Rape, feminism, victim-blaming, sex

[Earfetish]

Recently, British 'national treasure' Joanna Lumley said something like 'women - if you get drunk and dress in skimpy clothing, you will get robbed or raped'. Many people accused her of 'victim-blaming', suggesting that she was saying some victims 'were asking for it'. What's the deal with that? Is it 'blaming the victims' to provide risk-management advice to women about rape, and if so, why is it ok to say 'don't leave your car keys in the ignition'?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/joanna-l umley-foolish-rape-drunken-feet

Also, many feminists suggest that rape is 'an extension of the patriarchal society' and an example of men exerting their societal power over women. However, I would point out that men also rape men, and although it might be difficult for a woman to rape a man, they can and do commit sexual offences against men that are the moral equivalent of rape.

And porn - why is porn a feminist issue? Why is domestic violence 'an extension of the patriarchal society' when women also attack their boyfriends and husbands? Is the whole social theory of 'feminism' a load of nonsense?

Also I think there's room for a general discussion of feminism on Politics. I agree with the idea that 'women should be equal to men' and that 'men and women should get the same pay for the same job', but feminist discourse seems to piss me off. It all seems to hate men and hate sex. Why is this?

To provide some of my opinions, feminism, in many of its guises, is about as clever as religion or Marxism or a conspiracy theory. You could say 'domestic violence is because of the patriarchy', but this involves zero analysis, although it fits a theory. Similarly, you could say 'domestic violence is because God is testing us', or 'domestic violence is because capitalism oppresses the worker so they beat their wife', or 'DV is because of the illuminati', and while it might work within your social theory, it doesn't stand up to outside scrutiny.

[Ceratisa]

Is there really a pay disparity?
http://lattenomics.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/do-women-really-
get-paid-less-than-men/

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/why-are-
women-paid-less/263776/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EwogD Ph-Sow

http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/do-women-really-earn-l ess

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/
21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents -dolla/

And men tend to be more agressive asking for more pay or raises.

[poxpower]

At 2/5/13 08:02 AM, Earfetish wrote: What's the deal with that? Is it 'blaming the victims' to provide risk-management advice to women about rape, and if so, why is it ok to say 'don't leave your car keys in the ignition'?

It's because most people are idiots and you have to talk to them like they are children.
You can't say "Chinese people have smaller penises" without them saying something irrelevant and inconsequential just so they feel less guilty.

We all know people like this. "Men are stronger than women"
"Wait, I know a girl who does martial arts, she could kick your ass!".

Then you just stand there, wondering of what possible relevance this statement could ever possibly be.

Anyway. The real question is: Do women who dress like skanks REALLY have an increased chance of being raped simply because of their clothing? That seems to be a fact that is taken for granted in all these conversations, but is it even true?
Doesn't it depend more on the time of day or the neighborhood? Or traveling in groups / with men?

Aren't most rapes committed by non-strangers anyway? Does clothing really make any difference?

I'm guessing no one's actually keeping a record of how slutty girls were dressed when they got raped : D

[Earfetish]

At 2/5/13 10:12 AM, poxpower wrote: Doesn't it depend more on the time of day or the neighborhood? Or traveling in groups / with men?

You are right, I very much doubt that clothing choices have any relevance to rape risk, despite what Muslim women might say. Circumstance and being in the wrong place at the wrong time are the biggest risks.

Aren't most rapes committed by non-strangers anyway?

And that is also correct. However, alcohol is a risk factor in both stranger and acquaintance rape, so she was right to warn about this.

And yes Ceritisa, as far as the gender gap in pay is concerned, while it still exists, women might miss out on five years' worth of promotions because they (choose to) take on childcare responsibilities. I'm sure a lot of men would love to stay at home and look after their kids instead of go to the office and work for a living. You could even call this 'an extension of the matriarchy'.

Also the criminal justice system and civil courts and childcare proceedings and plenty of other things are heavily biased towards women.

[Ceratisa]

Also the criminal justice system and civil courts and childcare proceedings and plenty of other things are heavily biased towards women.

You mean in cases like "Who gets the kid, well off dad or suspected methhead mom?"Give it to the mom and make dad pay out the ass?"

Anyway while rape isn't forgivable and I'm not "victim blaming" but if you go to a party and get drunk and wasted with people of questionable moral fiber, well something bad may happen. All I'm saying is sometimes the situation you put yourself in directly increases the odds of things happening to you. If I choose to spend all day in the most violent part of town am I more likely to get mugged or attacked, yes I am.

Porn isn't sexist or exploitative. If all women were expected to act like women in pornos do that would be different.

[Saen]

Anyone who becomes intoxicated or high on a substance late in the evening is victimizing him/herself. Women especially since they are generally weaker and more attractive targets for rapists.

I can't say the same for women who dress like awesome sluts. They aren't asking to be raped nor does putting on sexy clothing mean they want to have sex with everyone, the alternate notion is just silly.

Also using false generalizations like "feminists hate sex and men" is the same fallacy you were ranting about. Sure it sounds nice and correct, but in reality feminists are not like this at all. I had worked and volunteered for Planned Parenthood for a year, all of the women who worked there were especially nice. I haven't had an unpleasant conversation with any liberal feminist woman (or conservative woman who believes she's a feminist).

It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with feminism and this is really a non issue. The problem is women are still being victimized on the streets and in the household. Education on criminal behavior, abusive relationships, and self-defense classes will lower rape victim numbers.

As for women not being paid equally or widely respected as figures of authority (at least in the States), these issues will most likely be resolved over time through a cultural shift.

[Camarohusky]

There is a middle of the road line here that neither side seems to care about locating.

There are certain actions by women that can increase their chances of getting raped. Some say rape is all about violence, but that's only partially true. There is a sex drive component to it. Not to mention the term "rape" encompasses numerous different things. Predatory serial rapists who beat their victims tend to drive mostly on control and violence. Date rape and other sneak rape type acts are driven more by sexual urges. Whereas a women who dresses skimpy is no more likely to be violently raped than a woman in full nun-like clothes, a woman who goes to a frat party alone is exponentially more likely to be date raped than one who avoids such parties.

As for court proceedings, I can say that the notion they are geared heavily toward mothers is a complete and utter falsehood. Of the cases I had where both the mother and father could be found, I had just as many end up with the Dad getting custody against the mother as the mother getting custody against the father.

I can think of three reasons where the misconception comes from:

- Moms are always guaranteed a role in the proceedings for biological sourcing reasons. The women who gave birth to the child is the biological mother (except in some really odd cases, which are so rare they don't deserve consideration). Oftentimes the mother was sleeping around agreat deal and has no clue who the real dad truly is. The Dad has to be tied either by mother's affadavit, marriage at time of birth, or DNA testing. Those things are harder to establish in many families than we would expect.
- When a parent abandons the child, it is most often the father. Does this mean that fathers deserve the children less? No, it means that the fathers are far more likely to bolt than mothers, and thus are less likely to be involved, on their own volition, in the proceedings.
- The DV aspect. Men committ DV more than women (how much more is a big dispute) but when men commit DV they do it quite differently than women do. Women DV perpetrators often play the victim to the outside world to garner sympathy and thus give them power. Men, on the other hand, polish their images like crazy so that the world believes there's no way they could commit DV. SO in these cases, to the outside world, it would seem that the upstanding dad is losing the child to the broken mom who turned to drugs, when in reality she turned to drugs as a way to cope with the domestic violence.

I also find the notion that porn is not sexist or exploitative quite laughable. Porn is exploitative and sexist, by its very nature. Is it an affront to women everywhere? Not at all. But seriously, tell me how they all end, and how that's not's sexist or exploitative? Most porn is meant for male sexual desires, and is catered to provide the male dominance. Where the women is doing everything for the man and the woman looks very sexually pleasing. Want to now what porn geared for women is? Look for a book with Fabio on the cover.

[science-is-fun]

Well, women were oppressed for much of human history and there has to be a reason for that.

The problem is no matter how morally righteous a cause is, people are flawed and stupid, people can very easily neglect standards of proof when trying to figure out what causes inequality. Feminists may make this mistake when trying to stand up for equal rights, now it seems you might tread the same path when standing up to demagogues abusing the feminist movement. The American left is a very visible political institution, as is the American right wing, but how much sway to "marxists" hold anyway? There is no conspiracy, just a bunch of people who have had traumatic experiences vulnerable to empty platitudes, quick simple answers and like-minded people to make them feel secure. Their demands are supplied.

get drunk and dress in skimpy clothing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K1KHqi9bXc
You don't say "you were raped because you wore skimpy clothing", you say "rapists target women who wear skimpy clothing".

rape is an extension of the patriarchal society' and an example of men exerting their societal power over women

I don't think most people care about theories which are that abstract.

porn

They are worried about abuse in the porn industry and men who watch it getting the wrong idea.

men and women should get the same pay for the same job

This is where I differ from the feminists. Capitalists are greedy and reduce "human resources" to a calculation, naturally women who do the same work and accept lower wages have a higher quality/cost ratio and will be favored, if we had some kind of borderline unfettered laissez-faire capitalist system the competition would be fierce and there would be no space in business for petty foibles like sexism.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/5/13 06:11 PM, science-is-fun wrote: if we had some kind of borderline unfettered laissez-faire capitalist system the competition would be fierce and there would be no space in business for petty foibles like sexism.

Sounds nice in theory, but no. Unfettered capitalism actually lends itself to higher rates of exclusion. Once a person has reached a certain amount of wealth, the differences caused by picking those they like and those they don't at cost of quality become less and less important. In other words, when the bonus for getting the best over all else is peanuts compared to the whole, the incentive no longer really exists.

[science-is-fun]

At 2/5/13 07:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Once a person has reached a certain amount of wealth

Under a laissez faire system you would need to be ruthlessly pragmatic to make wealth to begin with, it would be standard practice to place reason over prejudice.

People say life isn't fair, I disagree, I believe that reality is the fairest judge of all, either something works or it doesn't. You can't fake a flying machine or cold fusion, only con people into believing they work until they try it for themselves. In the world of business it is the same, either an operation achieves a certain level of effectiveness or it doesn't, which brings us back to "human resources".

When everyone else is adopting only the very best hiring practices, if you do not do the same then your products and services will have a lower quality/cost ratio and you won't make any sales, if it goes on for any longer your share price will begin to plummet along with your precious dividends and options. You might as well just shoot yourself in the foot.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/6/13 11:38 AM, science-is-fun wrote: When everyone else is adopting only the very best hiring practices,

You assume way too much. "If this, then this" "if that, then that" Well, this and that don't exist in our society. People will have poor hiring practices as long as they believe men are better workers than women, or that some group is better thn another, and so on.

If you erase ALL cultural history, heritage, and predisposition, then you might be right. Until then, you;re going to have the good old boys who would rather hire a lsightly less efficient male over a highly qualified and better female. The males have the power to dscriminate without any real consequences. The only thing that makes consequences is, yep, you guessed it: REGULATION.

Pure lasseiz faire ecomonics does not solve ANY of the problems the anti-regulation people claim it does, and in fact tends to make many of them, such as price gouging, lack of competition, discrimination of customers and employees, WORSE.

[science-is-fun]

At 2/6/13 02:45 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You assume way too much. "If this, then this" "if that, then that" Well, this and that don't exist in our society.

Introducing more pragmatism into the business environment would alleviate prejudice as well as countless other problems, even though I need to iron out some technical details and it might not be very feasible to convince the majority of the population to support these measures in just a few years the original fact remains and will continue to linger over people's heads no matter how much they deny it, like heliocentrism and evolution. Not trying to start a revolution, I'm just saying.

That is my "if". Now let us take a look at your "if".

The only thing that makes consequences is, yep, you guessed it: REGULATION.

You cannot centrally plan the price mechanism or every decision by a business, the state cannot predict to a reasonable degree what someone's ideal non-prejudiced market value is. While it might successfully intervene in extreme cases, it has its limitations and we need to rely on other methods in order to be effective.

Look for alternatives, having exhausted democratic and hierarchical methods of control that leaves us with autonomy. By promoting a business environment where decisions are singularly focused on obtaining profit for shareholders, prejudice will become synonymous with incompetence, and private businesses will become highly motivated to do the job you want the state to do, except they will actually accomplish something since experienced professionals in the private sector are far better placed than some government bureaucrat. We accomplish this by dropping discriminatory taxation, nonsense subsidies, tariffs, regulations not related to safety and the like, out in the cold management will have to very quickly adopt the ruthless pragmatism I described in order to keep their job, appease shareholders and achieve quarterly earnings thresholds.

price gouging

Why shouldn't market forces apply to disaster preparedness? It incentivizes stores in flood zones to stock up and promotes consumer awareness of these risks. You will have businesses popping up with solutions to flooding, the zombie apocalypse and things.

lack of competitio, zombien

All the examples I have seen where anti-trust legislation was needed were due to some major technological advantage by one company, considering how important technology is maybe that is not a big deal, maybe people who invest in technology should reap massive rewards and maybe people who might get put out of business should start doing the same. There are also financial instruments in the free market which prevent businesses from becoming monopolistic even when it is only economical to have only one business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

discrimination of customers and employees

We are told capitalists are greedy and only care about money and as you say under capitalism people lose money by making irrational decisions so only the rich can afford it but capitalism is impersonal and reduces a business to a balance sheet, shareholders don't care what you think of the poles, they want their money, so it is a factor against discrimination. Capitalism can't stop all racism but then it can't stop hurricanes either, you have to compare things and judge everything else by the same standards.

[TheMason]

At 2/5/13 10:21 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 2/5/13 10:12 AM, poxpower wrote: Doesn't it depend more on the time of day or the neighborhood? Or traveling in groups / with men?

You are right, I very much doubt that clothing choices have any relevance to rape risk, despite what Muslim women might say. Circumstance and being in the wrong place at the wrong time are the biggest risks.

Aren't most rapes committed by non-strangers anyway?

And that is also correct. However, alcohol is a risk factor in both stranger and acquaintance rape, so she was right to warn about this.

I would not be so fast to discard the idea that clothing adds to a person's chances of getting raped. Predators do not seek out the biggest, strongest Ox in the herd. Instead they pick out the most vulnerable and the easiest to attack. If a girl is wearing jeans, those are hard to get off. But if she is wearing something like a dress...this provides easy access to the goods. The skimpier the dress...the easier/quicker the access.

Even if they are passed out. Since most rapes involve acquaintences and alcohol...if you and your friend are passed out and she is dressed like a scank and you're in jeans...who do you think a guy is going to target?

... I'm sure a lot of men would love to stay at home and look after their kids instead of go to the office and work for a living. You could even call this 'an extension of the matriarchy'.

This is becoming normal with the mancession we recently experienced (more men lost jobs than women). Hell, my ex is a MD and had to move back to Mo from Al recently to enter private practice. My daughter's stepdad choose to become a stay at home dad. (Sorry for ancetdotal example! lol)

[TheMason]

At 2/5/13 10:35 AM, Saen wrote: I can't say the same for women who dress like awesome sluts. They aren't asking to be raped nor does putting on sexy clothing mean they want to have sex with everyone, the alternate notion is just silly.

Take the emotion out of it and re-read what Ear is saying. In no way is he saying they are "asking" for rape or "wanting to have sex". Instead, what he is arguing is that it makes one a target for rape. It is a factor that increases one's chances for being victimized and if one does not want to be victimized...the reality is they may not be able to dress like they want to.

In no way does this mean I (and I think Ear shares this sentiment) think that how a victim is dressed should ever be used as a defense for the rapist. EVER.

[poxpower]

At 2/7/13 08:16 AM, TheMason wrote:

I would not be so fast to discard the idea that clothing adds to a person's chances of getting raped.

I cannot find facts to back this up.
No one seems to have written down data on rape victim clothing and attractiveness.

What I did find is that 80% of the people raped are under 30.
Strange if rape is about "control" and "power" as women's rights group constantly claim, despite clear evidence to the contrary and despite 100% of every man ever knowing it's bullshit.

The statistics are also widely insane and inflated, suggesting that 1 in 6 US woman has been the victim of "attempted or completed" rape ( whatever the fuck that means ).

The data is just piss-poor but it does seem very suggestive that clothing is very far down on the list of things that would get you raped, way behind alcohol, age, attractiveness, drugs, promiscuity and bad parents / friends / family / workplace.

[Saen]

At 2/7/13 08:19 AM, TheMason wrote:
Take the emotion out of it and re-read what Ear is saying. In no way is he saying they are "asking" for rape or "wanting to have sex". Instead, what he is arguing is that it makes one a target for rape. It is a factor that increases one's chances for being victimized and if one does not want to be victimized...the reality is they may not be able to dress like they want to.

It may be a factor, but certainly not a deciding factor for a predator. Potential victims appear weak, alone, and vulnerable (so intoxicated, high, distracted, etc.). Dressing provocatively may draw the attention of a predator, but is certainly not a factor in a predator's decision of whether or not to strike. This is just criminology 101.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/7/13 08:16 AM, TheMason wrote: I would not be so fast to discard the idea that clothing adds to a person's chances of getting raped. Predators do not seek out the biggest, strongest Ox in the herd. Instead they pick out the most vulnerable and the easiest to attack. If a girl is wearing jeans, those are hard to get off. But if she is wearing something like a dress...this provides easy access to the goods. The skimpier the dress...the easier/quicker the access.

I would be so quick to discard it.

Kidnap rapists and the violent attacking sort of rapists don't care about the victim's clothing. Sure, 6'6" rosie the riverter walks by in her full jumpsuit and they may steer cler of her, but that has more to do with her strong appearance, not the size of her clothing.

These sort of rapists don't care much about time it takes as they way they attack involves attacking in, or taking to, a location where there is a high amount of privacy.

Also, these sort of rapes are the ones that are more driven by violence and control, meaning it's about the pain and domination, not the sex.

Even if they are passed out. Since most rapes involve acquaintences and alcohol...if you and your friend are passed out and she is dressed like a scank and you're in jeans...who do you think a guy is going to target?

This is a VERY different type of rape you speak of here.

Date rapes, the kinds that use alcohol or rohipnal (et.al.) are driven more by the sexual urge than the urge to be in contro and/or inflict pain. These ones also occur in much less private areas, often right under the noses of others, so timing can be very important.

Even in these cases, it's more about avoiding the situation (going to a bar, club, frat party alone or without support) than about the clothes the woman wears.

This is becoming normal with the mancession we recently experienced (more men lost jobs than women). Hell, my ex is a MD and had to move back to Mo from Al recently to enter private practice. My daughter's stepdad choose to become a stay at home dad. (Sorry for ancetdotal example! lol)

I've moonlighted as this while I've been out of work for my health reasons, and I have to say I hate it. It's somewhat relaxing staying at home all the time, but it feels like I'm not doing anything and not going anywhere. It;s antithetical to everything I was brought up to want out of life (and I can bet it's like that ith men more than it is with women, due to upbringing). Let's also not forget that when a women brings home the bacon, she does statistically bring home a good chunk less than an equivalent male. (<for numerous reasons including basic discrimination, being a woman in a man's workplace, and childbearing)

[Poniiboi]

At 2/5/13 10:35 AM, Saen wrote: Anyone who becomes intoxicated or high on a substance late in the evening is victimizing him/herself. Women especially since they are generally weaker and more attractive targets for rapists.

I can't say the same for women who dress like awesome sluts. They aren't asking to be raped nor does putting on sexy clothing mean they want to have sex with everyone, the alternate notion is just silly.

Also using false generalizations like "feminists hate sex and men" is the same fallacy you were ranting about. Sure it sounds nice and correct, but in reality feminists are not like this at all. I had worked and volunteered for Planned Parenthood for a year, all of the women who worked there were especially nice. I haven't had an unpleasant conversation with any liberal feminist woman (or conservative woman who believes she's a feminist).

It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with feminism and this is really a non issue. The problem is women are still being victimized on the streets and in the household. Education on criminal behavior, abusive relationships, and self-defense classes will lower rape victim numbers.

As for women not being paid equally or widely respected as figures of authority (at least in the States), these issues will most likely be resolved over time through a cultural shift.

Did you get laid by any of the feminists?!?!

Seriously though our society falls victim to the Fallacy of Extrapolation all the time, extrapolation meaning that if someone does something wrong, everyone must be strictly prohibited from even thinking about said behavior so that wrong never happens again.

The wrong will happen again, and the only thing that extrapolation accomplishes is taking away freedoms from innocent people who didn't do shit.

The feminist movement is based on extrapolation. Yes, some women get raped by horny dudes who have to force themselves on chicks. MOST OF THE TIME, HOWEVER, women lead a guy on, pushing all his biological buttons with skimpy clothes and flirty talk, then they want to stop because they found out he's broke or something.

This leads to guys getting kicked out of clubs just cuz a girl looked at him wrong (me). It also leads to bullshit in the court systems over child custody, women getting everything in divorce settlements, and the general feminizing of men.

I had some broad grab my package in a dance club once. Ugly broad, yuck. I pushed her. The bouncer started getting onto ME. I was like, fuck you and her. Didn't get kicked out that time, somehow.

Women get all kinds of privileges in this society; I don't think we need to give them any more. On the flipside, if they are able as a constituency to fool decision makers into giving them more rights, then more power to them. Not girl power like OMG they have vaginas so they deserve "respect" as women, but more power to them as a political group that is looking to rule the world like every other political group. I'll be fighting to return power to men (and me), so let the battle begin.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/7/13 01:53 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: Women get all kinds of privileges in this society;

I think your sig tells us more than enough about your view of women.

[Saen]

At 2/7/13 01:53 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote:
Did you get laid by any of the feminists?!?!

Oh sure plenty of times. I respect and I am attracted to intelligent women.

Seriously though our society falls victim to the Fallacy of Extrapolation all the time, extrapolation meaning that if someone does something wrong, everyone must be strictly prohibited from even thinking about said behavior so that wrong never happens again.

The wrong will happen again, and the only thing that extrapolation accomplishes is taking away freedoms from innocent people who didn't do shit.

Lol ok what freedoms do you think men have lost because of the feminist movement?

The feminist movement is based on extrapolation. Yes, some women get raped by horny dudes who have to force themselves on chicks. MOST OF THE TIME, HOWEVER, women lead a guy on, pushing all his biological buttons with skimpy clothes and flirty talk, then they want to stop because they found out he's broke or something.

Uh if you have any sort of charm there is no need to "force yourself" onto a woman, nor is it legal to rape a woman. So far nothing you've said is even related to a feminist discussion.

Women get all kinds of privileges in this society; I don't think we need to give them any more. On the flipside, if they are able as a constituency to fool decision makers into giving them more rights, then more power to them. Not girl power like OMG they have vaginas so they deserve "respect" as women, but more power to them as a political group that is looking to rule the world like every other political group. I'll be fighting to return power to men (and me), so let the battle begin.

Go ahead and name some privileges women have that men don't.

A political group that want's to rule the world, lmfao.. Uh I don't even know why I'm responding to you now, there doesn't seem to be anything concrete, relavent, or serious ideas in your argument.

[TheMason]

At 2/7/13 12:12 PM, poxpower wrote: I cannot find facts to back this up.
No one seems to have written down data on rape victim clothing and attractiveness.

Um...I'm not saying that it is the attractiveness of of slutty clothing that helps put the person at risk. My argument is that it makes access to the goods easier. It makes a person an easier target than someone who is dressed in say jeans. Furthermore, it is not just about being 'slutty' or 'sexy'. Someone dressed conservatively in an ankle length dress would be easier to rape than a woman wearing pants.

Someone could be wearing a skin-tight, latex bodysuit, and as long as she doesn't have a zipper at the crotch...the act of rape would be more difficult than the conservative woman wearing a safe-for-church dress.

At 2/7/13 01:11 PM, Saen wrote: It may be a factor, but certainly not a deciding factor for a predator. Potential victims appear weak, alone, and vulnerable (so intoxicated, high, distracted, etc.). Dressing provocatively may draw the attention of a predator, but is certainly not a factor in a predator's decision of whether or not to strike. This is just criminology 101.

Sorry, but criminology 101 would go against you here. If you are walking down the abandoned ally where the rapist is creepin'...then what you are wearing would not be a factor since you're the only target.

However, if you're in a target rich environment (ie: frat party, drinking, other risk factors)...then yes it very well could be the deciding factor. In the case of where a predator has a choice of targets...then how easy/difficult clothing makes a rape will probably be a HUGE factor in a predator's decision. It could be THE deciding factor.

At 2/7/13 01:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I would be so quick to discard it.

Kidnap rapists and the violent attacking sort of rapists don't care about the victim's clothing. Sure, 6'6" rosie the riverter walks by in her full jumpsuit and they may steer cler of her, but that has more to do with her strong appearance, not the size of her clothing.

These sort of rapists don't care much about time it takes as they way they attack involves attacking in, or taking to, a location where there is a high amount of privacy.

Also, these sort of rapes are the ones that are more driven by violence and control, meaning it's about the pain and domination, not the sex.

I think the kidnapping rapist and the violent rapist are two different animals with different motivations and behaviors. For example, I don't the think the kidnapping rapist would care much about clothing unless he has some sort of fetish which irrationally draws him to a certain woman. In that case it could be wearing high heels, glasses, or hair color that would be the object of his fixation.

Also, this dude is going to plan his strike and probably going to stalk her before kidnapping her. Therefore, clothing would be no factor.

On the other hand, if the rapist is the violent attacker...he may not be all that much of a planner. So he may be looking for a target of opportunity. He probably does not have all the time in the world so struggling with jeans or other pants would be a deterent. On the other hand, being able to flip up a girl's dress/skirt and you're there would make the act easier. And let's face it...since they are not out for a fair fight they are probably not up for the more challenging person to rape.

[Earfetish]

Hi all, interesting conversation.

At 2/5/13 10:35 AM, Saen wrote: Anyone who becomes intoxicated or high on a substance late in the evening is victimizing him/herself. Women especially since they are generally weaker and more attractive targets for rapists.

Well in the UK at least, the chances of a male being the victim of crime while intoxicated are substantially higher than the risks faced by women. I know we have a lot more violent crime than the US, however, but I can't imagine the cultures are all that different.

They aren't asking to be raped

What's weird is that it is very rare that I hear anyone say anyone is 'asking to be raped' (SenatorJohnDean came pretty damn close though), although I hear 'nobody is asking to be raped' all the time from feminists on the internet. Like, almost everyone would agree that nobody ever 'asks to be raped'. If I ever heard anyone say, "well she was asking for it," I would consider them to be an absolute arsehole. And would probably snitch on them.

Also using false generalizations like "feminists hate sex and men" is the same fallacy you were ranting about.

Yeah, that's why I was very careful to use qualifiers like 'some' and 'many' in the OP. I would describe myself as a 'feminist' in that I believe in social equality between the sexes and think that females are equally as valuable as males.

I had worked and volunteered for Planned Parenthood for a year

good work, fair play to you

It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with feminism and this is really a non issue.

I suggest you read the article in the OP.

The problem is women are still being victimized on the streets and in the household.

Must a crime committed by a male against a female be a feminist issue? DV and rape, I think, do not have to be feminist issues. I speak as someone who was sexually assaulted by a homosexual 'friend' while asleep (and drunk), and as someone who has had to deal with violence in relationships perpetrated by drunk women - this means that I get actively pissed off when I hear about these issues in the context of 'the patriarchy'. Also, a man who has been attacked by another man might feel completely unable to go to the courts and report the offence, and there are very few support mechanisms around to help them. DV too.

At 2/5/13 12:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As for court proceedings, I can say that the notion they are geared heavily toward mothers is a complete and utter falsehood. Of the cases I had where both the mother and father could be found, I had just as many end up with the Dad getting custody against the mother as the mother getting custody against the father.

Really? I only feel confident talking about the UK, where just 8% of lone parents are fathers and 1 in 3 children are raised without a father because of gender imbalances in family court.

- The DV aspect. Men committ DV more than women (how much more is a big dispute) but when men commit DV they do it quite differently than women do. Women DV perpetrators often play the victim to the outside world to garner sympathy and thus give them power. Men, on the other hand, polish their images like crazy so that the world believes there's no way they could commit DV. SO in these cases, to the outside world, it would seem that the upstanding dad is losing the child to the broken mom who turned to drugs, when in reality she turned to drugs as a way to cope with the domestic violence.

In the DV aspect, a man could be attacked by his partner and feel completely unable to speak to the authorities, because the moment they'll get through the door, they'll arrest the man by default. If a man commits violence towards his partner, then everyone will condemn him as a useless piece of shit, but if a woman does the same, they'll bend over backwards to find reasons for it. And Dianne can kick Sam in the balls in Cheers and the audience find it hilarious, but if Sam did something similar, the audience would never be able to like him again.

[Saen]

At 2/7/13 04:55 PM, TheMason wrote:
However, if you're in a target rich environment (ie: frat party, drinking, other risk factors)...then yes it very well could be the deciding factor. In the case of where a predator has a choice of targets...then how easy/difficult clothing makes a rape will probably be a HUGE factor in a predator's decision. It could be THE deciding factor.

So you're taking that route I see. So the scenario is a predator has chosen to run up to a girl in a public environment and have sex with her for 3 seconds until he gets knocked out. Ok first I want you to find a documented a case where and when this type of crime took place. Furthermore the file has to explicitly say that rape wouldn't have been possible if the girl wasn't wearing a specific type of revealing clothing.

Then after finding nothing take a step back and realize how ridiculous the point you're making is.

How rape most frequently occurs in a crowded party environment is through drugging, or putting the victim into a vulnerable state.

[poxpower]

At 2/7/13 04:55 PM, TheMason wrote:

My argument is that it makes access to the goods easier. It makes a person an easier target than someone who is dressed in say jeans.

Does it? It if doesn't actually increase the incidence of rape, how is it relevant?

You may have arguments about it taking 5 minutes longer or being slightly harder, but does that deter anyone from raping a girl?

[Earfetish]

At 2/7/13 05:30 PM, poxpower wrote: You may have arguments about it taking 5 minutes longer or being slightly harder, but does that deter anyone from raping a girl?

Yeah, nudists would be at massive risk of rape and loads of rapes would take place on the beach if that were the case. It probably is best to avoid drawing attention to you - male or female - but the best stranger-rape-prevention advice will always be 'don't get too drunk, and if you get too drunk, make sure you get home safely'. It is also the best way to avoid getting mugged or pickpocketed or becoming the victim of any of the other horrible late-night crimes - which are committed by sober people preying on the vulnerable.

[Saen]

At 2/7/13 05:11 PM, Earfetish wrote:
Well in the UK at least, the chances of a male being the victim of crime while intoxicated are substantially higher than the risks faced by women. I know we have a lot more violent crime than the US, however, but I can't imagine the cultures are all that different.

Go ahead and find articles to back up both of those statements.

What's weird is that it is very rare that I hear anyone say anyone is 'asking to be raped' (SenatorJohnDean came pretty damn close though), although I hear 'nobody is asking to be raped' all the time from feminists on the internet. Like, almost everyone would agree that nobody ever 'asks to be raped'. If I ever heard anyone say, "well she was asking for it," I would consider them to be an absolute arsehole. And would probably snitch on them.

"She was asking for it" and all other statements are made quite frequently here, especially in the south.

Must a crime committed by a male against a female be a feminist issue?

Like the quite hilarious article stated, most of these men aren't even being punished for rape. When this has been the case for thousands of years of human existence, YES rape is feminist issue.

:DV and rape, I think, do not have to be feminist issues. I speak as someone who was sexually assaulted by a homosexual 'friend' while asleep (and drunk), and as someone who has had to deal with violence in relationships perpetrated by drunk women - this means that I get actively pissed off when I hear about these issues in the context of 'the patriarchy'.

I mean this in the most sincere context, but it doesn't feel nice having a stronger person being able to take advantage of you now does it? Imagine being a woman where just about every man around you is bigger and stronger then you are and could easily overpower and take advantage of you.

:Also, a man who has been attacked by another man might feel completely unable to go to the courts and report the offence, and there are very few support mechanisms around to help them. DV too.

You don't think most women feel this way about rape as well? This is in fact a very common issue among women and men who have been raped, it is part of the psychology of rape itself.

More funded rape victim support, education on predators, rape, self defense, and situational awareness is how we combat rape.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/7/13 04:55 PM, TheMason wrote: On the other hand, if the rapist is the violent attacker...he may not be all that much of a planner. So he may be looking for a target of opportunity. He probably does not have all the time in the world so struggling with jeans or other pants would be a deterent. On the other hand, being able to flip up a girl's dress/skirt and you're there would make the act easier. And let's face it...since they are not out for a fair fight they are probably not up for the more challenging person to rape.

While it is true that quick strike sorts of rapists may not be much of planners, but the difference between the removal time of pants or a skirt is damn near negligble compared to the amount of time the entire act takes. The opportunity rests more in which target can they subdue and remove most quickly. These things have nothing to do with the size of the clothes worn. They have more to with physical size, location, timing, and amount. A girl dressed like a slut and a girl dressed like she just came from a very conservative funeral are both equal targets in the same set of outer circumstances. How sexily the woman is dressed is irrelevant to a violence and control driven rape.

[Earfetish]

At 2/7/13 05:46 PM, Saen wrote:

At 2/7/13 05:11 PM, Earfetish wrote:
Well in the UK at least, the chances of a male being the victim of crime while intoxicated are substantially higher than the risks faced by women. I know we have a lot more violent crime than the US, however, but I can't imagine the cultures are all that different.

Go ahead and find articles to back up both of those statements.

ok well I'll try and find decent sources instead cos articles are useless
http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/criminal-justice/women
The 2011/12 CSEW estimated three in every 100 adults were a victim of violent crime. As in previous years, a smaller proportion of women than men interviewed reported being victims of violence (2% versus 4% in the 2011/12 CSEW).
The 2011/12 CSEW self-completion module on intimate violence showed that a greater proportion of women (7%) reported being victims of intimate violence than men (5%).
Findings from the child component of the 2011/12 CSEW showed that, in the 12 months prior to interview, a smaller proportion of girls (aged 10 to 15) reported being victims of violence than boys (5% per cent versus 11%).
Data from the Homicide Index showed that fewer females (201) than males (435) were victims of homicide in 2010/11. As in the previous four years, a greater proportion of female than male victims knew the principal suspect (78% and 57% respectively in 2010/11).
http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/crime.pdf
A recent study of police murder investigation files from three police force areas in England and Wales
found that in over half (52%) of all adult male-on-male homicides analysed, either the victim or the
offender had been drinking, often to excess. In 36% of cases, both the offender and the victim had been
drinking.

I could find many sources for the US vs UK violent crime disparity - just Google for info yourself so you can tell I'm not cherry-picking. The top one is:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-
worse-Britain-US.html#axzz2KF9NZsAa
Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia, according to a survey yesterday.

"She was asking for it" and all other statements are made quite frequently here, especially in the south.

Damn, and I consider the South to be all about homespun good charm, gun shows and barbecues. Unfortunate. I am pleased to say that I have never heard anyone say that, but UK feminists claim it is said regularly.

Like the quite hilarious article stated, most of these men aren't even being punished for rape. When this has been the case for thousands of years of human existence, YES rape is feminist issue.

Actually rape conviction rates are 58% in the UK, and I doubt the US is much difference. Be wary, however, because many people will combine the 'attrition' rate with the conviction rate, despite these figures not routinely being kept for other crimes. And as you can see in that link, feminists in the UK often claim that 'only 6% of rapes result in a conviction', bullshitting all the way.

I mean this in the most sincere context, but it doesn't feel nice having a stronger

Who said he was stronger? I was asleep and I considered him a close friend. I did not instantly think of battering the shit out of him, confused as I was by the situation.

person being able to take advantage of you now does it? Imagine being a woman where just about every man around you is bigger and stronger then you are and could easily overpower and take advantage of you.

Imagine being the type of man who posts on the Newgrounds forums, where "just about every man around you is bigger and stronger then you are and could easily overpower and take advantage of you". And I have spoken to enough women who have been sexually assaulted or raped to know this is not the way they instinctively react to every man. I feel I have a good understanding of what it is like to be sexually violated.

You don't think most women feel this way about rape as well? This is in fact a very common issue among women and men who have been raped, it is part of the psychology of rape itself.

That is correct, and I know that I blamed myself after it happened to me. I imagine this is almost a defense mechanism and a way of making sense out of the situation. That does not mean that providing advice to women is blaming the victim.

More funded rape victim support, education on predators, rape, self defense, and situational awareness is how we combat rape.

That sounds pretty reasonable.

[Earfetish]

http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/staysafe/safetyfo rmen
Men aged between 18 and 25 are more likely to be attacked than anyone else in society. In fact, men are almost twice as likely to face violent attack than women. So let's get this straight - personal safety is not just a women's issue.

http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/crime-prevention/helping-pre vent-crime/personal-safety/men
Women are more aware of crime, yet men are more than 3 times more likely to get mugged or assaulted

data from today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/feb/07/crime-st atistics-england-wales-violent-sexual-offences
The difference between women and men was narrower when looking at victims of domestic abuse, which includes sexual and non-sexual abuse. 7.3% of women (1.2m) and 5% of men (800,000) reported having experienced domestic abuse in the last year.

That link also has some interesting statistics for our current discussion:

As well as asking about experience of intimate violence, respondents were asked questions to indicate their attitude towards it. 8% of people stated that if the victim was under the influence of drugs then they were 'completely' or 'mostly' responsible for someone sexually assaulting or raping. 7% stated flirting heavily with an abuser beforehand made a victim responsible, and 6% thought this true if the victim was drunk.

fucking morons

The CSEW provides some interesting data into the characteristics associated with being a victim of violence. Young men are most likely to be victims of violence according to the report.

Men were nearly twice as likely as women (3.8% compared with 2.1%) to have experienced one or more violent crimes in the year prior to interview

[TheMason]

At 2/7/13 05:22 PM, Saen wrote: So you're taking that route I see. ...

Then after finding nothing take a step back and realize how ridiculous the point you're making is.

I'll end up having an academic basis that is as strong as the one upon you are building your house of cards. The difference between you and I is that you are looking at this purely through an emotional lense. I'm trying to look at it from a risk mitigation perspective that is supported by the professional experience of the deputies at my Lodge and the cop friends I've got through my ANG unit. (It came up when Slutwalks were momentarily en vogue.)

They seem to be of the opinion, from their own experience (one of whom was a cop on a State U. campus) that some clothing does make a girl a better potential victim than others.

Therefore, all I'm saying is why wear something that is going to increase your chances (even if by a little) of being raped? I'm not calling for public dress codes or banning certain clothing...just be smart about things before you go out.

Since there is a lack of data to point me in either direction...I'll go with the opinions of professionals who are authorities on the subject rather than someone like you who lacks any observable semblence of authority on this topic.