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

[danielpalos]

Good; we are getting somewhere. Rejection is not refutation via sound reasoning.

in my alternative, she could be "trolling" for a new husband to "press" into her gang, if he falls for it. Otherwise, she will be free to travel unmolested nude at 3am.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

Is there a psychiatrist in the house?

nothing but fallacy; i got it.

 

[danielpalos]

condolences for what?

i did address that very scenario with a social and religious perspective.

you are the one with nothing but diversion.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

What the hell are you babbling about?

You were asked whether a modestly-dressed woman or a provocatively-dressed woman was more likely to be raped in that 3:00 AM scenario.

I have no idea what-the-hell Religious Freedom or First Amendment or Jurisdictions have to do with a simple answer of (1) "modestly-dressed" or (2) "provocatively-dressed" .

There are insufficient variables in your scenario. Please clarify:
Was it a full moon?
Is she walking on left or right side of street?
Is she maybe heading East?
What she had for dinner last night? What about night before?
Sunglasses on?
Is her purse on left or right shoulder?

If you want straight answer, you can't omit any of important details.

in my alternative, she could be "trolling" for a new husband to "press" into her gang, if he falls for it. Otherwise, she will be free to travel unmolested nude at 3am.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

 

[Ame®icano]

condolences for what?

i did address that very scenario with a social and religious perspective.

you are the one with nothing but diversion.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

What the hell are you babbling about?

You were asked whether a modestly-dressed woman or a provocatively-dressed woman was more likely to be raped in that 3:00 AM scenario.

I have no idea what-the-hell Religious Freedom or First Amendment or Jurisdictions have to do with a simple answer of (1) "modestly-dressed" or (2) "provocatively-dressed" .

There are insufficient variables in your scenario. Please clarify:
Was it a full moon?
Is she walking on left or right side of street?
Is she maybe heading East?
What she had for dinner last night? What about night before?
Sunglasses on?
Is her purse on left or right shoulder?

If you want straight answer, you can't omit any of important details.

in my alternative, she could be "trolling" for a new husband to "press" into her gang, if he falls for it. Otherwise, she will be free to travel unmolested nude at 3am.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

I see where is the problem. Instead of giving straight answer, you create your own scenario that fits what you want to answer.

Why do I believe... Where have I said I do? You composed the question based on assumption. It doesn't work that way. You were asked the question. You answer, then ask yours.

 

[danielpalos]

condolences for what?

i did address that very scenario with a social and religious perspective.

you are the one with nothing but diversion.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

What the hell are you babbling about?

You were asked whether a modestly-dressed woman or a provocatively-dressed woman was more likely to be raped in that 3:00 AM scenario.

I have no idea what-the-hell Religious Freedom or First Amendment or Jurisdictions have to do with a simple answer of (1) "modestly-dressed" or (2) "provocatively-dressed" .

There are insufficient variables in your scenario. Please clarify:
Was it a full moon?
Is she walking on left or right side of street?
Is she maybe heading East?
What she had for dinner last night? What about night before?
Sunglasses on?
Is her purse on left or right shoulder?

If you want straight answer, you can't omit any of important details.

in my alternative, she could be "trolling" for a new husband to "press" into her gang, if he falls for it. Otherwise, she will be free to travel unmolested nude at 3am.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

I see where is the problem. Instead of giving straight answer, you create your own scenario that fits what you want to answer.

Why do I believe... Where have I said I do? You composed the question based on assumption. It doesn't work that way. You were asked the question. You answer, then ask yours.

My scenario works through Individual Liberty and religious freedom. Some religions claim to allow rapists to marry their "victims" as a religious privilege and immunity.

Thus,
in my alternative, she could be "trolling" for a new husband to "press" into her gang, if he falls for it. Otherwise, she will be free to travel unmolested nude at 3am.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

 

[Kondor3]

...My scenario works...

You're an Idiot who has just made the 'Ignore' list.

 

[danielpalos]

...My scenario works...

You're an Idiot who has just made the 'Ignore' list.

thank you for ceding the point and the argument by having no valid refutation.

 

[Ame®icano]

condolences for what?

i did address that very scenario with a social and religious perspective.

you are the one with nothing but diversion.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

What the hell are you babbling about?

You were asked whether a modestly-dressed woman or a provocatively-dressed woman was more likely to be raped in that 3:00 AM scenario.

I have no idea what-the-hell Religious Freedom or First Amendment or Jurisdictions have to do with a simple answer of (1) "modestly-dressed" or (2) "provocatively-dressed" .

There are insufficient variables in your scenario. Please clarify:
Was it a full moon?
Is she walking on left or right side of street?
Is she maybe heading East?
What she had for dinner last night? What about night before?
Sunglasses on?
Is her purse on left or right shoulder?

If you want straight answer, you can't omit any of important details.

in my alternative, she could be "trolling" for a new husband to "press" into her gang, if he falls for it. Otherwise, she will be free to travel unmolested nude at 3am.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

I see where is the problem. Instead of giving straight answer, you create your own scenario that fits what you want to answer.

Why do I believe... Where have I said I do? You composed the question based on assumption. It doesn't work that way. You were asked the question. You answer, then ask yours.

My scenario works through Individual Liberty and religious freedom. Some religions claim to allow rapists to marry their "victims" as a religious privilege and immunity.

Thus,
in my alternative, she could be "trolling" for a new husband to "press" into her gang, if he falls for it. Otherwise, she will be free to travel unmolested nude at 3am.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

Your scenario... You joined the conversation and trying to route it the way you want. No, stay on the subject. Once you give your opinion, or answer his question, you get to set up your own. So, answer his question and after that we could discuss something else, or your scenario. Until then, I don't really care.

 

[danielpalos]

What the hell are you babbling about?

You were asked whether a modestly-dressed woman or a provocatively-dressed woman was more likely to be raped in that 3:00 AM scenario.

I have no idea what-the-hell Religious Freedom or First Amendment or Jurisdictions have to do with a simple answer of (1) "modestly-dressed" or (2) "provocatively-dressed" .

There are insufficient variables in your scenario. Please clarify:
Was it a full moon?
Is she walking on left or right side of street?
Is she maybe heading East?
What she had for dinner last night? What about night before?
Sunglasses on?
Is her purse on left or right shoulder?

If you want straight answer, you can't omit any of important details.

in my alternative, she could be "trolling" for a new husband to "press" into her gang, if he falls for it. Otherwise, she will be free to travel unmolested nude at 3am.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

I see where is the problem. Instead of giving straight answer, you create your own scenario that fits what you want to answer.

Why do I believe... Where have I said I do? You composed the question based on assumption. It doesn't work that way. You were asked the question. You answer, then ask yours.

My scenario works through Individual Liberty and religious freedom. Some religions claim to allow rapists to marry their "victims" as a religious privilege and immunity.

Thus,
in my alternative, she could be "trolling" for a new husband to "press" into her gang, if he falls for it. Otherwise, she will be free to travel unmolested nude at 3am.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

Your scenario... You joined the conversation and trying to route it the way you want. No, stay on the subject. Once you give your opinion, or answer his question, you get to set up your own. So, answer his question and after that we could discuss something else, or your scenario. Until then, I don't really care.

no refutation, merely rejection; how equal is that for pay purposes.

 

[Kondor3]

...Your scenario... You joined the conversation and trying to route it the way you want. No, stay on the subject. Once you give your opinion, or answer his question, you get to set up your own. So, answer his question and after that we could discuss something else, or your scenario. Until then, I don't really care.

Do me a favor and wake me up, so that I can temporarily take the little wanker off my 'Ignore' list, if he ever finds his balls, and gives a straight answer of 'modestly' or 'provocatively' dressed.

 

[danielpalos]

It is one hypothetical and alternative for the sake of argument; unlike those of the opposing view.

 

[Ame®icano]

There are insufficient variables in your scenario. Please clarify:
Was it a full moon?
Is she walking on left or right side of street?
Is she maybe heading East?
What she had for dinner last night? What about night before?
Sunglasses on?
Is her purse on left or right shoulder?

If you want straight answer, you can't omit any of important details.

in my alternative, she could be "trolling" for a new husband to "press" into her gang, if he falls for it. Otherwise, she will be free to travel unmolested nude at 3am.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

I see where is the problem. Instead of giving straight answer, you create your own scenario that fits what you want to answer.

Why do I believe... Where have I said I do? You composed the question based on assumption. It doesn't work that way. You were asked the question. You answer, then ask yours.

My scenario works through Individual Liberty and religious freedom. Some religions claim to allow rapists to marry their "victims" as a religious privilege and immunity.

Thus,
in my alternative, she could be "trolling" for a new husband to "press" into her gang, if he falls for it. Otherwise, she will be free to travel unmolested nude at 3am.

why do you believe my scenario would not work with recourse to religious freedom via our First Amendment, and a no contest of Jurisdiction by the public sector?

Your scenario... You joined the conversation and trying to route it the way you want. No, stay on the subject. Once you give your opinion, or answer his question, you get to set up your own. So, answer his question and after that we could discuss something else, or your scenario. Until then, I don't really care.

no refutation, merely rejection; how equal is that for pay purposes.

My 55 year old neighbor lawn mowing around her house in her night gown at 8:30PM Sunday (right now) somehow makes more sense then your posts.

How about we start over... Can you give a straight answer to Kondor's question?

 

[ChrisL]

...There have been absolutely NO correlations made between how a woman is dressed and her likelihood of getting raped. Because it's bullshit. Plenty of ugly/unattractive/overweight women are raped. Also, children and grannies sometimes.

Oh, I'm quite happy to concede that people are raped all the time, outside the framework of provocative or suggestive clothing.

I suppose my point is...

If your attractive young daughter is going to be going to be walking down a city street at 3:00 am, and had to choose between (1) provocative and (2) non-provocative dress...

Which would you advise her to don, in the hopes of reducing her chances of being raped?

And why?

Well, why is she walking down a city street at 3 a.m. is the first thing I would want to know.

Well, why are you always dodging the question is the first thing I would want to know. You always play this game whenever the answer is inconvenient for you.

It was hypothetical question. It really doesn't matter if is 3 AM or 3 PM.

OK, here is the easier question: Why do women wear bikini?

Why do men wear a Speedo?

 

[ChrisL]

...There have been absolutely NO correlations made between how a woman is dressed and her likelihood of getting raped. Because it's bullshit. Plenty of ugly/unattractive/overweight women are raped. Also, children and grannies sometimes.

Oh, I'm quite happy to concede that people are raped all the time, outside the framework of provocative or suggestive clothing.

I suppose my point is...

If your attractive young daughter is going to be going to be walking down a city street at 3:00 am, and had to choose between (1) provocative and (2) non-provocative dress...

Which would you advise her to don, in the hopes of reducing her chances of being raped?

And why?

Well, why is she walking down a city street at 3 a.m. is the first thing I would want to know.

Well, why are you always dodging the question is the first thing I would want to know. You always play this game whenever the answer is inconvenient for you.

It was hypothetical question. It really doesn't matter if is 3 AM or 3 PM.

OK, here is the easier question: Why do women wear bikini?

It's a matter of Intellectual Cowardice.

If you cannot answer in a fashion supportive of your position, then either deflect or go silent, thereby avoiding the need to concede a point.

A very cowardly mode of behavior.

That's bull. You or the other poster have made no points. The fact of the matter is, I would be more concerned about why my daughter is out at 3 AM rather than that she is wearing a skirt.

So . . . are you suggesting that women should dress like men from now on? Or maybe in a burka to be safe? What in the hell is it that you're suggesting here? You want to accuse others of being cowardly while you cannot even come out and say what you really mean?

 

[ChrisL]

There have been absolutely NO correlations made between how a woman is dressed and her likelihood of getting raped. Because it's bullshit. Plenty of ugly/unattractive/overweight women are raped. Also, children and grannies sometimes.

Define "plenty".
Define "ugly".
Define "unattractive".
Define "overweight".

There are also plenty of guys who would settle for what you call ugly/unattractive/overweight, or to sum it up "less worthy".

Anyways, this article is not about the rape, but could help...

Bikinis Make Men See Women as Objects, Scans Confirm

If women knows what reaction they cause by wearing the bikini, isn't that reaction a reason why are they wearing it?

Look. Sorry but women are going to continue to wear their bikinis and skirts or whatever they want. We will not let men intimidate us into wearing burkas. Realize this.

 

[ChrisL]

...There have been absolutely NO correlations made between how a woman is dressed and her likelihood of getting raped. Because it's bullshit. Plenty of ugly/unattractive/overweight women are raped. Also, children and grannies sometimes.

Oh, I'm quite happy to concede that people are raped all the time, outside the framework of provocative or suggestive clothing.

I suppose my point is...

If your attractive young daughter is going to be going to be walking down a city street at 3:00 am, and had to choose between (1) provocative and (2) non-provocative dress...

Which would you advise her to don, in the hopes of reducing her chances of being raped?

And why?

Well, why is she walking down a city street at 3 a.m. is the first thing I would want to know.

That's not the question.

Let's assume that she has a good and true reason, regardless of whether your or I can conjure-up that reason at the moment.

No. Let's stop with stupid assumptions and stories. Do YOU think the woman is responsible for her own rape at any time or for any reason?

 

[ChrisL]

This is really disgusting. This is the man's way of trying to control women. Like in the 50s when men would convince women that it's not safe for them to leave the house and be in the presence of other men because they might get raped. Like in the Saudi Arabia where women are told that they must cover their bodies because men might rape them.

Fuck off! That's what I say. If a man rapes a woman, it is HIS fault and ONLY his fault. Assholes.

 

[Kondor3]

...That's bull. You or the other poster have made no points. The fact of the matter is, I would be more concerned about why my daughter is out at 3 AM rather than that she is wearing a skirt.

So . . . are you suggesting that women should dress like men from now on? Or maybe in a burka to be safe? What in the hell is it that you're suggesting here? You want to accuse others of being cowardly while you cannot even come out and say what you really mean?

Oh, fer Crissakes, you nit-pickers simply don't have the intellectual courage to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, because it would reinforce the Opposing Argument pertaining to modes of dress, so, rather than participating in the honest and objective assessment of test-cases, you pick nits, and try to weasel out of answering.

Where I come from, that classifies as Intellectual Cowardice.

I have no frigging agenda, in this narrow context, and, in my earliest on this thread, I even conceded the probably accuracy of related studies, but questioned the findings on the basis of common sense. You can navigate back in this series to verify that I took that approach, but, in the long run, it's of little consequence.

What some of you lunk-heads - who are so nit-picky that you can't see the forest for the trees - fail to understand is that you're being served-up a test case, to objectively analyze the merits of one mode of dress vs. another, regardless of the background-story... just assume that the Subject is in-place in the scenario... doesn't matter one good goddamn WHY...

Get it?

Now, if you're done screwing-around with juvenile pissing and moaning about conditions, let me restate the Test Case for you, from memory...

========================================================
TEST CASE:
========================================================

a. your daughter is currently on-location at some place or another in the city, where she has two sets of clothes to choose from

b. it is 3:00 AM, and she is obliged to walk from her current location to another, alone, on an average city street (some lighting, pretty-much deserted at that time of night)

Which mode of dress would you advise your daughter to wear?

1. the provocative clothing

2. the modest clothing

In other words, which of those two modes of dress is the more likely to result in her completing her walk down the street, unmolested?

=========================================================

It doesn't matter one goddamn what she's doing there.

It doesn't matter one goddamn why she's going out-and-about at 3:00 AM.

None of that shit matters.

All that matters are the conditions set forth in the Test Case; simplified to strip away all the background noise and to allow us to concentrate on the main theme.

Just answer the goddamned question.

Is your answer (1) or (2) - as itemized above?

 

[ChrisL]

There have been absolutely NO correlations made between how a woman is dressed and her likelihood of getting raped. Because it's bullshit. Plenty of ugly/unattractive/overweight women are raped. Also, children and grannies sometimes.

Define "plenty".
Define "ugly".
Define "unattractive".
Define "overweight".

There are also plenty of guys who would settle for what you call ugly/unattractive/overweight, or to sum it up "less worthy".

Anyways, this article is not about the rape, but could help...

Bikinis Make Men See Women as Objects, Scans Confirm

If women knows what reaction they cause by wearing the bikini, isn't that reaction a reason why are they wearing it?

You need definitions? Okay. I hope this clears things up for you, such as the meanings of common words. Lol.

ug·ly
ˈəɡlē/
adjective

1. unpleasant or repulsive, especially in appearance.
   "she thought she was ugly and fat"
   synonyms: unattractive, unappealing, unpleasant, hideous, unlovely,unprepossessing, unsightly, horrible, frightful, awful, ghastly, vile,revolting, repellent, repulsive, repugnant; More

o·ver·weight
adjective
ˌōvərˈwāt/

1. 1.
   above a weight considered normal or desirable.
   "he's forty pounds overweight"
   synonyms: fat, obese, stout, full-figured, corpulent, gross, fleshy, plump, portly,chubby, rotund, paunchy, potbellied, flabby, well upholstered, broad in the beam; More

plen·ty
ˈplen(t)ē/
pronoun

1. 1.
   a large or sufficient amount or quantity; more than enough.
   "I would have plenty of time to get home"
   synonyms: a lot of, many, a great deal of, enough (and to spare), no lack of,sufficient, a wealth of; More

 

[ChrisL]

...That's bull. You or the other poster have made no points. The fact of the matter is, I would be more concerned about why my daughter is out at 3 AM rather than that she is wearing a skirt.

So . . . are you suggesting that women should dress like men from now on? Or maybe in a burka to be safe? What in the hell is it that you're suggesting here? You want to accuse others of being cowardly while you cannot even come out and say what you really mean?

Oh, fer Crissakes, you nit-pickers simply don't have the intellectual courage to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, because it would reinforce the Opposing Argument pertaining to modes of dress, so, rather than participating in the honest and objective assessment of test-cases, you pick nits, and try to weasel out of answering.

Where I come from, that classifies as Intellectual Cowardice.

I have no frigging agenda, in this narrow context, and, in my earliest on this thread, I even conceded the probably accuracy of related studies, but questioned the findings on the basis of common sense. You can navigate back in this series to verify that I took that approach, but, in the long run, it's of little consequence.

What some of you lunk-heads - who are so nit-picky that you can't see the forest for the trees - fail to understand is that you're being served-up a test case, to objectively analyze the merits of one mode of dress vs. another, regardless of the background-story... just assume that the Subject is in-place in the scenario... doesn't matter one good goddamn WHY...

Get it?

Now, if you're done screwing-around with juvenile pissing and moaning about conditions, let me restate the Test Case for you, from memory...

========================================================
TEST CASE:
========================================================

a. your daughter is currently on-location at some place or another in the city, where she has two sets of clothes to choose from

b. it is 3:00 AM, and she is obliged to walk from her current location to another, alone, on an average city street (some lighting, pretty-much deserted at that time of night)

Which mode of dress would you advise your daughter to wear?

1. the provocative clothing

2. the modest clothing

In other words, which of those two modes of dress is the more likely to result in her completing her walk down the street, unmolested?

=========================================================

It doesn't matter one goddamn what she's doing there.

It doesn't matter one goddamn why she's going out-and-about at 3:00 AM.

None of that shit matters.

All that matters are the conditions set forth in the Test Case; simplified to strip away all the background noise and to allow us to concentrate on the main theme.

Just answer the goddamned question.

Is your answer (1) or (2) - as itemized above?

If anything you've posted is "common sense" then you should easily find a study (ANY study) with correlates what a woman is wearing or what time of the day it is to rape. Cite something, and then maybe I will take you seriously.

Rape and rapists and their motives have been studied quite intensely, believe it or not, by experts in the field.

 

[Kondor3]

...No. Let's stop with stupid assumptions and stories. Do YOU think the woman is responsible for her own rape at any time or for any reason?

No.

I would NEVER think that the woman is responsible for her own rape.

But I believe that a woman can stupidly establish conditions that are less safe than others, had she made different choices.

=========================================

I have now demonstrated the courage that I accuse you of lacking - given you a straight answer to your straight question.

I expect reciprocity, as do many of our readers, I suspect.

I ask that you take this second chance, answer honestly, and not disappoint your readers.