Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Rapists are bad people. If you get off on non-consentual sex with crying girls and then put your perversion into practice in a non-fantasy manner, I reckon you need to be taken off the streets, probably for the rest of your natural life.

I would agree with our Secretary of State for Justice Ken Clarke, who recently got fucked over by saying that there were 'different levels of rape'. Alongside this I he said that guilty pleas should have their sentence halved, which I disagree with.

But on the different levels of rape, I would say that, while they're all wrong, having sex, while you're very drunk, with an equally drunk girl who came up to you in a club, dressed like a slut, and started flirting with you, is not particularly bad. Even if she wakes up the next morning and claims that she was not consenting. You can't even call that rape, but we do.

'Statutory rape' of an under-16 by an older person apparently isn't classed as rape, nor called statutory rape any more apparently.

Sexually exciting the genitals of someone you know and who would not consent whilst they were awake is pretty terible.

Using a date-rape drug to knock a random girl out and raping her unconcious body is obviously really bad.

And knocking some girl down in the middle of the street and dragging her kicking and screaming down a back alley and then forcing your penis inside her and getting sexual thrills off her fear and misery is definitely a clear indicator of having one of the most disgusting and depraved mindset and sense of morality as is possible.

If you were sober when the aforementioned club slut came over to you and you thought 'I'll rape you later' and then you catch her outside the club and knock her to the ground and force yourself on her, because you get off on sex without consent. then you're a sick fucking bastard too.

But how common is this? The cop was probably referring to the thousands of cases of the first example, where some woman claimed she had been raped after dunkenly going to some drunk guy's house and probably drunkenly giving consent. I wouldn't think that the worst-level rapes relate to club sluts. Just regular Joes and Josephines like you and I.

That a cop has caused worldwide protests by telling sluts not to dress like sluts, go to clubs really drunk and flirt with everyone to reduce their chance of being raped is amazing. Do we all get offended when the police tell us not to leave our doors and windows unlocked and open in the hot weather to reduce our chances of being burgled?

Like, he's not blaming the victim. He's giving a suggestion. It's not social control.

If a cop said to me, "I'm very sorry about you getting assaulted, and we'll do whatever we can to help you, but next time, don't start shouting out offensive jokes," am I supposed to go on a big walk?

And if you're so wound up about what that some Canadian cop (and British politician) said something about rape that you're willing to go out in public and let everyone know you're a slut, I feel sorry for your parents. Imagine opening the paper and seeing a photo of your daughter with 'slut' written in lipstick across her forehead.

The final thing I really don't understand is that it's just not that likely that you're going to get raped in any 'meaningful' (wrong word) way. All those people on the slut walks are acting like rape is commonplace and they're worried about it. Maybe getting drunk and fucking people you've never met is commonplace, and maybe trying to drag them through the courts is common, but actual serial rapists are rare.

I agree largely with how this thread has gone, but I think it's worth pointing out that most of the 'rapes' these sluts are protesting about involve two people who have been drunkenly kissing all night and consented to sharing the same bed. You don't want that to happen, don't drunkenly slag yourself about.

At 6/13/11 07:37 PM, TheMason wrote: As a man I know several men who are ruled by their sexual urges and if not for the legal consequences they would rape at will.

Really? All of the men I know have a sense of empathy. I think.

At 6/14/11 03:31 PM, Earfetish wrote: But how common is this? The cop was probably referring to the thousands of cases of the first example, where some woman claimed she had been raped after dunkenly going to some drunk guy's house and probably drunkenly giving consent. I wouldn't think that the worst-level rapes relate to club sluts. Just regular Joes and Josephines like you and I.

"Sanguinetti was one of two officers present at a sexual assault information panel on the York campus.". The meeting was probably organised because "York has been the scene of violent sexual attacks and robberies over the years, and has recently completed a safety audit in response to those crimes". If I may be so frank, it seems to me like you're projecting what you would have wanted to say onto the underlying intentions of the officer inquestion. He said in relation to violent sexual assault that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized" and nowhere have I seen anyone suggest that the sexual assaults that prompted the safety audit in York University were only targeted against drunk women.

If a cop said to me, "I'm very sorry about you getting assaulted, and we'll do whatever we can to help you, but next time, don't start shouting out offensive jokes," am I supposed to go on a big walk?

Meh. Is it really just risk assessment? So your girlfriend gets sexually assaulted in Alum Rock, Birmingham, and the nice police officer kindly points out that your girlfriend should avoid entering a Muslim area without wearing a headscarf in order not to get victimised. You really think that there is nothing wrong with that statement? If a policeman said something like that in the Netherlands there would be massive upheaval on the interwebz.

how is that comparable to what the other cop said (what you said was never said), why would they get 'victimised' assumingly by muslims for not wearing a 'headscarf'. and how could they have "always had the obsession"... they werent born with it

and when did 'slut' become an acceptable term to compare against a "dignified women"
as if all women who are going to dress in a certain away are going to call themselves that
a term ready to be applied to all cultures, when in fact most of them through history/pre-history. they wore nothing more than loincloth

trying to make it something more than something derived from culture, probably because you cannot except that your beliefs were derived from culture. the way you think was also derived from that. hard to admit that your decisions aren't 'independant' and are in fact harming yourself through diet, EMR from cellphones/sites etc, media

Obviously nobody here ever heard of the 1920s.

In the 1920s there was the social phenominon of "Society Vamps" or women who would bob their hair and wear shorter skirts. In our modern view, the way they dressed would be totally acceptable, and even arguably conservative. This is no different. It's the same phenominon in a different time, so I don't understand why there is a debate about it. All these kinds of phenominons are is a testament to the growing social liberalism in our society that has been growing over the last century. It isn't a bad thing because as these behaviors become more socially acceptable and the whole "taboo" aspect drops, then the number of assaults and rape will decline as people get used to it, such as we've seen over the last century. Just because women are dressed more liberally today than they were in the 1920s has that directly caused a raise in the number of rapes? Of course not. So stop worrying about this.

except your 'tradition' has only been around for a fraction of the time, what part of "it was socially acceptable for women to dress in little clothing for the majority of humanity, tens of thousands of years" do you not get

At 6/14/11 05:47 PM, afuckingname wrote: except your 'tradition' has only been around for a fraction of the time, what part of "it was socially acceptable for women to dress in little clothing for the majority of humanity, tens of thousands of years" do you not get

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm actually giving a specific example that concretely connects your general assertion to the specific issue at hand. You need to reign in your debate horses :P

At 6/13/11 11:04 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 6/13/11 07:37 PM, TheMason wrote: There is a problem with the studies. Rape is a very hard issue for even psychologists to study largely because the sample population (or "n" in statistical parlance) is problematic.

While a certainly valid point, this ambiguity does not lend any weight to the assumption that dress style has any effect on the instances of rape. Rape happens everywhere, to people of all dress styles, even in countries where full coverage is the norm.

While on the surface this may sound convincing...but remember what is attractive dress differs across cultures. So it doesn't really detract from the hypothesis either.

Thus it is very possible that the data that can be studied is skewed towards the power motivation?

Possible? Yes. Probable? Not to my mind. Even in cases of "date" rape, where the dress excuse is most prevalent, there is significant data that points to power being the main motivator of the act. I do not believe that the inclusion of those instances not reported would change that much at all. Our sample size, while small, is large enough to gain significant statistical knowledge.

The data is fundamentally flawed and these studies violate two fundamental rules regarding quantitative social science.

1) The data is based upon a sample whose selection is NOT, by its nature, completely random. In order for statistically sampling to be valid, idealy, every member of the population would have an equal chance of being polled/questioned/included. Those who study rapist motivation can only include those rapists who got caught. Therefore, not every rapist has an equal chance of being included in the survey.

2) As I brought up before (and you didn't address) the sample population, by its nature, share a common trait not shared by the rest of the population: they got caught. What this means is there is bias in the researcher's findings. Now I'm not talking about -ism bias...but the fact that there may be something about those rapists who got caught share in common that will bias the results towards one conclusion or another.

Less than 33% of rapes go unreported which means that the vast majority of rapists are never caught. Therefore, the psychologies and motivations behind a rapist cannot be fully explained to the level of rigor demanded by good social science.

Your own source has this to say about the data:
"The sampling of subjects are often full of bias. Most rape arrests still do not result in conviction. Therefore the men who are interviewed represent a very small percentage of the entire rapist population. Since the sampling pool is so limited, the conclusions drawn from such studies must be viewed cautiously."

That how a woman dresses is NOT something that should be used to defend a rapist (something I whole-heartedly agree with).

Yes, but there is also the underlying assumption that dress style is inherently dangerous when it comes to sexual predation. You, yourself, have listed dress style as a preventative measure a woman should be conscious of, ...

Yes I have said that, and I stand by that. As I demonstrated above the data is wrought with problems and cannot really be trusted by credible social scientists. Furthermore, I read on in your link and found the following interesting tidbits about when rape happens:

* The median age of convicted rapists was 23.
* The largest population of convicted rapists was 15-19yos.
* Most convicted rapists planned to go out to rape, with no specific target in mind.
* Saturday is the peak day for rapists to strike.
* 8pm-2am is the peak time for rapists to strike.

You put the pieces together and your data is highly suggestive of a party atmosphere. Furthermore, among rapists who get caught they don't go out specifically looking to rape a particular person. They leave that up to chance and opportunity.

So, knowing this, what do you think a woman should do to protect herself from rape? From an operations security standpoint if I were a college chick:
* Make sure that I go out with ppl I trust to get me home.
* Don't accept drinks from strangers.
* Don't seperate myself from the pack.
* Don't make myself stand out too much to identify myself as a target (this includes dress and getting loud and dancing on tables or even removing clothing).
* Maybe I'd wear jeans instead of a dress, shorts or skirt. That way the rapist will think my naughty bits are too hard to get to.

At 6/14/11 03:31 PM, Earfetish wrote:

At 6/13/11 07:37 PM, TheMason wrote: As a man I know several men who are ruled by their sexual urges and if not for the legal consequences they would rape at will.

Really? All of the men I know have a sense of empathy. I think.

I would say most other dudes do have a sense of empathy. But I have known several dudes who do objectify women. Some more seriously than others, ie: only the threat of jail keeps them from raping. I'm thankful that I don't know anyone (that I know of) who are capable of crossing that line.

At 6/14/11 05:43 PM, zero-gravity wrote: Obviously nobody here ever heard of the 1920s.

Actually I have...

... This is no different. It's the same phenominon in a different time, so I don't understand why there is a debate about it. ...

Actually it's very different. In the 1920s they were rebelling against very real and very institutionalized notions about a woman's role in society. The Flappers were a statement about society in general.

The Slutwalkers are parading sexual expression as a protest against someone's suggestion that provacative clothing can lead to unintended consequences.

Where the Flappers were justified in breaking out of the mold and social norms imposed upon them...the Slutwalkers are rebelling against common sense and putting forth and absurd notion that something can be done to free them from the unintended consequences of their own actions.

At 6/14/11 08:31 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 6/14/11 07:03 PM, TheMason wrote: Less than 33% of rapes go unreported which means that the vast majority of rapists are never caught.

sorry for avoiding the overall point, but if i could offer one criticism --

Actually you caught a major mistake and I thank you for that! Let me rephrase:

Less than 33% of rapes are reported which means the vast majority of rapists are never caught.

The worst thing about the slutwalks is that they were full of retarded* socialists.
And most of the women were holding general 'anti-rape' signs, as opposed to anti-victim blaming signs. For example "Real men take 'no' for an answer" or "Sex is something people have together, it's not something you do to someone", as if getting all pissy and having a protest is going to make a bunch of sexual predators stop and think about the morality of their actions.

*yes, this term is redundant

At 6/14/11 10:03 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: how is that 'the worst thing' about it?

because advocating a prescribed, coercive economic order is worse than some unintelligent, scantily clad feminists being upset about rape

well, making someone feel shame and embarrassment because of their actions is more subtle and libertarian than chasing them down with torches and pitchforks because of their actions.

I don't know what you mean by "more libertarian", but I have no problem with people who engage in acts of (initiatory) aggression against people being 'chased down'.

And of course there's the issue of 'shaming', you know, not actually working.

i don't know if anyone asked already; but is there an established connection between mode of dress and sexual assault?
with numbers as high as 1 in 4 women being victimized (i think that was the number i remember) i have a hard time believing the majority are beautiful, scantily-dressed models.

i.e.; opportunism > temptation

At 6/16/11 11:33 AM, SolInvictus wrote: i don't know if anyone asked already; but is there an established connection between mode of dress and sexual assault?

with numbers as high as 1 in 4 women being victimized (i think that was the number i remember) i have a hard time believing the majority are beautiful, scantily-dressed models.

i.e.; opportunism > temptation

Rav and I have had a discussion on this. There are many who make the argument that rape is not a sexual act, but it's nature has more to do with someone wanting to either feel powerful or exert their power over another human being.

While I do not deny that this is the case frequently, I do not believe that this is the end all, be all explanation for all rapes or even more than about 25% of the sexual assault that occur. There are very few things in quantitative social science that can explain more than even 20% of a particular phenomenon. Now, when you add to it that the sample that feminists and criminal psychologists have to study and draw data from is by its nature riddled with a sample bias problem...I highly doubt one could make as concrete arguments as the rape=power proponents make.

That said, you're correct in saying that not all victims are scantily clad, drunken, hot college girls. Nor are they all (or even most) cluelessly having fun unaware of an evil predator unseen in the dark (like the skinny dipping chick in the opening scene of Jaws).

That said, SteveGuzzi made an excellent point. If you go out and present yourself in a manner that draws attention to yourself...you're going to attract the attention of the people you intend, the people you don't care about and the bad people who you REALLY don't want to take notice. Couple this with behaviours that put you at risk (drinking too much, leaving the group to get a smoke/take a call or going home with a stranger)...and you are responsible for making yourself an easy target.

or we can not think in terms of either/or. they can be both, and not assume the setting will have alcohol and a 'pack'. even if it is 'most likely'

what we can assume is it doesn't matter the IQ, you can be a victim of culture. calling little primates 'hot' because it manages your perception

Can we at this point in the thread at least all agree that the police officer who started this all was being a humongous fuckwad who:

1) demeaned victims of sexual assault not only by assuming they, or at least most of them, were scantily dressed but also by using a profane term like 'slut' in the process
2) dumbed down the debate by elevating a moot, speculative claim to being the main cause of rape
3) made a unnecessarily restrictive normative statement on women's clothing based on this moot claim

and last but not least, who

4) was in the persona of a police officer, a representative of the law, while doing 1-3.

We could, but people losing their shit over what this stupid policeman said is annoying and unhelpful (see: slutwalks).

At 6/17/11 05:02 AM, lapis wrote: Can we at this point in the thread at least all agree that the police officer who started this all was being a humongous fuckwad who:

1) demeaned victims of sexual assault not only by assuming they, or at least most of them, were scantily dressed but also by using a profane term like 'slut' in the process
2) dumbed down the debate by elevating a moot, speculative claim to being the main cause of rape
3) made a unnecessarily restrictive normative statement on women's clothing based on this moot claim

Umm...NO!

1) No he did not.
2) Again...no.
3) And yet again...no.

A young woman asked: "What measures can I take to make myself less of a victim?"

He made an answer that is actually keeping in with Risk Management strategies. He did not say that this was the main cause of rape. He was not an academic trying to make a hypothetical argument in a debate. And he made a suggestion (not a claim) based on his experience as a police officer and having to deal with this issue in the real world...not an ivory tower.

I'm a little disappointed in you Lapis. I'm used to better than this from you, this is actually a pretty weak attempt at undercutting an argument I think most ppl on here agree with.

and last but not least, who

4) was in the persona of a police officer, a representative of the law, while doing 1-3.

Ummm...again NO! That adds credibility to his statement. Rav linked an academic's cirriculum notes made by two professors. How many times have those two women had to write a police report on and/or investigate a rape case? Then how many times has the officer?

At 6/17/11 05:02 AM, lapis wrote: 1) demeaned victims of sexual assault not only by assuming they, or at least most of them, were scantily dressed but also by using a profane term like 'slut' in the process

You're taking this backward. He did not demean sexual assualt victims. If he demeaned anybody he demeaned women who dressed scantily. He demeaned them by saying that they're looking to get raped.

2) dumbed down the debate by elevating a moot, speculative claim to being the main cause of rape

I have to take a real stand against this one. Now I am very much for victim's rights and for the protection of victims, however your statement takes the stance that there is nothing a victim can do to avoid crime. that is flat out false. While a large part of sexual assualt/.rapes may have nothing to do with sex, there is quite a bit that do. Date rape and the proceeding beyond a know are examples of sex driven rape. Women who don't ewant negative attention (i.e. the attention of unsavory figures) they should not do things that attract the attnetion of these sorts, such as dressing overly suggestively.

At 6/18/11 10:24 AM, TheMason wrote:

Okay, so older males sometimes have daughters. Patriarchal older males also sometimes have daughters. Patriarchal males in particular want their daughters to marry a nice man who will take good care of her. Since they don't fully trust the daughter to be able to achieve this on her own, they like to have as much control over what potential suitors the daughter meets as possible. They certainly don't want her to go out on the streets dressed in a way that draws too much attention to her when she's not properly supervised and especially not in clothing that says "I'm available".

Not necessarily because she runs more risk of getting raped by dressing in such a way, mind you. But because no (patriarchal) father or husband likes it when other men look at their daughters/wives and think "awww yeah". That's why women in patriarchal cultures have historically been pressed to wear conceiling clothing. In the West, that was the case a long time ago (I think that back in the fifties women in rural Italy still wore headscarves). In, for example, Muslim countries and rural India, this undeniably holds true to this day.

Now, the only real argument I've heard so far is that you shouldn't dress like a slut in order not to be victimised by a sexual predator because it might make you stand out. But this isn't an argument against dressing like a slut, it's an argument against deviating from the norm in any way. You want to minimise the probability of getting raped? Don't be fat, and not too thin. Don't speak too loudly, but also not too softly because this might make you look vulnerable. Don't be too tanned, and not too pale. Don't be too blonde, yet not too dark-haired.

However, he didn't say "women should avoid gorging on pork chops in order not to get victimised". He didn't say "women should avoid yapping like hound dogs in order not to get victimised". He focused on dress when giving his well-meant risk-management-inspired advice accompanied by an insult.

Now I'm not saying that mr. Sanguinetti was misusing his status as a police officer to try and scare women into dressing more conservatively. I'm saying it's odd that he focused on clothing. I'm saying that it's not illogical for people to be reminded of old patriarchal stereotypes. And his use of the word "slut" implies some sort of disdain - hey, maybe this is because in his tenure as a police offcier he noticed that in so many cases of rape the victim's mode of dress was a crucial factor. Who knows. I doubt it though, and I certainly don't trust the "it was just a bit of advice devoid of any cultural context whatsoever" argument at this point.

He did not say that this was the main cause of rape.

Well, odd then that you interrupt your senior officer with a sentence beginning with "You know, I think we're beating around the bush here". Because this may be my lack of understanding of the term "beating around the bush", but in the context of a safety forum I interpret this as saying that the focus so far has been on subjects other than the main causes. And that what you say afterwards (women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised) is in fact what you consider to be the main cause.

I'm a little disappointed in you Lapis.

Oh boohoo.

At 6/18/11 12:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You're taking this backward. He did not demean sexual assualt victims.

I can't define clear boundaries on when somebody should or should not feel insulted. I guess that when I compare Mitt Romney to Hitler some neo-Nazis might take offence and write me a letter about how insulted they are that I compared their great source of inspiration to a Mormon. But you might want to watch your words in a debate about sexual assault. Just saying. I can only reason by analogy in this case ("homosexuals should avoid acting like faggots in order not to get victimised") and if you don't find the analogies convincing then we have little left to talk about.

however your statement takes the stance that there is nothing a victim can do to avoid crime

That's a straw man. I've repeatedly stated throughout this thread that drinking heavily or making yourself vulnerable in any way increases the likelihood of rape. But I've not heard anything in this thread outside speculation that substantiates the claim that clothing makes you more likely to get raped than, say, having blue eyes.

At 6/18/11 08:03 PM, lapis wrote:

At 6/18/11 10:24 AM, TheMason wrote:

Stuff about patriarchial men and cultures...

You're doing to the same thing the slutwalk organizers are doing...taking a simple statement and extrapolating a larger argument that just isn't present in what was actually said.

Now, the only real argument I've heard so far is that you shouldn't dress like a slut in order not to be victimised by a sexual predator because it might make you stand out. But this isn't an argument against dressing like a slut, it's an argument against deviating from the norm in any way.

Um...yes on the first part...
And WTF? on the second part.

Again...you're reading way too much into what I (and I think the officer) are saying. In the end, you're building a strawman to argue against. Just like Frued would do well to remember that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...sometimes an ill-conceived, off-the-cuff remark is just an ill-conceived, off-the-cuff remark and not an expression of normative, patriarchial oppression.

Now I'm not saying that mr. Sanguinetti was misusing his status as a police officer to try and scare women into dressing more conservatively. I'm saying it's odd that he focused on clothing. I'm saying that it's not illogical for people to be reminded of old patriarchal stereotypes. And his use of the word "slut" implies some sort of disdain - hey, maybe this is because in his tenure as a police offcier he noticed that in so many cases of rape the victim's mode of dress was a crucial factor. Who knows. I doubt it though, and I certainly don't trust the "it was just a bit of advice devoid of any cultural context whatsoever" argument at this point.

1) At least stand by your argument that Mr. Sanguinetti was misusing his status as a police officer...or be bold enough to admit defeat on a point.
2) It is not odd to focus on clothing. See humans do not have Jedi-like mind powers to read thoughts or see the future. Therefore, we are a species overwhelmingly dependant upon our vision. Therefore a sexual predator relies upon his vision to assess who will make a good victim either in terms of sexual attraction, environment and behavioral cues. Clothing would be one of the first things a predator would probably focus on.
3) I'm not sure that we can determine what his motives are by the use of the word "slut". In today's youth culture deregatory words are 'reclaimed' by 'oppressed' groups or used to sell products or otherwise normalized.

He did not say that this was the main cause of rape.

Well, odd then that you interrupt your senior officer with a sentence beginning with "You know, I think we're beating around the bush here". Because this may be my lack of understanding of the term "beating around the bush", but in the context of a safety forum I interpret this as saying that the focus so far has been on subjects other than the main causes. And that what you say afterwards (women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised) is in fact what you consider to be the main cause.

Umm...took me awhile to follow your circular reasoning.

1) In a safety forum...are the causes really all that relevant to be the main focus? Yeah...is rape about sex or power makes for interesting background; but what the hell does that have to do with keeping myself safe? I'd be more interested in learning about strategies to keep me from being a victim. Keep the academic abstractions for a psychology lecture.
2) No, I've never argued that dress is the main cause. That has been outside of what I have argued. All I'm defending is the notion that dress and behavior on the part of the victim can put them in situations where they are at increased risk.

I'm a little disappointed in you Lapis.

Oh boohoo.

Hey...I'm not the one make weak arguments based upon building up straw-man fallacies.

At 6/19/11 04:12 PM, TheMason wrote: You're doing to the same thing the slutwalk organizers are doing...taking a simple statement and extrapolating a larger argument that just isn't present in what was actually said.

What I'm mainly trying to get across is that there is a preexisting cultural bias towards thinking that "dressing like a slut" is bad. Without knowing it, people may well overstress the importance of dress when compared to, say, vulnerability because people are culturally prompted to think that way. This must be laid bare before a discussion about the effect of dress on rape probabilities can be conducted.

But without that it would have been good to write it out anyway. Without this larger societal context, there would not have been slut walks. What the walking sluts are trying to achieve has nothing to do with what officer Sanguinetti said except for the fact that it served as the trigger. What they want to get rid of is a culturally-inspired mindset about dressing like a slut. Many events make no sense when they're stripped of all context. How can one explain the 1992 LA riots without taking long-standing frustration over police racism into account? Riots that leave 50+ people dead over one instance of police brutality? Really? Similarly, it does the current topic no justice to ignore what the walking sluts are actually protesting. If Sanguinetti had said men provoked violence with their mode of dress it would not have sparked international protests by angry young males.

Again...you're reading way too much into what I (and I think the officer) are saying. In the end, you're building a strawman to argue against.

That's insipid. I'm not arguing agianst a position, I'm arguing against an argument. I'm taking your argument and making the logical implications clear so that it can more easily be seen that it holds little water.

Guy 1: "The capital gains tax needs to be abolished because all taxes are inherently evil."
Guy 2: "If all taxes are inherently evil, then how are you going to pay for the military?"
Guy 1: "STRAWMAN. I was talking about the capital gains tax and said nothing about the military."

You're saying that women who draw more attention to themselves are more at risk of getting raped, right? Being fat draws attention to a woman; because fat women are generally considered less attractive, they may be lured into a more vulnerable location (like the rapist's bedroom) with less effort because they are less used to positive attention. Assuming equal probabilites of success of rape attempts (starting by trying to get the woman in a vulnerable position), fat women will be raped more often simply because they receive more attention from rapists. So if being fat is also a factor in increasing the likelihood of rape, why would officer Sanguinetti focus so specifically on clothing? --- This is the point where I refer to my prior remarks about cultural predisposition.

1) At least stand by your argument that Mr. Sanguinetti was misusing his status as a police officer...or be bold enough to admit defeat on a point.

The purpose of that sentence is to stress that he most likely did not literally had all the stuff about not wanting wives or daughters to attract attention of potential male suitors go through his head, then actively deliberated on how he was going to push women into dressing conservatively and then decided that this security forum was the perfect venue. His remarks may well have been fueled by subconscious prejudices, which I deem far more likely.

That does not change they fact that he demeaned rape victims, dumbed down a debate and made a normative statement, all while being a police officer, which still makes him a fuckwad in my book.

2) See humans do not have Jedi-like mind powers to read thoughts or see the future.

Oh, I'm sorry Mason, but I also need eyes to tell if a woman is fat. I can't tell by the shockwaves they produce when walking in the streets.

Clothing would be one of the first things a predator would probably focus on.

Probably? And suddenly I'm the asshole for pointing out that you're speculating?

3) I'm not sure that we can determine what his motives are by the use of the word "slut". In today's youth culture deregatory words are 'reclaimed' by 'oppressed' groups or used to sell products or otherwise normalized.

I hope you're not being serious. The guy isn't a woman. This bit reminds me of the movie Clerks 2 where Jeff Anderson's (white male) character wants to take back the term "porch monkey". But hey, that's a comedy. So if you were trying to entertain me, please put a smiley face after your last sentence in the future so I know I should laugh.

Umm...took me awhile to follow your circular reasoning.

1) In a safety forum...are the causes really all that relevant to be the main focus?

Well, the context was clearly that women were being advised on how to prevent rape. Whether his goal was to make an academically-founded claim regarding the main cause of rape or to just blurt out questionable advice in which something is elevated to being the main cause of rape does not take away from the fuckwaddery of his actions.

2) No, I've never argued that dress is the main cause.

Splendid. Note also that my post did not start with: Can we at this point in the thread at least all agree that TheMason is a humongous fuckwad who (...). Furthermore, I never intended to claim that you interrupted a senior officer. On the contrary, I would die standing by the notion that there is no evidence whatsoever to, based on what we've learned about you in this thread, claim that you ever interrupted a senior officer. Unless you are in fact mr. Sanguinetti. But weren't you an American?

Hey...I'm not the one make weak arguments based upon building up straw-man fallacies.

Touché. Ah well, I can find solace in the fact that at least I know what a strawman fallacy is.

At 6/14/11 07:14 PM, TheMason wrote: The Slutwalkers are parading sexual expression as a protest against someone's suggestion that provacative clothing can lead to unintended consequences.

Hmm... I don't think any other comment is needed. It's silly.

At 6/12/11 10:17 PM, Ravariel wrote: Rape is not about sex. It is about power and thrill and harm.

There has been no study able to correlate any relationship between dress and instance of rape.

Ergo, how a woman dresses has no relationship to the likelihood of her being raped. Any insinuation, however subtle, that a woman puts herself in more danger by dressing seductively is exactly what these walks are designed to protest.

I think everyone missed this one. It's true. Most studies have proven that over 90% of rapes have nothing to do with sex & more to do with power & degradation.

At 7/4/11 05:39 PM, Bebo69 wrote: I think everyone missed this one. It's true. Most studies have proven that over 90% of rapes have nothing to do with sex & more to do with power & degradation.

Then why do sex offenders take psychosexual exams, instead of exams regarding their controlling and exploitive behaviors?

I live in Toronto and I didn't think the officer's comment and the SlutWalk would spread around the world, but hey, they did. I'm probably the first in this thread to mention this: he apologized and was disciplined, according to a Toronto Star article. It obviously wasn't enough. A criminologist at the University of Toronto said that connecting dressing and sexual assault is ridiculous. "If that were the case, there would be no rapes of women who wear veils and we know there are rapes in those countries." However, she doesn't say how many. I've read the debate with lapis in this thread, as well as other posts, and I honestly don't know what to think. If nearly everyone was a nudist in Canada and the US, except in the cold weather, I have to wonder if and how rape would be different.

At 7/4/11 11:47 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: A criminologist at the University of Toronto said that connecting dressing and sexual assault is ridiculous.

No offense to her, but I believe she's full of shit. She seems like an armchair QB to me.

A judge at my office said it beast during a disposition earlier this week:
There are different levels of sexual offenders. There are those who commit statutory rape by just a few days outside of the limit, all the way to the hardened serial violent rapists.

Now, I have actually interacted with sex offenders and read in depth examinations of them. The fact that the psycologists who deal with sex offenders actually talk about sexual drive and deviancy as factors to reoffending shows me that there is a major component of some sex offenders that is driven by sexual desire. I would not disagree that the upper level sexual offenders and DV sex offenders do it out of reasons that have little to do with sexual drive, however, the lower end sex offenders oretty often have sexual desire components to their abuses. In a great deal of the lower end cases it is sexual desire combined with an inability to stop oneself from crossing a line.