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

[Tiassa]

It's a matter of context

No, it's worse. That's exactly why you should take precautions to lower the chances of being raped. I mean, you lock your car doors, lock your steering wheel, and have a car alarm to protect a piece of metal on wheels. So why wouldn't you be just as (if not more) careful with your own body?

There was a comedian a few years ago who went on about people having affairs. His point was that "it just happened" wasn't an excuse for cheating on your partner. What, were you walking down the street one day when suddenly you were sucked, against your will, into a super-powered pussy?

And he did a bit about putting an alarm on your woman, like you would your car. You know, press the button, hear the beep to tell you it's armed. Then you can get on your flight and not worry. And, you know, when your best friend gets too close, the alarm goes off: "Please step away from the pussy."

But here's the deal. My brother protects his car with an alarm. My car is old enough that it didn't come with one standard. Instead of having my car scream and yell every two hours for no good reason like one of my neighbors with a cheap aftermarket alarm, I just use this thing called a Club. I'm guessing you have it in your corner of the world, too. If not, you probably have something similar available. Now, I'm not sure what kind of computerized alarm we might attach to a woman, but the panic button will be of no use, since most people in my area simply ignore such alarms. (They even put signs on buildings politely asking you to call emergency services if the bell immediately above it is ringing: "If alarm sounds, please dial 911.")

So think about that for a moment. Even if there was some sort of alarm, my American neighbors generally ignore alarms. The only ones that matter to us generally are on our clocks, tell us when the building we're in is on fire, and when someone is fucking with our cars. Now, given that this is a country in which people will actually stand around and watch a rape take place, rape alarms don't strike me as a particularly effective measure.

Neither does a Club. Because no matter how much someone wants to blame victims for their suffering, I'm not about to lock down my daughter in such a manner. And, besides, making it so a woman can't move does at least half the rapist's work, anyway.

So here's the problem: In a world where people smoke and drink and fuck recklessly, dive out of airplanes and ride bicycles down mountains, it seems to me that merely existing isn't one of those things that should be inherently dangerous. Which leads—I know it's tricky, but see if you can follow—to the next point:

I just don't understand why the feminists get so riled up when it's suggested that they take measures to avoid rape.

There are a couple of reasons that stick out like a boner in a convent.

First, it's because the "suggestions" are typically made in crude fashion or at the wrong time. Feminists, in fact, teach girls how to take precautions and protect themselves. Maybe they don't where you're from, but even the Jesuit school I attended told prudish parents to shut the hell up when people complained that fifteen year-old girls shouldn't be taught how to protect themselves because (gasp!) people were talking about sex (rape) in front of them. So catch up to reality, Lepus.

The current discussion is an excellent example of the problems people encounter with the argument. This topic came about in consideration of an argument about sexual harassment. The argument about how a woman dresses was raised to justify harassment. In other words, when someone says, "Because we refuse to be civilized, you should simply curtail your freedoms so that we don't 'trespass' on them," it's kind of annoying.

Additionally, the current discussion makes some absurd, completely stupid comparisons: rape and car theft, for instance, or what one wears and physically assaulting someone. Comparing a woman to a car is offensive. Even though you're trying to be somehow civilized, you're blowing the effort entirely. A woman is a human being. A car is not. I can prevent my car from moving when I don't want it to. Doing the same to a human being is an entirely different question.

So what is a woman's equivalent to locking the steering wheel, setting the alarm, and locking the doors?

I, actually, am curious as to the answer. Don't tell me a somber paint job and ugly rims, either.

Another reason is that pretty much any time misogynists give women "advice", it's going to be offensive. Every once in a while, it's funny, and if you throw enough darts, you're bound to hit the board occasionally.

But between the messenger, the manner of the message, and the context of the discussion, it seems fairly easy for some people to offend. When you compare human beings to mere things in order to justify treating people like things, it's not going to fly.

So to use you as an example:

I do think that if a woman is socially smart and doesn't like being raped, she would take certain precautions to avoid rape. That's my main contention, a contention which is yet to be addressed by all the disapproving feminists here.

So please enumerate those precautions. Repeatedly I've listed potential measures extrapolated from the general principle, and people tend to want to avoid the point. Bells and I have already put the issue of the burqua in front of you. I mean, you're using rhetoric that is familiar to people who have listened to the argument that forcing women to wear the burqua is actually a measure of respect. In fact, you used the same argument about harassment, and it sounds like you're using it here.

So, for what will be at least the fifth time in this topic:

Given that going out on a date counts as slutting it up for some men, I would hope women never give this attempt to excuse sexual violence serious consideration ....

.... Just to cover a few excuses along these lines, in order to be safe from rape, women should not:

• Dress in any manner that might possibly sexually stimulate a male
• Consume any sort of intoxicant around a male
• Allow herself to be alone with any male
• Respond in any affirmative way to a male's general advances (don't give him the idea that he can ask you out in the first place)​

Although, to be fair, one of those repetitions was in a post to Asguard, and I have every confidence in his outlook on these points. However, I'm curious where the points above fall on your list of precautions.

 

[DeepThought]

To me the question of what rights "should be" then, turns on the question "Given the milieu in which we live, what set of socially agreed upon 'rights' is most likely to maximize my personal happiness."

Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet.

This is all such a philosophy amounts to, an advertising slogan used to sell a commodity. One cannot make oneself happy, nor is it a worthy goal. Maximizing happiness is no different to stuffing as much food into your gut as possible, we simply become pigs competing with each other at the trough of what (the advertizing men tell us) makes us happy.

One of my favorite examples is how the ad men associated feminism with cigarettes at the turn of the twentieth century. No self-respecting feminist would then be seen without one, so it became easy to spot the 'independently minded' woman, she carried a 'torch of freedom'.

A woman proudly parades her 'torch of freedom'.

This campaign increased American Tobaccos revenue by $32 million dollars in 1928 alone.

See how easy it is to create the illusion of an independent woman? Just a few pictures in the mainstream media to get the ball rolling.

The problem, from your perspective, is that the relentless march of democracy seems to have given women (and minorities for that matter) a voice in this process of norm-setting. It seems very natural to me that in a democratic system, that this would be inevitable.

What you call the 'relentless march of democracy' is only a euphemism for colonialism. The more faith one puts in the false doctrines created by the economic powers which dominate the world, the harder one will be hit when they are removed.

 

[DeepThought]

I just don't understand why the feminists get so riled up when it's suggested that they take measures to avoid rape.

It's because they're incredibly arrogant, and believe the world should conform to their expectations, rather than the other way around, which is infinitely more reasonable.

 

[visceral_instinct]

And yet ...?



Well, that presents a certain problem. Especially given that many people around here are regularly called upon to answer for things they did not say.

So while we might agree that there's no apparent practical difference between saying a rape is the victim's fault and saying the victim deserved it, we are also supposed to accept that Francois didn't actually mean the things he posted?

Okay, let's take a look at a few of the things posted:



So what did he mean, VI? Don't get me wrong: I'm perfectly willing to accept an explanation of poor communication, but the repetition really undermines the idea that Francois is conveying the wrong message by choosing his words wrongly.

Furthermore, as upset as he might get because people are apparently taking him so wrongly, the one thing he doesn't seem to want to do is actually address the points being put before him. I've now repeatedly proposed logical extensions of his "common sense", and while he might have the energy to be haughty, he hasn't, apparently, the knowledge or desire to make his allegedly intended point clearly.

To consider the examples listed above, the parts from #13 are fairly obvious:

• "a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it" — Any questions on this one?

• "If she was raped there, it would be totally objectionable" — As opposed to what? Only partially objectionable? Oh, hold on. We do, in fact, have something of an answer.

• "It's hard to make the decision each time, and make the judgment each time "Oh, well, she shouldn't have been dressed like a skank. Stupid woman," or "That's horrible that it happened; she totally didn't deserve that." Each situation is different." — Ah. So either a woman is stupid or else "totally didn't deserve" to be raped. Apparently, the women who don't hide enough of their sexuality—e.g., wear a burqua, although, it is entirely possible someone is turned on at the thought of such outward sexual repression, which would mean the woman was stupid and therefore asking to be raped—kind of, sort of, somewhat deserve whatever evil is visited upon them.​

And then there is the (fairly explicit) proposition in #21 that "rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make". In other words, a rape might happen, but it's not the rapist's fault? Well, we could leave Francois to plead that's not what he meant, and certainly he's welcome to do so, but compared to the ease of including some kind of mitigating modifier in the statement, it does not seem a stretch to consider the thematic repetition of a woman's guilt in a man's decision the more compelling key to resolving whatever gray zones we might invent about the proposition.

Lastly, we come to an example posted after all of this bluster and complaint about how people are receiving Francois' argument already began. Notice the inherent comparison: Wearing a skirt is comparable to physically assaulting someone.

Here, let's bring that one out to stand on its own for you to consider:

"Simply put, moron, a woman who is dressed scantily in a dark alley is more likely to get raped than a woman who is not. This is similar to how a person who is pushing around a dangerous looking thug in an inner city at night is more likely to get murdered than a person who is not."​

While I don't disagree with the idea giving a member the benefit of the doubt, I'm hard-pressed to see the basis of that doubt. What you don't think he meant is pretty apparent in the words he posted, and having encountered such rejection of his point, he is only getting angry about it. Would you propose that our neighbor Francois is simply incapable of expressing himself the way he intends?

If so, perhaps you would be so kind as to do the talking for him, explain what he meant, and perhaps address people's concerns and extrapolations along the way.

After all, purely from an objective point of view, the vast majority of women in the United States who are raped are attacked by men they know. So we ought to stop and consider the fact that the whole argument that a woman is asking for it according to what she wears and where she walks at once addresses only a slender portion of the rapes taking place while simultaneously attempting to justify, excuse, or otherwise mitigate rape by transferring the responsibility of one person's decision onto another.

So what are the proper precautions a woman ought to take, Visceral Instinct? Never speak to men? Never go on a date with a man? Never allow oneself to be seen by men?

Tell me what I need to tell my daughter so that she understands how to totally not deserve to be raped. After all, I wouldn't want to give the men any kind of excuse, right? Because there are degrees of non-totality. Like, you know, "She mostly didn't deserve to be raped, but I think her butt looked hot in those jeans, so she kind of did."

How do women avoid that kind of culpability?

I assume he just meant that it is sensible to not attract the attention of those likely to commit rape, rather than that it is your own fault if you are raped because you dressed scantily. Maybe that's just my ASD tendencies again.

It's because they're incredibly arrogant, and believe the world should conform to their expectations, rather than the other way around, which is infinitely more reasonable.

NO, IT'S BECAUSE UNBELIEVABLY, PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO ABOUT THEIR LIVES WITHOUT BEING RAPED.

 

[lepustimidus]

visceral:

I assume he just meant that it is sensible to not attract the attention of those likely to commit rape, rather than that it is your own fault if you are raped because you dressed scantily.

Bingo.

 

[phlogistician]

It's because they're incredibly arrogant, and believe the world should conform to their expectations, rather than the other way around, which is infinitely more reasonable.

That is so messed up. My expectation is that people should be able to go about their business unmolested.

You seem to accept rape as a fact of life. Your attitude implies that nothing can be done about it. Well, simply, we can do something about it; we can foster a society that makes it clear that it is unacceptable, but that is hard when misogynists such as yourself spring to the defence of rapists. You aren't part of the solution, so you are part of the problem.

 

[francois]

What is true? That you think a woman's dress is somehow connected to her rape? The majority of reasonable thinking people out there would disagree with you. As do I.

Rape is not the fault of the victim. The sole responsibility is with the rapist. He/she has a responsibility to not rape. Whether the victim is dressed in a mini skirt or a burka does not determine whether they are more or less likely to be raped. Short of living in a self imposed prison, where no one can get in or out of the house, there is no way to determine who will be raped and where or when.

The fact that the majority of rapes are committed by people known to the victim is completely ignored by you. Do you honestly think a guy would care if his wife is wearing a mini skirt or not when he rapes her? Think about it.

You are putting the blame on the victim, saying that if she dressed or behaved a certain way, she could avoid being raped or attacked. When that is completely false. A woman can be raped having a cup of coffee with a trusted friend or relative in her home or on the way to her car, as she can be raped by a complete stranger who breaks into her house. What she happens to be wearing at the time or where she happens to be at the time has nothing to do with it.

Your quote is not blasphemous. It is down right stupid.

For now I'm only going to respond to you, since Tiassa and Phlog are proving to be extraordinarily easily distracted. Let's be clear, this thread isn't only about dressing scantily. It's about women putting themselves in dangerous positions in general. That does nothing to change the argument. A person would have to be out of his mind to think that a scantily clad woman does not arouse a man's sex instinct more than one who is not. Now let's get back to my quote which you said is downright stupid.

"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"

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.

"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 should expect a much greater probability of getting raped"

I have the feeling that this will take a while to sink in, so I'll give a few more examples.

If you leave your car in a crime ridden city at night with the doors unlocked, you're asking for your stereo or whole car to be stolen.

If you leave your car in a crime ridden city at night with the doors unlocked, you should expect a much greater probability of getting your stereo or whole car to be stolen.



If you eat lobster without a bib you're asking for a mess.

If you eat lobster without a bib, you should expect a much greater than average probability of making a mess.



If it's forecasted to rain one day and you don't bring an umbrella with you to work, you're asking to get soaked.

If it's forecasted to rain one day and you don't bring an umbrella with you to work, you should expect a greater than average probability of getting soaked.




They. Mean. The. Same. Thing.


I can't believe we're actually arguing this point. This really needs its own thread. People have will power. As I've shown with my example, there are ways to avoid things from happening, from getting rained on, murdered, getting your car broken into, etc. Why do you all consider it impossible for women to decrease the probability of getting raped?

 

[phlogistician]

For now I'm only going to respond to you, since Tiassa and Phlog are proving to be extraordinarily easily distracted. Let's be clear, this thread isn't only about dressing scantily.

Did you read the title of the OP? It says 'Don't dress like a slut', you have then yourself regurgitated that slur, and now are pathetically trying to draw the debate into something it is not. You are only ignoring myself and Tiassa because you have no intellectual response, having lapsed into insults previously.

A person would have to be out of his mind to think that a scantily clad woman does not arouse a man's sex instinct more than one who is not.

Hah, here you really show how shallow you are!

Now let's get back to my quote which you said is downright stupid.

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

If you'd meant that, you should have said that, but you didn't, you screwed up and said what you thought, which was misogynistic crap.

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.

You're backpeddling now, and it's pathetic. When you are in a hole, just stop digging, eh?

 

[francois]

Did you read the title of the OP? It says 'Don't dress like a slut', you have then yourself regurgitated that slur, and now are pathetically trying to draw the debate into something it is not. You are only ignoring myself and Tiassa because you have no intellectual response, having lapsed into insults previously.

You ninnies haven't give me anything worthwhile to respond to. Only ad homs and a miserable failure to distinguish how things ought to be and what is. There's nothing to respond to.

Hah, here you really show how shallow you are!

Funny how you neither agree or disagree. Instead you just throw out a good non-sequitur. A mark of a great mind. Retard.

If you'd meant that, you should have said that, but you didn't, you screwed up and said what you thought, which was misogynistic crap.

You could have taken what I said at face value and with intellectual integrity, but you reacted instead. I said nothing that was misogynistic. Simply saying something is misogynist without any good explanation or argument is weak.

You're backpeddling now, and it's pathetic. When you are in a hole, just stop digging, eh?

Nope, not backpeddling anywhere. You've honestly never heard of 'asking for it' used that way? Seriously? If you do something that increases the probability of A happening, then you're asking for A to happen. What's complicated about that? "You're asking for trouble, Son!" Stop doing what it is that you're doing that's pissing off your dad!

 

[Tiassa]

O! Pioneers!

I assume he just meant that it is sensible to not attract the attention of those likely to commit rape, rather than that it is your own fault if you are raped because you dressed scantily.

See, that's where phrases like "asking for it" and considerations of whether or not someone "deserved" to be raped come into play. In order to reach your assumption, we must ignore what he actually said.

Furthermore, it's a slightly ridiculous focus, since as Gustav, Bells, and I—at least—have pointed out, the majority of rapes of women are committed by perpetrators known and familiar to the victims.

So how do you not attract the attention of those likely to commit rape?

Well, don't dress in any way that might be considered sexy or attractive. This, of course, should also account for the odd pervert who thinks women dressed up in sexually repressed clothing is hot, and thus only wants to bang you if you're wearing a burqua or habit. Which raises a question that is answered coincidentally.

Because most of these rapes are what are colloquially called "date" rapes. The obvious precaution here is to never go out on a date without chaperones. Unless the chaperones are conspirators to the rape, then you're ... well, you're really screwed.

The best thing, then, is for women to simply never be alone with men. Until their wedding night, of course. And, hey, history is so clear on this point: such repression causes no problems whatsoever, right?

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.

It's a stroke fantasy, VI, and nothing more. If it was more, its advocates would be better prepared to discuss the breadth of precaution. If it was more, Francois wouldn't be scrambling so hilariously into a nonsensical retreat: "Here, 'asking for it' means the same thing as 'should expect a much greater probability of getting raped'."

I mean, really. Jesus god-fucking-damn it. That must be a regional peculiarity of speech, I confess. As in, a peculiarity particular to some region of his brain.

Let's try it out: "Having black skin in the United States is asking to be thrown in prison."

Hell, language evolves. Let's call him a goddamn pioneer, why don't we?

 

[francois]

It's not a retreat, Tiassa, that's what I meant the entire time.

Edit: 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? It's just an abbreviation, albeit, one that really got you riled up.

 

[lepustimidus]

Fuck, Tiassa's posts never end. They are like an infinite turd coming out of my ass.

 

[phlogistician]

You ninnies haven't give me anything worthwhile to respond to. Only ad homs and a miserable failure to distinguish how things ought to be and what is. There's nothing to respond to.

Ad homs? That's rich coming from you, considering the name calling you've lowered yourself to!

Funny how you neither agree or disagree. Instead you just throw out a good non-sequitur. A mark of a great mind. Retard.

Yes, adding 'retard' onto the end of a sentence using 'non-sequitur' (incorrectly) shows what an intellectual powerhouse you think you are. You are shallow because ogling a woman turns you on more than a woman's personality, and you assume everyone is like you. You do not have the dpeth to understand some people are different.

You could have taken what I said at face value and with intellectual integrity,

Tell you what, explain how you used the word 'slut' with integrity, and I'll get back you.

nothing that was misogynistic. Simply saying something is misogynist without any good explanation or argument is weak.

You used the phrase 'asking for it', how is that not misogynistic?

ot backpeddling anywhere. You've honestly never heard of 'asking for it' used that way? Seriously?

Yes, I have, by misogynists.

do something that increases the probability of A happening, then you're asking for A to happen.

You haven't proven that dressing a certain way does increase that likelyhood, and you totally ignored the post I made about rape not just being about sex, but the mental instability of the rapist, about power, their inability to interract normally with women, and the fact that they rape pensioners. It's not just about getting an uncontrollable boner, and using that as an excuse, and transferring the blame onto the victim. The fault lies entirely with the rapist, nobody invites it, however they are dressed.

What's complicated about that? "You're asking for trouble, Son!" Stop doing what it is that you're doing that's pissing off your dad!

Of course, you have to see it simply, because nothing else will fit in your mind. For the last time, people do not invite rape, the perpetrator is to blame.

 

[francois]

Ad homs? That's rich coming from you, considering the name calling you've lowered yourself to!

lol, I know.

But you honestly can't see the difference between our ad homs, besides the fact that you initiated the attacks?

Let me explain. True ad homs are not insults. Ad homs simply divert attention from the argument to the arguer, as you have done repeatedly by calling me a misogynist (without offering any good reasons, no less). The point of the ad hom is to call into question the integrity of the person arguing and to taint that person's argument illegitimately by proxy. Do you know what an ad hom is now?

On the other hand, I called you, what, a dipshit? While true, does that really divert the argument to the arguer? No. In fact, I was only addressing my arguments and your shitty tactics while at times referring to you with pejoratives. In other words, yours were ad homs in the true sense of the word. Mine were illegitimate ad homs, hardly ad homs at all. Congrats, you're better at dishonest argument than me.

Yes, adding 'retard' onto the end of a sentence using 'non-sequitur' (incorrectly) shows what an intellectual powerhouse you think you are. You are shallow because ogling a woman turns you on more than a woman's personality, and you assume everyone is like you. You do not have the dpeth to understand some people are different.

Actually I used the word correctly, ninny. Now you're fucking nitpicking. I'm right, but I'm not going to pursue it because it's a minor point. That's what people who are losing an argument always resort to: nitpicking.

Tell you what, explain how you used the word 'slut' with integrity, and I'll get back you.

Bah, you guys really get hung up on language. Do you know what a colloquialism is? It's easy to infer what I meant. To 'slut it up' is to dress scantily. Is that so hard to figure out? Again, I'm not going to respond to this shitty nitpicking.

You used the phrase 'asking for it', how is that not misogynistic?

I've already explained. Please refer to post 87.

Yes, I have, by misogynists.

Yes, perhaps but misogynists, but also by nearly everyone who speaks English too.
[/QUOTE]

 

[phlogistician]

lol, I know.

But you honestly can't see the difference between our ad homs, besides the fact that you initiated the attacks?

I called your character into question because you were posting remarks that defended rapists. It wasn't an ad hom, but an observation.

as you have done repeatedly by calling me a misogynist (without offering any good reasons, no less).

Yes I have, I have explained that the type of language you use is denigrating to women.

Actually I used the word correctly, ninny. Now you're fucking nitpicking. I'm right, but I'm not going to pursue it because it's a minor point. That's what people who are losing an argument always resort to: nitpicking.

Non-sequitur mean that it does not follow logically. My assumption did follow logically, I said you were shallow because of your comment, and then had to explain that ogling wasn't the sole or primary turn on for everyone. You know, sexual activity between humans often starts when both are dressed, so people do find clothed people alluring.

Bah, you guys really get hung up on language.

This being a forum where ideas are conveyed with words, what else is there to judge someone on? You used some inappropriate words, and if you were wise, you'd just admit that was a mistake, instead of continuing this post justification bullshit spree you are on.

Do you know what a colloquialism is? It's easy to infer what I meant. To 'slut it up' is to dress scantily. Is that so hard to figure out? Again, I'm not going to respond to this shitty nitpicking.

I already explained that calling a woman a slut is not acceptable, and that how women choose to behave does not give you the right to judge nor label them. I also explained that it's not fair to label a woman based on how she chooses to dress, but here you are defending you denigrating prose again. It's not nitpicking, it's you using abusive terms towards women, and if you want to be taken seriously, it must stop.

Yes, perhaps but misogynists, but also by nearly everyone who speaks English too.

No, just english speaking misogynists. I would never use that phrase, because it's bullshit. I don't repeat bullshit just because it's a colloquialism or a cliche. That's another lame excuse of yours.

 

[francois]

I called your character into question because you were posting remarks that defended rapists. It wasn't an ad hom, but an observation.



Yes I have, I have explained that the type of language you use is denigrating to women.

Blah, blah, irrelevant.

I already explained that calling a woman a slut is not acceptable, and that how women choose to behave does not give you the right to judge nor label them. I also explained that it's not fair to label a woman based on how she chooses to dress, but here you are defending you denigrating prose again. It's not nitpicking, it's you using abusive terms towards women, and if you want to be taken seriously, it must stop.

I'm pretty sure you can scour this entire thread and find that I never called a woman a slut. Not that it's a relevant point. Why are we even talking about misogyny? It has nothing to do with this thread. Man, you're scatterbrained. I'm no slouch either, since I'm actually responding to your tripe.

No, just english speaking misogynists. I would never use that phrase, because it's bullshit. I don't repeat bullshit just because it's a colloquialism or a cliche. That's another lame excuse of yours.

I honestly cannot believe this. You've never been in a situation where a friend or acquaintance is about to do something stupid or dangerous and you say "Dude, I wouldn't do that. You're asking for something bad to happen." Inconceivable. I had no clue that "asking for it" is a phrase that only misogynists use. Ah. The new things I learn every day from dipshits at this place.

 

[Bells]

For now I'm only going to respond to you, since Tiassa and Phlog are proving to be extraordinarily easily distracted. Let's be clear, this thread isn't only about dressing scantily. It's about women putting themselves in dangerous positions in general. That does nothing to change the argument. A person would have to be out of his mind to think that a scantily clad woman does not arouse a man's sex instinct more than one who is not. Now let's get back to my quote which you said is downright stupid.


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.


I have the feeling that this will take a while to sink in, so I'll give a few more examples.

If you leave your car in a crime ridden city at night with the doors unlocked, you're asking for your stereo or whole car to be stolen.

If you leave your car in a crime ridden city at night with the doors unlocked, you should expect a much greater probability of getting your stereo or whole car to be stolen.



If you eat lobster without a bib you're asking for a mess.

If you eat lobster without a bib, you should expect a much greater than average probability of making a mess.



If it's forecasted to rain one day and you don't bring an umbrella with you to work, you're asking to get soaked.

If it's forecasted to rain one day and you don't bring an umbrella with you to work, you should expect a greater than average probability of getting soaked.




They. Mean. The. Same. Thing.


I can't believe we're actually arguing this point. This really needs its own thread. People have will power. As I've shown with my example, there are ways to avoid things from happening, from getting rained on, murdered, getting your car broken into, etc. Why do you all consider it impossible for women to decrease the probability of getting raped?

Amazing. You are comparing the theft of an unlocked car, its stereo and not taking an umbrella on a cloudy day as being akin to a woman wearing "slutty" clothes attracting rape.

What you keep failing to understand is that the greater majority of rapes are classified as acquaintance rape, in that the victim knows the assailant. It has nothing to do with what the victim happens to be wearing.

Most importantly, you are placing the onus to not be raped on the woman (or the victim in general, be it male, female or child), instead of on the rapist to not rape. At the end of the day, there is nothing a woman (or man) can do or not do to minimise her (or his) chances of being raped. The chances of her (or him) being raped while walking in a dark alley is actually minute compared to her (or his) being raped at home or while out with a male (or female acquaintance). As Tiassa pointed out, the only way for the victim to not be raped for the individual to never leave their house or be alone in the company of someone of the opposite sex.

You also fail to realise that men are also raped, by men and women. So what exactly can or should a man do to minimise their chances of being raped? Why do you place such a distinction on the women instead of the men who could be potential victims of rape? Should men never wear certain styles or forms of clothing that accentuates their bodies? What about children who are raped? How can you not dress a little girl, like a little girl? How can you minimise a little girl's chances of attracting unwanted attention from a pervert who might be sexually attracted to little girls dressed as little girls? Dress the girl like a boy?

A woman can be walking down an alley butt naked on a daily basis and not be raped. A woman can be sitting at home having a cup of coffee with her male boyfriend or date or husband (or any other male acquaintance really) and be violently raped. Can you see how ridiculous your proposal actually is?

Now, lets just imagine you are in fact correct. Women begin to dress conservatively, avoid dangerous and dark alleys. Do you think that will reduce the incidents of rape to the point where they are almost non-existent? I'll give you a hint to the answer. No.

Because again, women will more likely be raped by someone in their acquaintance than be raped by a total stranger.

 

[phlogistician]

Blah, blah, irrelevant.

No, it's an insight into your flawed character.

I'm pretty sure you can scour this entire thread and find that I never called a woman a slut.

Several times;

"If you're not safe to slut it up there, where can you?"

"Women should be able to dress like sluts..."

"My advice: if you want to slut it up, do it in a safe place ..."

Like I said, you cannot label a woman a slut due to the way they choose to behave, nor liken one to such due to the way they dress, but you did, and now you fail to acknowledge what you did, and that was to denigrate women.

Not that it's a relevant point. Why are we even talking about misogyny? It has nothing to do with this thread. Man, you're scatterbrained. I'm no slouch either, since I'm actually responding to your tripe.

Your use of denigrating terms and defending rapists by using the term 'asking for it' was misogynistic.

I honestly cannot believe this. You've never been in a situation where a friend or acquaintance is about to do something stupid or dangerous and you say "Dude, I wouldn't do that. You're asking for something bad to happen."

Not in the context of when they were just raped. Try and keep this in context. I know you can't make you point honestly, but all this back peddling and twisting off topic is making you look less than honest.

Inconceivable. I had no clue that "asking for it" is a phrase that only misogynists use. Ah. The new things I learn every day from dipshits at this place.

When the context is rape, that phrase is misogyny. Wise up, it was a stupid phrase to use, and you continual defense of it ill advised. Stop digging yourself in deeper.

 

[francois]

Bells, a woman has the capability of decreasing her probability of getting raped. True or false.

 

[phlogistician]

Bells, a woman has the capability of decreasing her probability of getting raped. True or false.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

And other such lame logical traps. Yes, a woman could reduce her chances of getting raped, but that doesn't in anyway justify your usage of denigrating terminology.