Women should dress modestly or expect to 'entice a rapist...'

[aris2chat]

Its pretty simple and yes people are that simple when it comes to certain things.

Your caricature is certainly simple. But it isn't necessarily accurate. There's absolutely nothing that mandates mutual exclusivity. A person can be into power....and C cups. Or power......and mini skirts. There's is nothing that mandates it be ONLY one factor. Or mandates that sexual attraction be scrubbed from every rapist.

And even as a secondary motivation, sexual attraction would make it more likely that a rapist notice a woman dressed provocatively. And yet you've gone to elaborate lengths to avoid this simple conclusion. Imagining a complex series of assumptions that have nothing to do with sexual attaction to explain why 1 in 5 rapes occur to women between 18 and 21.

Occam's Razor: sexual attraction plays a role. That's why most rape victims are younger.

You say its not that simple then you say Occams Razor? Dont contradict yourself that easily.

My solution is simple: your one note motivation is hapless, harmful bullshit. People have multiple motivations. And to ignore all but the one that makes you comfortable doesn't actually make anyone woman safer or less likely to be raped. Playing pretend isn't a strategy for preventing rape.

Sex being a secondary motivator would not make them spot a scantily dressed woman as a woman can be sexy and covered head to toe.

Why? You have yet to explain why these motivations must be mutually exclusive. Why a rapist can have NO preferences, be motivated by NO sexual attraction, have NO interest in any woman or find her attractive. For crying out loud, when I noted that only 3% of women over 50 are rape victims, you insisted it was because younger women are 'out and about more'.

That's nonsense. Younger women are a target more often because rapists are attracted to younger women more often. There's absolutely nothing that mandates that a man can't be motivated by power....and a nice ass. You merely assume it can't happen.

And the data indicates that it not only can.......but overwhelmingly does. With multiple, overlapping motivations and competing interests working together at the same time.

Your solution is simplistic not simple. Its not a matter of comfort. I'm completely at ease with the suggestion that clothing is what causes the rape. I actually thought like you when I was young. Then I grew up and found out that it had nothing to do with sex. It was power.

My solution is consistent with the data (younger women make up the overwhelming majority of rape victims) and every other human experience that is a sythesis of multiple motivations.

Yet with rape you inexplicably conclude that there can be one and ONLY one motivation effecting behavior. That no rapist can be attracted to any woman. That they can have no physical preferences. That their behavior can be influenced by nothing but 'power'.

Um, why? Why can't there be multiple motivations influencing behavior? Why can't a rapist be into power...and red heads? Why must it be ONLY power? You can't explain it. You merely assume it, backed by nothing. And then come up with convoluted, awkward, and painfully elaborate narratives to explain away the mountains of evidence contradicting you. Also backed by nothing.

There's a much simpler explanation: sexual attraction influences behavior too.

And there's absolutely no reason it wouldn't. Nor any reason why there couldn't be other motivations as well. Your assumption of exclusivity, where behavior can be motivate by only ONE factor....is just that: an assumption. One backed by nothing. And contradicted by any other human experience......and the demographics of rape victims.

If sexual attraction played no role, older women would be as likely to be raped as younger. Yet women over 50 make up less than 3% of rape victims.

What do you mean by why? Rapists can have preferences. The part you keep missing is that is all secondary to the main motivation which is power.

The part you keep missing is that it can be both. Or a myriad of other reasons. You assume that ONLY ONE motivation can effect behavior. And no other interest, preference, need or motivation can influence behavior in anyway.

But that's nonsense. People are capable of holding multiple motivations and being influenced by them. These motivations can compete, they can conflict, they can be contradictory, they can be irrational. And virtually every human experience is a mix.

Yet for no particular reason, rape must be only one. And there can never be any other factor influencing behavior. Ever. Why? You have no idea. When I ask, you seem dumbfounded that I would even ask such a question. And of course, can't offer any rational explanation for why you believe as you do.

I call bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about. Your assumptions are not only baseless....but foolish. As they rob any woman listening to you of the ability to use predictable cues and motivations to protect herself. You pretending that rapists are cartoons doesn't make any woman safer.

An ass waiting for an accident.

Should we alert the police to wait for you to step wrong?

A nightmare waiting to happen.

Got a zip code? We can alert the sex offender list in your area.


You belly flopped into the garbage pile.

 

[aris2chat]

So one motivation, one personality, one purpose, regardless of the situation, the context, or who is involved, always?

And there can never be anything more to it? It has to be a perfect, pristine and singular motivation in every situation? And there can be none other?

The man.

That is all of it. Just the man and his inability to control his rage.

Everything else is excuse and attempt to rationalize.

It is the man, the rapists.

In every situation? College kids experimenting with sex and she's not ready........means that he's 'filled with rage'? Some folks get drunk and have sex when she's way too wasted to offer consent........rage? Every situation, every context, every circumstance, always, without exception?

Really?

You are mixing up legal definitions of rape and what we all know is really rape. Two people getting drunk and having sex is not rape. Tw kids having sex and the girl says stop. Yeah thats rape and yes its about power the moment he continues after she said stop.

If she is not mentally or physically capable of consent it is still rape.
Don't get drunk or get the other person drunk to have sex. If you can't do it without the drink or drug, you should not be unzipping.

Youre talking legal definition now. I disagree with that unless she is the only one that is drunk, high etc. If both are impaired and they have sex then its not rape to me. How does one take the word of 1 drunk person over another?

It is like driving without a license if you don't know the rules you should not try to play.

The rules matter. The law matters. Not abusing your position, the situation or the other person matters.

You might not agree but any police man, judge, jury, court room, parent, arbiter won't look for excusing you easily.

Power and abuse go hand in hand.

Don't take the chance of being misunderstood or accused. If you don't have a resounding willing yes for go, don't put your foot on the peddle.

If the other person is in any way impaired, it is not a willing yes.

You are taking advantage of the other person.

Any hesitation should be a yellow flashing light and railroad crossing noises in your brain.

If you are not each 150% sure, don't keep going.

Why even risk it?

There is a reason a person should be mature enough to make such a decision. It is not just an age thing.

No pressure, no coercion.

No excuses.

 

[Ame®icano]

No or no consent is

NO

Agree.

Now, realizing that fucking some random guy at the party last night was a mistake is not a rape.

If the other person was drunk or drugged it is rape.

If the person could not, was too young or not of sound mind to consent

It is rape.

If a man is do drunk or drunk on his own power that he does not know when a woman is saying yes or not, it is rape.

If you don't know when a woman is participating or unable to know what is happening, it is rape.

If you can't get a woman without getting her drunk or drugged, you have no business unzipping your fly.

Any person of any age, sex, etc. that is not alert and joyful to have your touch, it is rape.

Maybe your should offer a cup of coffee or tea. Have long talk, get consent in writing and keep asking if you may continue, a thousand times, but if you hear the word no at any time you should get up get dressed and move away to the other side of the room or leave.

I am not arguing what rape is, I gave opinion what is not.

 

[aris2chat]

Before making excuses and "well, maybe" or "sort of"

Consider it being your daughter, sister, mother, grandmother or your son

Would you let the other person get away with a kind of half definition? It is just a boy coming of age, or they did not know what they were doing? Or would you jump in front of train, through plate glass and over razor blades to rip their head off?

If someone hit them or insulted them, would you make excuses? If someone threatened them would you say "but they didn't actually do anything..."?

Really?

Why put yourself or the other person in that kind of position. Don't take the risk.

If it is not an adult resounding yes that can be heard down the street, don't press forward.

You press, you have the power to abuse, and the power to stop.

 

[Mac1958]

I think this conversation has become very binary. There is rape -- which, as I understand it, is essentially as it is portrayed by those here who are against what Hynde said -- and then there is the relatively long list of bad stuff that can happen when a guy gets too drunk and excited and horny -- some of which, by the way, could be construed as rape by some.

I don't want either happening to one of my daughters or someone else's, and if there is something that can be done (or not done) to mitigate the potential of such an event I'm wide open to it.

That said, now that it's been inferred that I'm an imminent rapist who has his daughters chained to the wall, I'm not quite as interested in this thread. I'm not very good at dealing with nasty zealots.


.

Were we too unPC for you hon? You seem to think a rapist is going to rape based on appearance, while in reality they are going to rape because they are rapists.

You seem to spend a great deal of effort putting words in my mouth.

That's okay sweetie, I know how you folks are.
.

The sad thing is that you will teach people that a woman can prevent rape by modifying her appearance while history shows that that is not the case.

He has not said that attire will "prevent" rape, that is just your warped interpretation.
What he and others have been saying, is that dressing provocatively can draw the kind of attention you may not want. Not guaranteed to get attention, but it can.

WHY IS THIS SO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU GUYS ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is something about this topic that invites people to abandon common sense and the simple application of caution they would recognition in any other context. And only in the instance of rape prevention have some laughably claimed that taking precautions is 'excusing' lawbreakers.

Oddly, no one insists you're 'excusing burglars' if you lock your doors at night. Or 'excusing muggers' if you look over your shoulder in a dark alley.

They have to know at some level. It's fascinating to observe, but you can't communicate with people who refuse to be honest.

I said this in post 333: "There is rape -- which, as I understand it, is essentially as it is portrayed by those here who are against what Hynde said -- and then there is the relatively long list of bad stuff that can happen when a guy gets too drunk and excited and horny -- some of which, by the way, could be construed as rape by some."

These people are choosing to remain locked in this binary argument: There is only one kind of rape, there is only one kind of rapist, rape only happens for one reason, there is only one environment in which an act can be interpreted as rape, rape only has one meaning every time. They leave no room for gray area or interpretation, which is precisely what would be needed in the real world if a young lady brought a rape charge. They are being absolutely absolutist. It's like trying to discuss taxes with a Tea Partier.

It amazes me, how similar the two ends are. I don't know how to deal with absolutists.

They have to know better, they're doing this on purpose, they're not being honest. Par for the course for the PC Police.
.

 

[Ravi]

You seem to spend a great deal of effort putting words in my mouth.

That's okay sweetie, I know how you folks are.
.

The sad thing is that you will teach people that a woman can prevent rape by modifying her appearance while history shows that that is not the case.

You just keep doing it. You folks just can't stop lying.

Think what you will.
.

I will think what you mean by your posts. And your posts say some women deserved to be raped.

Ugh. That'll do it.

Join the others on ignore, too nasty for me.

Buh bye.
.

I thought we were just getting started.

He can't handle uncomfortable truths.

 

[Ravi]

Well, this is not the ME, and women should be able to wear short skirts and short shorts and not worry about some man wanting to rape her because of it. Rape is a thought of a diseased mind. Most people would NOT want to have sex with someone who is an unwilling partner, who is screaming and crying for them to stop, etc. It is a crime and a very serious one. AND, as has been pointed out, women who HAVE been wearing conservative type clothing have been raped too. I think it has little to do with clothing and more to do with opportunity, like being at the wrong place at the wrong time no matter WHAT you are wearing.

They dont even have to be screaming and crying. If a woman doesnt "feel" right thats enough to throw ice water on the party.

That's not my point though. My point is that these people are sick and some of them "get off" on that. THAT is how you know it is much more of an issue than just "sexual attraction" or the girl is wearing skimpy clothing.

And my point is that wearing skimpy clothing can attract the attention of these sick people.

As can wearing dowdy clothing.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I think this conversation has become very binary. There is rape -- which, as I understand it, is essentially as it is portrayed by those here who are against what Hynde said -- and then there is the relatively long list of bad stuff that can happen when a guy gets too drunk and excited and horny -- some of which, by the way, could be construed as rape by some.

I don't want either happening to one of my daughters or someone else's, and if there is something that can be done (or not done) to mitigate the potential of such an event I'm wide open to it.

That said, now that it's been inferred that I'm an imminent rapist who has his daughters chained to the wall, I'm not quite as interested in this thread. I'm not very good at dealing with nasty zealots.


.

Were we too unPC for you hon? You seem to think a rapist is going to rape based on appearance, while in reality they are going to rape because they are rapists.

You seem to spend a great deal of effort putting words in my mouth.

That's okay sweetie, I know how you folks are.
.

The sad thing is that you will teach people that a woman can prevent rape by modifying her appearance while history shows that that is not the case.

He has not said that attire will "prevent" rape, that is just your warped interpretation.
What he and others have been saying, is that dressing provocatively can draw the kind of attention you may not want. Not guaranteed to get attention, but it can.

WHY IS THIS SO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU GUYS ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is something about this topic that invites people to abandon common sense and the simple application of caution they would recognition in any other context. And only in the instance of rape prevention have some laughably claimed that taking precautions is 'excusing' lawbreakers.

Oddly, no one insists you're 'excusing burglars' if you lock your doors at night. Or 'excusing muggers' if you look over your shoulder in a dark alley.

I'm amazed as well.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Rape is not about having sex. Rape is about having total power over a woman. Power to abuse, invade, violate, overcome, humiliate, and control that woman. Clothing has nothing to do with it.

.

 

[ChrisL]

Were we too unPC for you hon? You seem to think a rapist is going to rape based on appearance, while in reality they are going to rape because they are rapists.

You seem to spend a great deal of effort putting words in my mouth.

That's okay sweetie, I know how you folks are.
.

The sad thing is that you will teach people that a woman can prevent rape by modifying her appearance while history shows that that is not the case.

He has not said that attire will "prevent" rape, that is just your warped interpretation.
What he and others have been saying, is that dressing provocatively can draw the kind of attention you may not want. Not guaranteed to get attention, but it can.

WHY IS THIS SO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU GUYS ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is something about this topic that invites people to abandon common sense and the simple application of caution they would recognition in any other context. And only in the instance of rape prevention have some laughably claimed that taking precautions is 'excusing' lawbreakers.

Oddly, no one insists you're 'excusing burglars' if you lock your doors at night. Or 'excusing muggers' if you look over your shoulder in a dark alley.

They have to know at some level. It's fascinating to observe, but you can't communicate with people who refuse to be honest.

I said this in post 333: "There is rape -- which, as I understand it, is essentially as it is portrayed by those here who are against what Hynde said -- and then there is the relatively long list of bad stuff that can happen when a guy gets too drunk and excited and horny -- some of which, by the way, could be construed as rape by some."

These people are choosing to remain locked in this binary argument: There is only one kind of rape, there is only one kind of rapist, rape only happens for one reason, there is only one environment in which an act can be interpreted as rape, rape only has one meaning every time. They leave no room for gray area or interpretation, which is precisely what would be needed in the real world if a young lady brought a rape charge. They are being absolutely absolutist. It's like trying to discuss taxes with a Tea Partier.

It amazes me, how similar the two ends are. I don't know how to deal with absolutists.

They have to know better, they're doing this on purpose, they're not being honest. Par for the course for the PC Police.
.

No, what people are trying to explain to you is that it does not matter WHAT THE HECK you are wearing. You will STILL get raped if there is a rapist in the room who decides he wants to rape you. It could be your hair color, your perfume, that you remind him of someone, etc., etc., etc.

So, women should no longer wear sexy clothes because we should fear that this would cause us to be raped??? That's ridiculous.

 

[ChrisL]

Women get raped because there is a rapist in the room. NOT because of their clothing choices. Get real.

 

[MathewSmith]

Not just a woman thing. If you go to a gang filled area and get robbed its not your fault you got robbed. But it is your fault you went down there knowing that kind of stuff is common there. That's whats wrong with the world.

 

[Ravi]

Not just a woman thing. If you go to a gang filled area and get robbed its not your fault you got robbed. But it is your fault you went down there knowing that kind of stuff is common there. That's whats wrong with the world.

Yes, these are crimes of opportunity. Instead of telling your daughter to not wear a skimpy outfit to a biker bar, tell her to stay the fuck out of biker bars.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

You seem to spend a great deal of effort putting words in my mouth.

That's okay sweetie, I know how you folks are.
.

The sad thing is that you will teach people that a woman can prevent rape by modifying her appearance while history shows that that is not the case.

He has not said that attire will "prevent" rape, that is just your warped interpretation.
What he and others have been saying, is that dressing provocatively can draw the kind of attention you may not want. Not guaranteed to get attention, but it can.

WHY IS THIS SO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU GUYS ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is something about this topic that invites people to abandon common sense and the simple application of caution they would recognition in any other context. And only in the instance of rape prevention have some laughably claimed that taking precautions is 'excusing' lawbreakers.

Oddly, no one insists you're 'excusing burglars' if you lock your doors at night. Or 'excusing muggers' if you look over your shoulder in a dark alley.

They have to know at some level. It's fascinating to observe, but you can't communicate with people who refuse to be honest.

I said this in post 333: "There is rape -- which, as I understand it, is essentially as it is portrayed by those here who are against what Hynde said -- and then there is the relatively long list of bad stuff that can happen when a guy gets too drunk and excited and horny -- some of which, by the way, could be construed as rape by some."

These people are choosing to remain locked in this binary argument: There is only one kind of rape, there is only one kind of rapist, rape only happens for one reason, there is only one environment in which an act can be interpreted as rape, rape only has one meaning every time. They leave no room for gray area or interpretation, which is precisely what would be needed in the real world if a young lady brought a rape charge. They are being absolutely absolutist. It's like trying to discuss taxes with a Tea Partier.

It amazes me, how similar the two ends are. I don't know how to deal with absolutists.

They have to know better, they're doing this on purpose, they're not being honest. Par for the course for the PC Police.
.

No, what people are trying to explain to you is that it does not matter WHAT THE HECK you are wearing. You will STILL get raped if there is a rapist in the room who decides he wants to rape you. It could be your hair color, your perfume, that you remind him of someone, etc., etc., etc.

So, women should no longer wear sexy clothes because we should fear that this would cause us to be raped??? That's ridiculous.

Ok, there's a rapist in the room. You're wearing a very short skirt and sheer blouse that exposes a very sexy bra. You act flirty and are drinking.
There's another woman in the room with very conservative attire and is speaking and acting in a very conservative and modest fashion.

Both leave the room and go their separate ways.

Who is the rapist more likely to follow ?

 

[ChrisL]

Not just a woman thing. If you go to a gang filled area and get robbed its not your fault you got robbed. But it is your fault you went down there knowing that kind of stuff is common there. That's whats wrong with the world.

No . . .

 

[ChrisL]

The sad thing is that you will teach people that a woman can prevent rape by modifying her appearance while history shows that that is not the case.

He has not said that attire will "prevent" rape, that is just your warped interpretation.
What he and others have been saying, is that dressing provocatively can draw the kind of attention you may not want. Not guaranteed to get attention, but it can.

WHY IS THIS SO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU GUYS ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is something about this topic that invites people to abandon common sense and the simple application of caution they would recognition in any other context. And only in the instance of rape prevention have some laughably claimed that taking precautions is 'excusing' lawbreakers.

Oddly, no one insists you're 'excusing burglars' if you lock your doors at night. Or 'excusing muggers' if you look over your shoulder in a dark alley.

They have to know at some level. It's fascinating to observe, but you can't communicate with people who refuse to be honest.

I said this in post 333: "There is rape -- which, as I understand it, is essentially as it is portrayed by those here who are against what Hynde said -- and then there is the relatively long list of bad stuff that can happen when a guy gets too drunk and excited and horny -- some of which, by the way, could be construed as rape by some."

These people are choosing to remain locked in this binary argument: There is only one kind of rape, there is only one kind of rapist, rape only happens for one reason, there is only one environment in which an act can be interpreted as rape, rape only has one meaning every time. They leave no room for gray area or interpretation, which is precisely what would be needed in the real world if a young lady brought a rape charge. They are being absolutely absolutist. It's like trying to discuss taxes with a Tea Partier.

It amazes me, how similar the two ends are. I don't know how to deal with absolutists.

They have to know better, they're doing this on purpose, they're not being honest. Par for the course for the PC Police.
.

No, what people are trying to explain to you is that it does not matter WHAT THE HECK you are wearing. You will STILL get raped if there is a rapist in the room who decides he wants to rape you. It could be your hair color, your perfume, that you remind him of someone, etc., etc., etc.

So, women should no longer wear sexy clothes because we should fear that this would cause us to be raped??? That's ridiculous.

Ok, there's a rapist in the room. You're wearing a very short skirt and sheer blouse that exposes a very sexy bra. You act flirty and are drinking.
There's another woman in the room with very conservative attire and is speaking and acting in a very conservative and modest fashion.

Both leave the room and go their separate ways.

Who is the rapist more likely to follow ?

It depends on what the rapist prefers. Some would think it is more FUN to rape the more conservative woman.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

He has not said that attire will "prevent" rape, that is just your warped interpretation.
What he and others have been saying, is that dressing provocatively can draw the kind of attention you may not want. Not guaranteed to get attention, but it can.

WHY IS THIS SO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU GUYS ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is something about this topic that invites people to abandon common sense and the simple application of caution they would recognition in any other context. And only in the instance of rape prevention have some laughably claimed that taking precautions is 'excusing' lawbreakers.

Oddly, no one insists you're 'excusing burglars' if you lock your doors at night. Or 'excusing muggers' if you look over your shoulder in a dark alley.

They have to know at some level. It's fascinating to observe, but you can't communicate with people who refuse to be honest.

I said this in post 333: "There is rape -- which, as I understand it, is essentially as it is portrayed by those here who are against what Hynde said -- and then there is the relatively long list of bad stuff that can happen when a guy gets too drunk and excited and horny -- some of which, by the way, could be construed as rape by some."

These people are choosing to remain locked in this binary argument: There is only one kind of rape, there is only one kind of rapist, rape only happens for one reason, there is only one environment in which an act can be interpreted as rape, rape only has one meaning every time. They leave no room for gray area or interpretation, which is precisely what would be needed in the real world if a young lady brought a rape charge. They are being absolutely absolutist. It's like trying to discuss taxes with a Tea Partier.

It amazes me, how similar the two ends are. I don't know how to deal with absolutists.

They have to know better, they're doing this on purpose, they're not being honest. Par for the course for the PC Police.
.

No, what people are trying to explain to you is that it does not matter WHAT THE HECK you are wearing. You will STILL get raped if there is a rapist in the room who decides he wants to rape you. It could be your hair color, your perfume, that you remind him of someone, etc., etc., etc.

So, women should no longer wear sexy clothes because we should fear that this would cause us to be raped??? That's ridiculous.

Ok, there's a rapist in the room. You're wearing a very short skirt and sheer blouse that exposes a very sexy bra. You act flirty and are drinking.
There's another woman in the room with very conservative attire and is speaking and acting in a very conservative and modest fashion.

Both leave the room and go their separate ways.

Who is the rapist more likely to follow ?

It depends on what the rapist prefers. Some would think it is more FUN to rape the more conservative woman.

Come on, be honest, in most cases the rapist is more likely to be aroused by the first woman.

By the way, what is the statement you are trying to make with your avatar ?

 

[ChrisL]

Rapists are people who are fucked in the head. There is no TELLING what could trigger them. It could be anything. Some people are turned on by feet!!!

 

[ChrisL]

There is something about this topic that invites people to abandon common sense and the simple application of caution they would recognition in any other context. And only in the instance of rape prevention have some laughably claimed that taking precautions is 'excusing' lawbreakers.

Oddly, no one insists you're 'excusing burglars' if you lock your doors at night. Or 'excusing muggers' if you look over your shoulder in a dark alley.

They have to know at some level. It's fascinating to observe, but you can't communicate with people who refuse to be honest.

I said this in post 333: "There is rape -- which, as I understand it, is essentially as it is portrayed by those here who are against what Hynde said -- and then there is the relatively long list of bad stuff that can happen when a guy gets too drunk and excited and horny -- some of which, by the way, could be construed as rape by some."

These people are choosing to remain locked in this binary argument: There is only one kind of rape, there is only one kind of rapist, rape only happens for one reason, there is only one environment in which an act can be interpreted as rape, rape only has one meaning every time. They leave no room for gray area or interpretation, which is precisely what would be needed in the real world if a young lady brought a rape charge. They are being absolutely absolutist. It's like trying to discuss taxes with a Tea Partier.

It amazes me, how similar the two ends are. I don't know how to deal with absolutists.

They have to know better, they're doing this on purpose, they're not being honest. Par for the course for the PC Police.
.

No, what people are trying to explain to you is that it does not matter WHAT THE HECK you are wearing. You will STILL get raped if there is a rapist in the room who decides he wants to rape you. It could be your hair color, your perfume, that you remind him of someone, etc., etc., etc.

So, women should no longer wear sexy clothes because we should fear that this would cause us to be raped??? That's ridiculous.

Ok, there's a rapist in the room. You're wearing a very short skirt and sheer blouse that exposes a very sexy bra. You act flirty and are drinking.
There's another woman in the room with very conservative attire and is speaking and acting in a very conservative and modest fashion.

Both leave the room and go their separate ways.

Who is the rapist more likely to follow ?

It depends on what the rapist prefers. Some would think it is more FUN to rape the more conservative woman.

Come on, be honest, in most cases the rapist is more likely to be aroused by the first woman.

By the way, what is the statement you are trying to make with your avatar ?

Why does my avatar have to be making a statement? It's just a picture of me that I liked, but I can tell you this much, it's not "I want to be raped."

 

[ChrisL]

There is something about this topic that invites people to abandon common sense and the simple application of caution they would recognition in any other context. And only in the instance of rape prevention have some laughably claimed that taking precautions is 'excusing' lawbreakers.

Oddly, no one insists you're 'excusing burglars' if you lock your doors at night. Or 'excusing muggers' if you look over your shoulder in a dark alley.

They have to know at some level. It's fascinating to observe, but you can't communicate with people who refuse to be honest.

I said this in post 333: "There is rape -- which, as I understand it, is essentially as it is portrayed by those here who are against what Hynde said -- and then there is the relatively long list of bad stuff that can happen when a guy gets too drunk and excited and horny -- some of which, by the way, could be construed as rape by some."

These people are choosing to remain locked in this binary argument: There is only one kind of rape, there is only one kind of rapist, rape only happens for one reason, there is only one environment in which an act can be interpreted as rape, rape only has one meaning every time. They leave no room for gray area or interpretation, which is precisely what would be needed in the real world if a young lady brought a rape charge. They are being absolutely absolutist. It's like trying to discuss taxes with a Tea Partier.

It amazes me, how similar the two ends are. I don't know how to deal with absolutists.

They have to know better, they're doing this on purpose, they're not being honest. Par for the course for the PC Police.
.

No, what people are trying to explain to you is that it does not matter WHAT THE HECK you are wearing. You will STILL get raped if there is a rapist in the room who decides he wants to rape you. It could be your hair color, your perfume, that you remind him of someone, etc., etc., etc.

So, women should no longer wear sexy clothes because we should fear that this would cause us to be raped??? That's ridiculous.

Ok, there's a rapist in the room. You're wearing a very short skirt and sheer blouse that exposes a very sexy bra. You act flirty and are drinking.
There's another woman in the room with very conservative attire and is speaking and acting in a very conservative and modest fashion.

Both leave the room and go their separate ways.

Who is the rapist more likely to follow ?

It depends on what the rapist prefers. Some would think it is more FUN to rape the more conservative woman.

Come on, be honest, in most cases the rapist is more likely to be aroused by the first woman.

Nope, some rapists would be attracted to the more conservative dressed woman. Like I said, there is no telling because these people are SICK! Some rapists rape children. Is it because they looked sexy in their clothes?