Slut shaming

Originally Posted by Apple Jack

It's not that people are denying that you should take precautions, it's that the message of "take precautions" is the only message that people receive in regards to rape. It's similar to how in high school, everyone tells you to "ignore the bullies and they'll just go away" instead of telling people not to bully each other.

What are you proposing? That instead of girls staying away from shady people and lifestyle, they should confront rapists and tell them they are wrong?

As an individual, you have to understand that you can't control everything. You could be killed in a car crash, struck by lightning in a storm, or be shanked in a bad neighborhood. You never have 100% control over everything, but you can control your actions, like by being proactive. You can wear a seat belt and be alert for crazy drivers on the road. You can avoid wearing a metal conductor if you feel the need to go out in a thunderstorm. And you can avoid going down that bad neighborhood only or at all.

I'm talking in circles now, but being responsible and alert are great attributes to have. A girl who is wearing close to nothing and decides to walk down a shady street is not responsible. That doesn't mean she deserves to be raped, and that the rapist is not at fault, but the girl most likely would have never been put into that situation if she made better decisions.

Again, it's not black and white. Just being a girl (or guy) makes poor choices doesn't give anyone the right to hurt them, but there is certainly an advantage to making the right choices.

Originally Posted by Kee-Something

Again, it's not black and white. Just being a girl (or guy) makes poor choices doesn't give anyone the right to hurt them, but there is certainly an advantage to making the right choices.

But it is black and white that if you choose to rape someone, no matter how many "poor choices" he or she, then you should be held responsible choosing to rape someone. That the victim acted irresponsibly should have no mitigating influence on the sentencing of the criminal.

It also ignores instances when a woman is raped by her boyfriend or a family member.

Originally Posted by Red Dingo

But it is black and white that if you choose to rape someone, no matter how many "poor choices" he or she, then you should be held responsible choosing to rape someone. That the victim acted irresponsibly should have no mitigating influence on the sentencing of the criminal.

As far as I'm aware, no one is suggesting that. People are just suggesting that while you can try and tackle the source of the problem (people raping), it's advisable to also take precautionary measures to reduce the problem.

In a way, it's like saying yes, we should try to cure cancer, but we could also take preventative measures so as not to get cancer.

It's not an issue of "prevention or cure", it's an issue of both, and there are things that can be done on both sides of the coin to prevent rapes. Women electing not to dress provocatively in an environment in which it is likely that there will be seedy types who will react to that is a preventative measure, not an anti-feminist perspective. It's anti-feminist to suggest that they would be "asking for it" in that scenario - as far as I'm aware no one's saying they would be.

(For the record and the avoidance of doubt, the law agrees with you - when looking at the mitigating factors that affect the sentence of a sexual offender, they're all things like "he's only TECHNICALLY a rapist because both of the consenting parties are under 16" or things like that, and there is no mitigation available for saying "she provoked me" or "we had a sexual history").

Originally Posted by Red Dingo

But it is black and white that if you choose to rape someone, no matter how many "poor choices" he or she, then you should be held responsible choosing to rape someone. That the victim acted irresponsibly should have no mitigating influence on the sentencing of the criminal.

Yes, I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by Apple Jack

It also ignores instances when a woman is raped by her boyfriend or a family member.

You must've missed the good part. I actually talked about that a page back:

Originally Posted by Kee-Something

This isn't black and white, guys. Most sexual assaults are carried out by family members--those are situations where no amount of precautions can protect you. However, there are situations where a trampy girl goes to a party, teases guys and even preforms sexual acts for them, then she passes out from getting too drunk, and she is shocked when she wakes up and her butt is sore.

I have much more sympathy for the person who is stuck living with a family member who molests them than I do some loose girl who constantly puts herself in harm's way.

It's a completely different situation, but the person who commits the act of rape is and should be guilty. We all already know that, though.

Originally Posted by Kee-Something

I have much more sympathy for the person who is stuck living with a family member who molests them than I do some loose girl who constantly puts herself in harm's way.

What the other side in this thread is saying is that those who inflict harm on that girl who puts herself in harm's way are still wrong to do so and are in no way justified in doing it. And in fact, no matter how loose a girl is, "no" means "no", an absence of "no" is not "yes", and that she isn't to blame when people take advantage of her.

All I'm saying is that she wasn't helping herself, not that she is to blame, and on a rather more extreme note but on the same line, you seem to be saying is "I have more sympathy for one than the other", not "I have no sympathy", or even "she deserved it".

I agree.

On a similar note, I remember hearing a girl in highschool brag about how her boyfriend had anal sex with her after she passed out drunk at a party. "I didn't want it, so I guess he just waited 'til I didn't have a choice."

I remember telling her that that was rape, and she probably shouldn't be bragging about it. I remember being both mad at the boyfriend for taking advantage of a girl he is supposed to care about, but I was also extremely annoyed that this girl was flaunting how she was raped. Seriously? In this case, I had absolutely no sympathy for the girl. However, the idea of a girl saying "no" no matter how trashy, and the guy still going for it really bothers me. And it should. There is a reason rapists are killed in prisons.

Originally Posted by Kee-Something

On a similar note, I remember hearing a girl in highschool brag about how her boyfriend had anal sex with her after she passed out drunk at a party. "I didn't want it, so I guess he just waited 'til I didn't have a choice."

...OK, I admit I have trouble feeling sorry for her. I don't even...just WTF. And I take it she didn't even break up with him over it.
That doesn't excuse the boyfriend anymore however. I still think he should have been arrested for it even if the girl didn't care especially since he will certainly continue acting that way and the next girl he rapes might be harmed a lot more by it.

There has actually been a case of a man who has been convicted of rape even where the victim wasn't the one who reported him. Another complainant came forward and said "he raped me", his wife/girlfriend at the time says "yeah sometimes I wake up to him giving me anal, I'm only bothered because he wakes me up", he was convicted of raping his wife/girlfriend but acquitted of raping the actual complainant.

In response to the claim that "rape will never go away", I'd like to point out the following:

Evolution, gender, and rape - Cheryl Brown Travis - Google Books

"Before embarking on field work in West Sumatra, I carried out a cross-cultural study of the sociocultural context of rape in 95 band and tribal societies. The goal of this study was to account for variation in the reported incidence of rape in these societies in light of related social factors. I found that there was a significant correlation between rape and the overall position of women. For example, in the more rape-free societies gender relations were marked by respect for women as citizens, significant female power and authority, and the near absence of interpersonal aggression in social relations. In the more rape-prone societies, social relations were marked by interpersonal violence in conjunction with an ideology of male dominance enforced through the control and subordination of women. Faced with such data the only reasonable conclusion by empirically minded social scientists must be that culture plays a role in the expression of male sexual aggression...

...I suggest that the near-absence of rape in West Sumatra in contrast to the more rape-prone United States can be explained by the hegemony of human social values promoted by the adult peer culture in West Sumatra in which males and females play equivalent roles. Minangkabau values and worldview stand in sharp contrast to the asymmetrical sexual values of the male peer culture in the United States. I suggest that the difference is due to the central role that an ideology of male sexual dominance plays in U.S. sexual culture as opposed to the central role played by values attached to the mother-child bond, social equity, and politesse in the Minangkabau system of values. These differences can be attributed to cultural rather than natural selection."

Going back to the current debate, if it's so universally acknowledged that rape in the form of taking advantage of passed out or drunk girls is wrong, and thus men who do it are incurable psychos, then why are T-shirts like these still being sold?



New funny comedy t-shirts | TeesBox Blog

(Description from the website: "She’ll let you do anything you want to her, any hole, any time (as long as it’s while she’s still wasted).")

And on Amazon, under the title "Funny Shirt":



Doesn't this say an awful lot about our culture (I know Australia's guilty of this too)? It's certainly not pretty.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

As far as I'm aware, no one is suggesting that. People are just suggesting that while you can try and tackle the source of the problem (people raping), it's advisable to also take precautionary measures to reduce the problem.

In a way, it's like saying yes, we should try to cure cancer, but we could also take preventative measures so as not to get cancer.

It's not an issue of "prevention or cure", it's an issue of both, and there are things that can be done on both sides of the coin to prevent rapes. Women electing not to dress provocatively in an environment in which it is likely that there will be seedy types who will react to that is a preventative measure, not an anti-feminist perspective. It's anti-feminist to suggest that they would be "asking for it" in that scenario - as far as I'm aware no one's saying they would be.

However, the "seedy alley-way" kind of rapes account for a small fraction of the total number of rapes. In fact, people are far more likely to be attacked in their own home by someone they know. In addition, barely any rapist even remembers what their victim was wearing, which doesn't quite gel with this idea that a "provocative" style of dress is going to attract rapists. Crash Man put this perfectly:

Originally Posted by Crash Man

Of course not. Men, elderly people and children get raped, as do women in Middle Eastern countries wearing religious cover from head to toe. You can't tell me they get raped because they're wearing 'suggestive clothing' and by doing so have enticed the rapist's wrath. Many women who are attacked are done so by people they know, not by strangers whose eye they've 'attracted' in some crazy party by getting mad drunk and wearing next to nothing. What a woman wears matters next to nothing; many times, rapists don't even remember what clothing their victim was wearing. It's a common fact that the majority of rapes are pre-planned, not some spur of the moment occurance.

The vast majority of rapes are pre-planned, not spur of the moment acts of lust. In short, if we're going to go down the "how to stop women from putting themselves in danger" route, then telling women not to dress in a way that shows too much skin is a very poor way to do it.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

There has actually been a case of a man who has been convicted of rape even where the victim wasn't the one who reported him. Another complainant came forward and said "he raped me", his wife/girlfriend at the time says "yeah sometimes I wake up to him giving me anal, I'm only bothered because he wakes me up", he was convicted of raping his wife/girlfriend but acquitted of raping the actual complainant.

That's quite odd. He was found not guilty of raping someone who complained about it, but found guilty of raping someone who, for the most part, didn't care.

Originally Posted by Double A

I think the point was that men are more likely to brag about multiple female sex partners than females are about multiple male sex partners.

This is true but it doesn't make it right. Everyone at that party was thinking about what asshat he was.

Originally Posted by Chad

That's quite odd. He was found not guilty of raping someone who complained about it, but found guilty of raping someone who, for the most part, didn't care.

But he was still legally guilty of rape, and the idea is the first case he was found not guilty because the court didn't believe that he did actually rape the girl.

Originally Posted by Astarael

However, the "seedy alley-way" kind of rapes account for a small fraction of the total number of rapes. In fact, people are far more likely to be attacked in their own home by someone they know. In addition, barely any rapist even remembers what their victim was wearing, which doesn't quite gel with this idea that a "provocative" style of dress is going to attract rapists.

I doubt anyone here is disputing that most rapes occur in one's own home. I also wasn't disputing that it was a small fraction, because I was only talking about that small fraction. What happens in those other situations is irrelevant to what I was saying, because I was only talking about that small fraction. A small fraction which could be reduced even further, however slightly, by the measures I was proposing. And further still by people not being raping arseholes. I mean we can look at the statistics all day, but what I was discussing is: what can we suggest to a particular woman going on a night out to a particularly rough part of town to reduce her chances, however slightly, of being the victim of a sexual offence?

I do have to take issue with that assertion that "barely any rapist remembers what their victim was wearing". Maybe in the large fraction of other rapes that occur which you were referring to, and probably even in the "seedy alley-way" rapes, but they might remember that it was something sexual, if not specifically what it was. And I'm sure some of them might remember if they had to struggle with jeans (or panties, because we know some women choose not to wear them) to get at what they wanted.

Yes, yes, rape is usually a power thing, but why take the risk of being raped by the few guys for whom it isn't?

The only counterpoint I can think of, really, is that if you still look attractive in something that isn't revealing, that isn't going to make you any less a target. Which is a fair point, actually, but I'd still suggest that it increases the risk not to.

Originally Posted by Astarael

Going back to the current debate, if it's so universally acknowledged that rape in the form of taking advantage of passed out or drunk girls is wrong, and thus men who do it are incurable psychos, then why are T-shirts like these still being sold?

(Description from the website: "She’ll let you do anything you want to her, any hole, any time (as long as it’s while she’s still wasted).")

I get the feeling that one is at the very least satirical. "I can't get a girl unless she's drunk". The second one however I don't have a hard time believing is basically "hurr take advantage of drunk women".

But the other side of the coin is this - there are women who go out specifically to get drunk and get laid while drunk, who make poor decisions while they're drunk and end up with a bloke who, the next morning, they decide they don't like. Sometimes they fall back on the "rape card" to avoid shame for what they've done.

There has actually been a court case along those lines. When asked in cross-examination whether or not she consented at the time, she replied: "I don't remember". When asked how much she drank, she replied: "I don't remember". The case was thrown out.

There was another woman who got terribly drunk and woke up in a flat with three other men. She called the police for a ride home the next morning. They told her they weren't a taxi service. She then broke into tears and said she was raped. The three men were arrested, charged, and appeared in court to be tried for the rape of that woman. One of the three men produced a video recorded on his phone when he appeared in court. In that video, the girl in question was performing a lapdance for each of them, before engaging in a foursome. Not just consensually, but wholly enthusiastically. She was charged and convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

There was talk of legal reform to say that "drunken consent is not consent", but it didn't go through. It would only protect women like this. In this culture of people, men and women, who say that "if you can't remember the night before, it must have been a good night", in this culture where getting so drunk you lose control of your bodily functions is seen as the norm, in this culture where people drink SPECIFICALLY to make themselves do things that they wouldn't do sober, such a law would be outright dangerous.

The reason for all of this is that in the UK, rape requires four elements:
*Penetration of the mouth, vagina or anus;
*With a penis;
*Where A does not consent; and
*B does not reasonably believe that A consented.

Sometimes when A is drunk, it is possible for B to reasonably believe that A consented. So it isn't right to suggest that B raped her.

Sometimes, there are sober men who take advantage of women like this. Sometimes, there are sober men who don't know how drunk the woman is, but if she's horny and acting like she wants it, he's not going to complain unless she starts stumbling or vomiting uncontrollably (the only OBVIOUS sign someone is too drunk), so they can reasonably believe she's willing and able to consent. Sometimes, the men are just as drunk as the women.

So in the latter scenario, there are two options:

*Both are guilty of engaging in intercourse involuntarily; or
*Neither are, and both are equally to blame for their own conduct.

To suggest otherwise isn't "feminism", it's sexism. To suggest otherwise isn't "campaigning for equality", it's "reinforcing the double standard that women need to be protected from the evil that is men".

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

But he was still legally guilty of rape, and the idea is the first case he was found not guilty because the court didn't believe that he did actually rape the girl.

I'll agree that still counts as rape, but I also think that scenario was a little weird. At the very least it's disrespectful to someone who's trying to sleep.

Originally Posted by Astarael

New funny comedy t-shirts | TeesBox Blog

(Description from the website: "She’ll let you do anything you want to her, any hole, any time (as long as it’s while she’s still wasted).")

And on Amazon, under the title "Funny Shirt":



Doesn't this say an awful lot about our culture (I know Australia's guilty of this too)? It's certainly not pretty.

There is a difference from rape and from women just generally getting freakier sexually when drunk. My ex-gf would want to do "dirtier" stuff in bed when she was drunk and I'm sure most people are the same.

Drunk sex =/= rape

Originally Posted by Astarael

However, the "seedy alley-way" kind of rapes account for a small fraction of the total number of rapes. In fact, people are far more likely to be attacked in their own home by someone they know. In addition, barely any rapist even remembers what their victim was wearing, which doesn't quite gel with this idea that a "provocative" style of dress is going to attract rapists.

But that doesn't mean we should ignore it, and not take steps to prevent it.

I'm sorry, but i think slut-walks are the stupidest idea society has ever come up with. I can't believe that women who walk around practially naked are trying to defend their fashion and pretending that if their boobs and arse are on show, nobody's going to rape them.

I read an article and saw a few news feeds about this, and I was disturbed to find women saying "Just because it's there, it doesn't mean you have to touch it." The question is not Why do men rape women?, the question is Why are your boobs hanging out of that dress?

Anyone with any decency knows that dressing properly usually retains your dignity and lowers the risk of rape. If you're a woman walking around wearing nothing, of course some dirty old man might grab you or even worse, rape you. In order to defend yourself, you need to dress suitably, not start a march for all your fellow sluts.

Studies have repeatedly shown that there's no correlation between a woman's clothing and the risk of rape.

^^ PLEASE tell me you're trolling. That one of the stupid posts I've ever read on this forum.

Originally Posted by Tavros

Studies have repeatedly shown that there's no correlation between a woman's clothing and the risk of rape.

Oh for God's sake, and just where did these studies come from?! Let's all wake up from this stupid delusion and realise that men's sexual urges are going to restrain themselves when they see a piece of ass. I'm not saying men should rape women, it's horrible. Men should be able to control their urges. But women should hold their dignity too, and not make it even harder for them.