion is, would you wish rape upon another woman?

I have read of many cases where women have been raped in the presence of other women, who either actively encouraged it or precipitated it. I mean WTF?

One begins to feel sorry for the man/rapist in this scenario, as he appears to be caught in the middle of two evils. Could it be that some mothers are actually in the business of turning their sons into rapists?

What, in your opinion, does a woman gain from such behavior?

 

[Randwolf]

Tiassa

As an aside, just to make sure I am not wasting my time, if I, or anyone else, could, hypothetically, come up with some sort of precautionary measure against rape that actually worked, and did not have an unacceptable negative and repressive impact on women's rights, would you embrace it? Or is the very concept off limits?

 

[Gustav]

What business attire? You consider that a fetish?

huh?

Some people consider certain business attire a turn-on.

properly then termed a fetish
if i remember correctly there was a minor flap over scully's suit in the x-files movie. she complained about how tight fitting it was. fortunately for us fans, the cut was not altered and i gotta tell ya, buddy that was an awesome ass
quite rape worthy!

now
i really do care about the bitches....

this grand old social experiment is in its 4th decade and we still have these misogynistic attitudes that pervade all aspects of our culture. a billion sensitivity programs, incarcerations and gulags have failed to make a dent in the barbarisms that women are subjected to. your educational solution has resoundly failed women. they are being brutalized and murdered in ever increasing numbers. furthermore, common sense precautions, folksy homilies, are rejected on theoretical grounds

what other recourses are left? can men help? i say no. we are the problem. we either callously send them to be raped or actually participate in that brutal act of violence. (the former has been identified as those that ignore and oppose precautionary measures and the latter has been identified as the advocates of said measures

ridiculous, you say?
i say you dont know shit!

so!
women!
time to take a stand. enough is enough. get proactive. nobody gives a shit about you. not even your own kind

Redemption and Retribution

whaddhya say?
i arm all my girlfriends and instruct them with a shoot to kill
i hope your significant others are as caring

sincerely
gustav

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

As an aside, just to make sure I am not wasting my time, if I, or anyone else, could, hypothetically, come up with some sort of precautionary measure against rape that actually worked, and did not have an unacceptable negative and repressive impact on women's rights, would you embrace it? Or is the very concept off limits?

Depends on the measure. Negative and repressive are variable standards, subject to each person's outlook. For instance, there is a difference between common sense and living in fear.

The object isn't to come up with one, or even a few measures, though. Rather, it is to establish reasonable boundaries. I mean, it's not like I don't have a short list in my head, but that's the thing. The precaution theory started with a ludicrous assertion ("asking for it"), and as the discussion has progressed, other precaution advocates have made their voices known. However, they have postured their own outlooks against the responses to ideas they don't want attributed to them and don't necessarily agree with. What we have, then, is repeated inquiries about a vague standard and fallacious reactions to the opposition without any actual sense of what they mean.

You, even, have followed that path:

Imagine, though, if some idiot came up with the idea of not walking through bad neighborhoods in the nude as a way of reducing the chances of being raped...

Well, of course "Aaaahhhhhh... kill the misogynist!!! he obviously condones rape, how dare he say these things!!!! AAAAHHHH!!!!

Hyperbole, I know, but there seems to be a lot of that on both sides...

(#1884581/255)

You worried that I might be attempting to hold you responsible for what other people post, but in #255, you seemed perfectly willing to throw yourself in with that lot. Instead of complaining about people's reactions to other members, and instead of simply echoing a watered-down version of those prior controversial positions, establish your position. Bridge the chasm. Right now, the precaution theory, being open ended, is hemorrhaging human dignity. Close the wound.

 

[Gustav]

Writing for Sciforums is easy.

and i thank from the bottom of my heart for that.
you helped me grow

 

[Randwolf]

You worried that I might be attempting to hold you responsible for what other people post.

Hardly!

What we have here, is a failure to communicate...

The only thing that I did was process your voluminous response to the extent of identifying your numerous citations of posts that were not mine. I am not even certain I was one hundred percent accurate in that effort. If you would read carefully, I think that I stated quite clearly that

(in other words, the views expressed hereafter may or may not reflect those of management, etc...)

If I had to guess, I would venture to say that I will be able to clarify and reinforce a substantial number of these messages posted by others. Still, I am not responsible for the content of other's posts, nor am I in a position to adequately address your entire response tonight, but I wanted to at least acknowledge it, and seperate some of the chaff from the wheat.

A vain exercise, I see now...

Nonetheless, I still intend to give your post all the attention it so richly deserves. I believe that you closed a post yesterday with "need to sleep now" - are the rest of us allowed this same courtesy?

One of your tactics seems to be "overwhelm and baffle". In other words, if you make your post long enough, and include enough extraneous and irrelevant crap, then you can baffle us with your bullshit. Well, I am not going to fall for it - you have already made several logical errors in your argument - and ... these ... will ... be ... brought ... to ... your ... attention ... painfully.

Another tactic you employ is to ignore the substance and focus on the form - that's ok, because substantive arguments will always triumph over vacuous veneer.

Let's just throw this one out here - you said (to paraphrase, don't hesitate to correct me) that perhaps a precautionary measure might make sense if it adhered to common sense. In other words, if the risk / cost / benefit ratios were in line, you might consider instructiong your daughter to follow the wisdom of said advice.

However, you want a complete and exhaustive "laundry list" of all such precautionary measures drawn up and proofed before you will consider the validity of the underlying "precautionary" argument.

Aren't you placing form before substance here?

Get real, your writing skills are phenomenal, but that doesn't mean your argument isn't full of shit...

And now, one more time, since you seem to have trouble comprehending at first:

Rest assured, I will take your post apart, point by point, within the next twenty-four hours...

 

[Tiassa]

Comparatively ...? Diversely ...?

properly then termed a fetish

About as much as a nice ass in tight jeans is a fetish.

High heels? Mild, not my thing. Stockings and garters? Mild, but not my thing. Dressing up like a nurse? Still pretty mild, still not my thing. Getting an enema from a woman dressed up like a nurse? Well, that's a bit more, and, well, suddenly I'm repeating myself a bunch.

Cheerleader uniforms? Fairly common. Pigtails and lollipops? Fairly common, and fairly creepy. Or maybe these, harvested from Savage Love podcasts:

• Is it okay to put Splenda in my vagina? (#30)
• ... a man who loves to get spanked, but could do without the crotchless chaps. (#39)
• ... are there really Japanese clubs where women eat only bananas for days and then… god. You’ll just have to listen to get the gist of this one. (#40)
• This week, armpit sex: myth or fact? (#41)
• How can they get the good sex back without the genuine violence? (#48)
• ... a cheerful pregnant lady wants to indulge her husband’s pie-in-the-face fetish—but what to do about the mess? (#49)
• ... and the sex craze that’s allegedly sweeping the nation: skullfucking. (#52)​

There are plenty of interesting kinks and fetishes out there. But is it possible that a person—even a rapist—might have diverse tastes?

Don't get me wrong. I think pretty much everyone has a certain thing or two that really gets them, but come on, man. Maybe if it was exclusively business suits, and perhaps I somehow gave you that impression. Is it impossible to be sexy in business attire without being deviant?

Oh, hey ... so, "a rapist with a fetish" ... would you consider rape itself some sort of fetish? At least for some rapists?

 

[Gustav]

sure

*A rapist has a fantasy that involves kidnapping adolescent schoolgirls, raping them, and pinching their nipples with pliers while harnessing their mouths with a horses bridle. He also wants to audio tape the victims screams so that he can play it back to later victims, something he believes will induce extreme fear. Over time he develops an MO as follows: he gets a van, sound-proofs it, gets an audio tape recorder, and begins to cruise in the neighborhoods near public middle schools at precisely the time each day that school is let out.


*An unknown subject rapes a woman in her home, using a rope garrote to control her while he rapes her, causing little or no other physical damage. The offense takes 10 or 15 minutes and then the offender leaves through the back door of the residence which shows signs of forced entry. Over the next two months, two more rapes are committed by the same rapist with roughly the same MO, each taking about ten to fifteen minutes, bringing the total rapes to three. Investigators are able to make the connections right away because of DNA evidence collected at the various scenes, and because they are all committed within a twenty block radius in the same suburb. During rape number three, it is noted, the victim struggled a great deal and very heavy ligature furrows are observed on her neck. A week later, a fourth victim emerges. The fourth victim explains in her statement how the offender brought her in and out of consciousness intentionally using a rope garrote, and how the offender spent almost an hour with her. DNA evidence is unavailable for this fourth rape. Law enforcement decide to conduct a profile in the hopes of linking the rapes and developing investigative strategy. The question arises: is victim number four related?


*All of the victims of a series of rapes are young girls age 13 to 15. They go to different private schools throughout a metropolitan area. The MO is an attack on the victim from behind as she is walking to school between 8:30AM and 9:30AM, with a knife displayed to the victim. The rapist removes them to a pre-selected hidden area nearby. The rapist duct tapes his victims' mouths, forces anal sex on them, followed by fellatio, and then leaves, taking all of the victims' clothes with him. The victims each walk the same route to school everyday. The victims all wear plaid skirts and white blouses. The victims all have the same general physical characteristics.​

Examples

mmph
serial rapists on the loose
wonder if one can still flit around like a butterfly without a care in the world

 

[Tiassa]

(chortle!)

The only thing that I did was process your voluminous response to the extent of identifying your numerous citations of posts that were not mine. I am not even certain I was one hundred percent accurate in that effort. If you would read carefully, I think that I stated quite clearly that

You mean this?

"Meanwhile, and without attempting to duck the issues, I must point out that the following are assertions made and positions held by others, that apparently you hold me responsible for supporting."​

I do confess my error of failing to include the words "for supporting", but what you wrote in #323 is different from what you now claim:

"The only thing that I did was process your voluminous response to the extent of identifying your numerous citations of posts that were not mine."​

So, yeah. I'm sorry for failing to include two words. But don't give me that, "The only thing that I did ...," bit. Especially when you're going to be inaccurate about the "only" thing you did.

If I had to guess, I would venture to say that I will be able to clarify and reinforce a substantial number of these messages posted by others. Still, I am not responsible for the content of other's posts ....

Are you intending to speak for them?

Nonetheless, I still intend to give your post all the attention it so richly deserves. I believe that you closed a post yesterday with "need to sleep now" - are the rest of us allowed this same courtesy?

Am I the one complaining?

Take all the time you want.

One of your tactics seems to be "overwhelm and baffle".

That's one way of looking at it. As to #317, well, okay, we've already covered that.

In other words, if you make your post long enough, and include enough extraneous and irrelevant crap, then you can baffle us with your bullshit.

I admit I'm not sure what to say here. On the one hand, sometimes addressing someone's post requires a substantial number of words. It's also good to cover certain bases sometimes. After all, issues are not always as simple as some people would like to pretend.

Well, I am not going to fall for it ...

Okay.

... you have already made several logical errors in your argument - and ... these ... will ... be ... brought ... to ... your ... attention ... painfully.

(chortle!)

That's awesome.

Another tactic you employ is to ignore the substance and focus on the form - that's ok, because substantive arguments will always triumph over vacuous veneer.

You mean substantive arguments like your irrelevant appeals to emotion?

"And, if there is any validity to the "precautionary" argument, it certainly is not going to be "insignificant" to the individual who's destiny is altered by taking those precautions." (#1886464/294)​

Here, fill in the blank the next time you need to say it to a rape survivor: If only you had ______, you would not have been raped.

I mean, it's not like a sexual assault could possibly be completely unavoidable, right?

Let's just throw this one out here - you said (to paraphrase, don't hesitate to correct me) that perhaps a precautionary measure might make sense if it adhered to common sense. In other words, if the risk / cost / benefit ratios were in line, you might consider instructiong your daughter to follow the wisdom of said advice.

It's not a matter of might. To review:

Depends on the measure. Negative and repressive are variable standards, subject to each person's outlook. For instance, there is a difference between common sense and living in fear.​

However, you want a complete and exhaustive "laundry list" of all such precautionary measures drawn up and proofed before you will consider the validity of the underlying "precautionary" argument.

Aren't you placing form before substance here?

Again, to review:

The object isn't to come up with one, or even a few measures, though. Rather, it is to establish reasonable boundaries.​

Get real, your writing skills are phenomenal, but that doesn't mean your argument isn't full of shit...

Why thank you. And have at it.

And now, one more time, since you seem to have trouble comprehending at first:

Rest assured, I will take your post apart, point by point, within the next twenty-four hours...

Again, am I the one complaining?

I mean, you can't possibly suggesting that when you direct a post at me, I should wait until you prod me for failing to answer within whatever arbitrary period you've allotted, so why don't you save the attitude problem for some occasion when it is even marginally applicable?

 

[sniffy]

Duhhhh, Idaknow, something bad?

I suppose if you had not taken these 15 precautions, you would have been better off? Do you no longer take these precautions? Why or why not?

Did you ever consider the possibility that these precautions might have prevented unpleasant encounters prior to your fateful taxi ride?

Are you telling other people (or women if you prefer, I've lost track of which is the PC way to ask...) not to take these same precautions? If so, why? What's the downside?

Pc PC PC! Feminazis. Women. People. Keep it Randwolf you're so ha aha ha he he he.

Anyway on thinking about this unpleasant episode in my life yea (snorts, snikkers) I remembered something else unpleasant that I'd completely forgotten about. Funny how people do that isn't it?

It was a few years earlier. Myself and my fellow students were working on personal projects. Can't for the life of it remember what mine was (hahaha heehehe). Anyway me and a few others were working in the studio with the radio on. And the news came on over the radio.

"Partially clothed (ho hoo ho hahaha) body of a young woman found."

We all carried on working.

"The body was found in a popular beauty spot...."

Somebody looked up and said:

"Isn't that where xxx is.....?"

Somebody else said
"Nah! Something like that wouldn't happen to xxx. She's too sensible." (ha ha ha he he he)

You see our fellow student xxx had gone to a 'popular beauty spot' to take some photos for her project. xxx was sensible, on the quiet side but a good sort. Tall, well built. Not at all 'flitty' or 'girlie'.

She was out in a 'popular' beauty spot. Walking togs, boots, waterproof jacket.

She was strangled with her own camera strap and then sexually assaulted. There were signs of a monumental struggle. Apparently there were quite a few other walkers nearby; some found her body. One of them was, well not quite right in the head, and he happened to bump into her. They caught him of course. He was known to everyone in the village. Harmless they said. It was all over the papers.

Anyway from then on I made sure I took precautions. Just as she had done.

ha ha ha he he he

 

[codanblad]

A question: Are you an animal or machine without thought or will?

• "i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission." (#1878878/119)

• "... if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up? when a man sees cleavage/legs/whatever, there's a lot of chemical reactions going on in his body." (ibid)​

Or are you not offended when a masculinist tells you what you and other males think, or, in this case—since thought and will apparently aren't part of the process—are?

i used those quotes as part of an argument that there is an element of bestiality in man. though i was definitely misunderstood, i wished to emphasize the primal side of things which i felt were being ignored.

i never said men are not capable of thought and will, just that they will be affected by seeing certain parts of a woman's body. a dude chatting with his mates sees a hot babe - BANG - jaw drops, he forgets what he was talking about. his body is gearing up for sex on a chemical level. if culture and society hadn't made it so explicit that you can't rape/harass someone, mightn't you go do it? isn't morality taught to people? only nurturance is instinctual.

don't want to get into the argument again, but the right of women to wear clothes which reveal/accentuate features (which i support, yay for equality) has an effect on man which society expects him to ignore, and natural selection doesn't. morality and aversions to sex never saved a species.

wow i went off track, and have probably dug myself a hole again, but the main point is i never said guys don't think, just that we are literally animals (same as women) and as such, the whole 'must continue the species' still pumps through our veins. everything i'm saying applies equally to women, that natural selection has helped define our characteristics and anatomy.

 

[visceral_instinct]

to lepustimidus

when you tell a girl to act more feminine, do you think that's how nature intended her to act? at what point did etiquette and good taste let her fight off tigers (or leopards, or bears. maybe even rhinos. maybe even the dreaded sasquatch.) i mean do girls really fart less than boy? at what point did zero sex drive help the species.

compare it with telling a guy to 'be a man', its working hard, being tough, protecting your woman. survival stuff.

I completely agree. I know one guy in particular who feels the need to taunt me about not being feminine, but then spouts biodeterministic crap about how normal people are a certain way because of the instincts we developed while we were still living in caves. Well dude, who do you think is more likely to be able to run away from a sabre toothed tiger, me in my shitty DCs or the fragile girl in a skirt and 4in heels you would so like me to morph into??

Why, for example, would you need to use a tranquilizer dart to subdue a man? Ponder that and see what you come up with.

Because the dudes I'm talking about are around 6' and 100kg.

Why do you care? The principle I'm trying to argue is:Why is it ok to sexually assault a woman for showng her body, but not a man?

And don't just throw out your usual line 'Women are physically smaller!' Yes we are, but equally a woman might well assault a man if she knew that he could not bring himself to hurt someone smaller than him, even if she started it.

And what if that someone decides to attack you? Is self expression really worth the hassle sometimes?

And stop pretending society doesn't exist.

That's cool, I've taken various martial arts since I was 13, I'll take the risk. And I'm not pretending society doesn't exist. I'm just pointing out that prejudices based on appearance are not valid.

But your agreeing with my position, since it was the sight of a womans form which prompted the rape.

I doubt it. If you think that it's ok to rape someone because the wind blew her burka close to her body, you were probably just looking for an excuse to rape someone anyway.

Rapists do not choose to rape, they may choose to ignore the social taboo of having sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, but the driving force behind the act is a natural imperative, which is stronger than social mores.

Bollocks. Most normal, decent men recoil at the idea of raping a woman, or they would not be normal, decent men.

Mmm, perhaps a far more fascinating question for this discussion is, would you wish rape upon another woman

No. Not even if she had killed someone I cared about. I would wish death on her, sure, but not rape.

And would it kill you to answer questions once in a while instead of spewing diarrhoea?

 

[Gustav]

if you don't like being harassed. (I couldn't fit all that in the title...)

Let me put it this way. If I rounded up a horde of mentally deranged man hating uberfeminists and roamed the countryside throwing napalm at any males who were out after dark, would you tell them they were asking for it and should have been sensible and 'taken precautions', since they were aware that me and my cohort of napalm-throwing misandrists were out on the rampage??!!

Nope, I thought not.

lemme add some color to that rather drab post

 

[CutsieMarie89]

No I'm not. I'm against feminists and their bullshit double standards and hyperbole.



I don't believe what you've written above, and neither does any man that I have met. So you and Tiassa can stick your broad brush right up the collective feminist asshole. I'm fed up with being told what I (and other males) think, especially by losers who don't have a friggen clue. It's both insulting and sexist.

Personally I don't see the difference between supporting women's rights and being a feminist. Some people take it to far as some people who support any ideal are bound to do (eg blowing up abortion clinics). Have a good cause, but are really hurting their own cause by their actions. I didn't mean to insult you or anyone else for that matter. It's just something that I have noticed since I did grow up as a member of the "fairer sex". I think you are able to notice these things better when the attacks are aimed at you. You don't have to believe it and I did not mean to imply that you or all men did. I apologize.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

to lepustimidus

when you tell a girl to act more feminine, do you think that's how nature intended her to act? at what point did etiquette and good taste let her fight off tigers (or leopards, or bears. maybe even rhinos. maybe even the dreaded sasquatch.) i mean do girls really fart less than boy? at what point did zero sex drive help the species.

compare it with telling a guy to 'be a man', its working hard, being tough, protecting your woman. survival stuff.

i figured that's what cutsiemarie's talking about is women have to make a far greater leap to fit into society, than men do. expected male behaviour is much more primal.

note: the argument revolves around belief in natural selection. if god made us, maybe he did design women to sew, cook and clean (in my opinion: Ha! ridiculous).

Thank you, that is what I meant.