This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
@ Feminism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
This
woman is quite attractive, IMHO.
Now, if she, and
this
woman are both in the same place, at the same time, and there is a sexual predator there, which one do you think has the higher chance of becoming a victim?That is a terrible example, because I find the first one
much
more attractive than the second.
I'd still argue that acquaintance rape and stalking rape are still both about power, cruelty, and domination, moreso than sex.
The act itself, yes. But you cannot entirely rule out appearance from the choice of a victim.
All I am arguing is that a woman that dresses (and acts) modestly, has a lesser chance of becoming a victim, than one that dresses (and / or acts) provocative.
In retrospect, unless
all
women suddenly started dressing modestly, the overall number of rapes may not be reduced, but a woman's
individual
chances of being victimized are greatly reduced by their appearance, lifestyle, and demeanor.Eh. Regarding forcible rape, I still don't agree. If a rapist wanted to have sex, there are much easier legal ways to get it. What they want is either power or a target for their cruelty.
Well now we are just arguing over semantics. I think we can all at least agree that physical attraction, and thus skimpy cloths, can increase the danger of being raped by a stranger. Whether you wanna call it forcible rape or date rape, is up to you.When I say "forcible rape" I mean "with a conscious woman." I define "date rape" generally as chemical, while the woman is in an altered mental state or unconscious.
None. Not once? So, if a prospective rapist is standing on the street corner, and spots two different women, one is a really hot 20-something woman in suggestive clothing, and the other is a 500 pound 90 year old woman wearing sackcloth and an iron lung, the chances of one or the other woman being the final victim are exactly equal, because sexual attraction has NOTHING to do with it at all? That's what you are saying?Oh come on. You know what I mean.
Were I a rapist, and I saw two women, both of average build, and one in a bikini, and one in business attire, I would go after whichever one was the more vulnerable target. Whichever one is the easier mark.
It's not about sex. It's not about seeing suggestive clothing and thinking "Man, I want to have sex with her." It's about seeing a woman and thinking "Man, I want to see the terror in her eyes. I want to hurt her so bad."
Post by
Gone
When I say "forcible rape" I mean "with a conscious woman." I define "date rape" generally as chemical, while the woman is in an altered mental state or unconscious.
It doesn't really make a difference to the original point what kind of rape it is though.
Post by
Skreeran
When I say "forcible rape" I mean "with a conscious woman." I define "date rape" generally as chemical, while the woman is in an altered mental state or unconscious.
It doesn't really make a difference to the original point what kind of rape it is though.It makes a pretty big deal in the motivations for it, though, in my opinion.
Post by
Magician22773
That is a terrible example, because I find the first one much more attractive than the second.
I do too...that is because neither of us are a sexual predator.
But which one do you think someone who
was
a sexual predator would find to be the more attractive target?
Eh. Regarding forcible rape, I still don't agree. If a rapist wanted to have sex, there are much easier legal ways to get it. What they want is either power or a target for their cruelty.
Not sure what else I can say to get you to understand....you are still stuck on the act itself, and ignoring that at some point, the rapist has to 'choose' a victim. And one of two things will make that choice...opportunity, or appearance..or both. I am only proposing that a woman can help herself by eliminating (or at least reducing) one of those things.
I am telling you, there are very few rapists that just grab the first female that they can find. Even though their intent may be to dominate or terrify, they still will choose a victim based on "something". There are some that choose elderly, some that choose specific races, and there are some that may even choose a woman dressed in a business suit....but there are some, and I say likely a majority or near it, that choose their victim based on appearance. And some of those look for provocative dress.
When I say "forcible rape" I mean "with a conscious woman." I define "date rape" generally as chemical, while the woman is in an altered mental state or unconscious.
I think your definitions are way off. " Date rape" is not a ruffie issue. That should actually be in the 'forcible' category. Most date rapes are a product of mixed "signals", and the rapist not understanding the #1 rule...no means no. And how a woman is dressed is probably the number one "signal" that gets mixed up. Lets go back to my pictures earlier. Which one of those women looks like they are looking for more than just dinner and a movie?
Post by
Gone
When I say "forcible rape" I mean "with a conscious woman." I define "date rape" generally as chemical, while the woman is in an altered mental state or unconscious.
It doesn't really make a difference to the original point what kind of rape it is though.It makes a pretty big deal in the motivations for it, though, in my opinion.
But what do the motivations have to do with the original point about a persons dress affecting their likelihood of being raped?
I would also like to point out that most of the types of power motivated serial rapists you are talking about have a "type" of woman that they are after. Like they only attack blonds, or women over 40, or women under 20. It's not a stretch that men like this could choose to attack women who are dressed a certain way.
Post by
Skreeran
But which one do you think someone who was a sexual predator would find to be the more attractive target?The first one.
I am telling you, there are very few rapists that just grab the first female that they can find. Even though their intent may be to dominate or terrify, they still will choose a victim based on "something". There are some that choose elderly, some that choose specific races, and there are some that may even choose a woman dressed in a business suit....but there are some, and I say likely a majority or near it, that choose their victim based on appearance. And some of those look for provocative dress.I still disagree on the rationale you're using. While yes, some rapists might choose a victim based on skin color or some other feature, I would argue that they are attacking those grouping, not trying to have sex with them. If someone picks victims who wear more provocative clothing, I would argue that it's actually because they hate women who dress like that and want to punish or attack them, rather than thinking they're sexy.
And if that were the case, that is because that particular individual had serious psychological issues, not because rapists just see them as a piece of ass.
I think your definitions are way off. " Date rape" is not a ruffie issue. That should actually be in the 'forcible' category. Most date rapes are a product of mixed "signals", and the rapist not understanding the #1 rule...no means no. And how a woman is dressed is probably the number one "signal" that gets mixed up. Lets go back to my pictures earlier. Which one of those women looks like they are looking for more than just dinner and a movie?And that is the one that is going to be most productively solved by educating men from an early age, I think.
Perhaps my definitions are off, but when I talk about forcible sex, where the woman is completely conscious. At that point, I really can't imagine it being about sex, so much as punishing or dominating the woman in return for not putting out. Assuming we're still talking about date rape here.
I would also like to point out that most of the types of power motivated serial rapists you are talking about have a "type" of woman that they are after. Like they only attack blonds, or women over 40, or women under 20. It's not a stretch that men like this could choose to attack women who are dressed a certain way.Sure they could. But if they are, it's because they have an individual problem. You might as well tell women to dye their hair brown to avoid the blonde-rapers, or telling them to wear a burqa so that potential rapists have no idea whether or not they fit their targets.
You've moved the goalposts from "rapists want to rape women with provocative clothing" to "some rapists might potentially have a personal disorder that compels them to rape women wearing provocative clothing more specifically than others."
Yes, certainly. But that kind of paranoia shouldn't be what a woman factors into her choice of clothes.
Post by
Gone
We've already established though that a woman can be at a greater danger from stranger rape based on the cloths she wears. I agree a woman shouldn't have to factor that in to her decision, but I'm just making a point. The problem is there, it exists, pretending otherwise doesn't do anybody any favors.
Post by
Skreeran
And I'm more at risk of being murdered by a serial killer who targets geeky brown-haired young adult males. But why should that make me change anything about myself?
Post by
Gone
And I'm more at risk of being murdered by a serial killer who targets geeky brown-haired young adult males. But why should that make me change anything about myself?
I'm not referring to what I said about rapists having a specific "type" of target. I'm talking about the people who hang out in clubs and drug women, or follow them out to parking lots, or even date rapes as well, all of which likely choose their victims based on physical attraction.
There is also the stereotype of the !@#$ty dressed girl = party girl = easily intoxicated = easier target.
Post by
Skreeran
I still think that teaching men "Don't have sex with a girl without permission," "Men and women are equal, and both have to consent in order for sex to happen," and "A woman is always allowed to say no," and teaching women "Don't leave your drinks lying around," "Don't drink if your date had access to it outside of your vision," and "Carry pepper spray, just in case." will go a lot farther than telling them to dress differently.
Post by
Gone
I still think that teaching men "Don't have sex with a girl without permission," "Men and women are equal, and both have to consent in order for sex to happen," and "A woman is always allowed to say no," and teaching women "Don't leave your drinks lying around," "Don't drink if your date had access to it outside of your vision," and "Carry pepper spray, just in case." will go a lot farther than telling them to dress differently.
I completely agree. The only thing I took issue with was that people kept trying to say that physical attraction wasn't an issue, and that dressing a certain way had no affect on the likelihood of being targeted for attack.
Post by
Skreeran
In a case where a man pins a woman down and forcibly has sex with her, I would say that physical attraction is either no longer the issue, or never was.
Post by
Gone
In a case where a man pins a woman down and forcibly has sex with her, I would say that physical attraction is either no longer the issue, or never was.
Idk, it seems like your hung up on linking method with motive here. Two people could have the same motive for an attacking a woman, rapist A could lie down in the back of her car and jump her when she gets in after work, while rapist B could drug her and escort/follow her out of a club.
And anyway, even if you are right, that doesn't really make a difference. Especially since a person is more likely to be raped coming out of a club or bar, or on a date, or at a party, than they are likely to be jumped by some nut in the bushes. Remember the incident that sparked this whole debate.
Post by
Magician22773
Sorry skreeran, but I feel like you are either ignorant of the elephant in the room here, or you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.
Your point is still the same. You keep going back to "its not about sex, its about power", or the rapist is "just sick".....
we agree on those points
.
You still have not really addressed my point that the sick individual still has to pick a victim, and one of the easiest provocations that a woman could change would be to present a modest appearance. The closest you have even come to addressing my point is:
I would argue that it's actually because they hate women who dress like that and want to punish or attack them, rather than thinking they're sexy.
which is situational at best, and would still be solved by a woman not dressing provocatively. It does not matter what the motivation is, if you remove the factor. Sexual attraction, or a hatred for sexual attractiveness...either way...remove the provocation, and reduce the risk of becoming a victim.
And that is the one that is going to be most productively solved by educating men from an early age, I think
OK...we agree here as well. We do need to better educate young men. But, even if we could magically eliminate all the roadblocks to this goal (media, movies, music, lack of father figures, peer pressure, drugs and alcohol,.......), we are still a generation away from women being "safe" to walk around the park at night alone in a mini-skirt.
Women can change their wardrobe overnight....you are wanting to change a mindset, and wanting to do it in the face of a barrage of media that teaches the exact opposite.
Post by
Skreeran
@ Ryjacork I suppose. That sort of rape is more common. But I still think that doesn't merit any sort of social push towards more modesty.
If you are a woman, and you are going on a date or to a party, and you want to take extra precautions by wearing less revealing clothes, go for it. What sets off the red flags in my brain is this push that a change in culture by collectively dressing modestly, or putting pressure on women to dress a certain way so they won't get raped.
"Provocative" is relative, and if we all dressed more modestly, the definition of "provocative" would change. Look at fundamentalist Muslim countries, where a woman in public wit her face uncovered is as provocative as a topless woman here. Pushing for society to be more modest does nothing to solve the problem.
If I were a woman in a Fundamentalist Muslim country, I would wear modest clothing because it might reduce the likelihood that I individually might get sexually assaulted. But
obviously
the culture pushing for more and more modesty did nothing. It just moved the definition of revealing clothing.
As for the forcible rape issue, I hope you can understand why I'm so steadfast in insisting that a man who inflicts that kind of emotional suffering on a woman is not doing it out of attraction.
@Magician You still have not really addressed my point that the sick individual still has to pick a victim, and one of the easiest provocations that a woman could change would be to present a modest appearance. It does not matter what the motivation is, if you remove the factor. Sexual attraction, or a hatred for sexual attractiveness...either way...remove the provocation, and reduce the risk of becoming a victim.I still profoundly disagree. As far as sexual predators go, anyone could be a target. Anyone could fit into that special niche he has.
I am speaking as someone who
has
a sick mind, and understands what go through their heads. It's not about the sex, and it's not about how much skin they're showing. It's about what triggers those impulses in their minds, and that can be anything.
Post by
Gone
@ Ryjacork I suppose. That sort of rape is more common. But I still think that doesn't merit any sort of social push towards more modesty.
I never said that it did. I think that the way an adult dresses is entirely up to them. I have judgments about certain types of clothing just like everybody does, but I'm going to keep those judgments to myself, because it's none of my business what other people wear.
Like I said, I was only pointing out the likelihood of dress affecting an attack because I don't think we should ignore ugly truths and realities. I completely agree that if we need a societal push, it is more about teaching men to respect women, and women to be smart about their drinks and such at parties, than than it is about trying to force a more modest dress code on women.
Post by
Skreeran
It seemed like that's what MyTie was pushing for. As for how woman dress, I maintain that I really have no say, one way or another. Women are no less intelligent than I, they can make their own judgments and choices with their lives.
Post by
Magician22773
As for the forcible rape issue, I hope you can understand why I'm so steadfast in insisting that a man who inflicts that kind of emotional suffering on a woman is not doing it out of attraction.
I am guessing it is because, like I said in the beginning, you cannot be on both sides of a fence, and because the feminist standpoint is "don't blame the victim".
I am separating the two sides. I am not "blaming" the victim at all. I am just saying that a woman should want to reduce her chances of becoming a victim. This includes how they dress, among
many
other things.
You mentioned earlier about covering a drink, or not accepting a drink that does not come directly from a server.
But a woman should be able to leave her drink on the table to go to the restroom. And she should be able to let her date bring her a drink.
Right?
Why is there a double standard here? Why is protecting yourself from being drugged any different from dressing more modestly?
As for middle-eastern culture....I would rather focus on Western culture...or at least not mix the two. They are very different issues, and hove totally different points.
Post by
Skreeran
See what I told Ryjacork about what a woman can do for herself vs. what society should put pressure on her to do.
I'm talking about the "walking home through a dark alley" sort.
Post by
Gone
It seemed like that's what MyTie was pushing for. As for how woman dress, I maintain that I really have no say, one way or another. Women are no less intelligent than I, they can make their own judgments and choices with their lives.
I know he did, and I was one of the first people to say that I disagreed with that particular viewpoint. The thing is though, we can't ignore facts just because they might support an opponents stance. Pretending that the way a woman dresses has no bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of an attack doesn't help the debate come to any sort of resolution. Better to acknowledge that fact, and make your case as to why the priority should still be education above changing the way people dress.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.