Women asking for rape?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Barden
If that's not the inference of the ad, then why include the scene of the girl buying the skirt?
The advert is telling men that they don't have a right to sex with a women just because she wore a short skirt, flirted with them etc. The advert is doing so because some men hold such an attitude.
If this wasn't the case, it wouldn't be an 'anti-rape' ad, it'd be an 'anti-misconception' ad.
So you don't want to reduce incidence of rape if it's only by a small percentage?
Now you aren't even making sense.
How is it frightening that I am interpreting that advert as telling men that just because a woman wears a short skirt, it doesn't mean she wants to have sex with them?
The advert is telling men that they don't have a right to sex with a women just because she wore a short skirt, flirted with them etc. The advert is doing so because some men hold such an attitude.
If this wasn't the case, it wouldn't be an 'anti-rape' ad, it'd be an 'anti-misconception' ad.
So you don't want to reduce incidence of rape if it's only by a small percentage?
Now you aren't even making sense.
How is it frightening that I am interpreting that advert as telling men that just because a woman wears a short skirt, it doesn't mean she wants to have sex with them?
Owned: http://www.notever.co.uk/asking-for-it/
Its just the idea, to be raped the rapist has to notice you. Men, all men, notice a girl dressed to the nines. If you weren't dressed like that he might not notice you and select you as a target.
I don't understand the minority argument. So because its only 10% of people that are randomly attacked that makes them somehow less important? Are you going to tell that to a girl who was one of the 10%. Only 10% of car crashes involve alcohol, doesn't mean they aren't worth talking about.
I really don't understand who adverts like this are directed at? Who is the target audience of this advert? Rapes are mostly committed by repeat offenders, they are going to see this and realise there error of their ways? I think its just to try to change this perception that doesn't exist.
I don't understand the minority argument. So because its only 10% of people that are randomly attacked that makes them somehow less important? Are you going to tell that to a girl who was one of the 10%. Only 10% of car crashes involve alcohol, doesn't mean they aren't worth talking about.
I really don't understand who adverts like this are directed at? Who is the target audience of this advert? Rapes are mostly committed by repeat offenders, they are going to see this and realise there error of their ways? I think its just to try to change this perception that doesn't exist.
Original post by Rasberrie
And people are obsessed with defending the myth that women can avoid rape via clothes. Why is that I wonder? Why be so passionate about that I wonder?
I think they are more interested in knocking down the ridiculous arguments you come up with every time.
Also the people knocking down your arguments reply to a wide variety of threads on many topics.
You seem pretty much single issue on this, when your threads get deleted/people lose interest, you start another one.
Therefore, you are obsessed.
Seems a bit flippant to me; "as if.."
It HAS to be easier to rape a girl wearing a short skirt than a girl who is wearing jeans, the item of clothing does make a difference to who rapists tend to target, it's just obvious.
The people negging me must be retarded or missed the thumbs up button by accident.
The people negging me must be retarded or missed the thumbs up button by accident.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Rasberrie
It is not unreasonable to say a pair of black skinny jeans will attracted a rapist whose a minority by caring about clothing, it is still unfounded though. Hence why people get mad.
Unfounded or not, I'd feel safer in jeans and flats than a skirt and heels. And I would rather wear jeans and flats, exactly the same as I would rather go home in a licensed taxi with a group of people.
Original post by desdemonata
Unfounded or not, I'd feel safer in jeans and flats than a skirt and heels. And I would rather wear jeans and flats, exactly the same as I would rather go home in a licensed taxi with a group of people.
Unfounded.
Original post by Rasberrie
Unfounded.
Erm. That doesn't really reply to what I said.
Original post by Rasberrie
And people are obsessed with defending the myth that women can avoid rape via clothes. Why is that I wonder? Why be so passionate about that I wonder?
Because it's an intuitive assumption, at worst it is inaccurate and misguided, yet you outright insult and belittle people who mention it as if they are somehow responsible for rape victims' horrible ordeals when they are not. People are "obsessed" with standing up for it because people like you are obsessed with demonising them for even speculating on the matter.
Original post by marcusfox
I think they are more interested in knocking down the ridiculous arguments you come up with every time.
Also the people knocking down your arguments reply to a wide variety of threads on many topics.
You seem pretty much single issue on this, when your threads get deleted/people lose interest, you start another one.
Therefore, you are obsessed.
Also the people knocking down your arguments reply to a wide variety of threads on many topics.
You seem pretty much single issue on this, when your threads get deleted/people lose interest, you start another one.
Therefore, you are obsessed.
You keep talking about my arguments being destroyed but I just won one, and you can see the proof of that on this page.
I would like you to actually destroy a claim I've made rather then keeping on telling me I've been destroyed.
You're also obsessed by keeping on reading and responding to them.
My thread got deleted, I think this is a serious problem on here so I started another one to more clearly focus the problem and give people less of a chance to nitpick at irrelevant things like analogies.
So let's go, destroy every claim I've made in my op. because everything I say is so incorrect right?
Original post by Rasberrie
Unfounded.
Oh no, a WOMAN has dared to imply that her own choices make her feel safer! Hold the front page!
No-one's said that women are asking for anything you utter cretin.
If you disagree that a given set of precautions will help, the sensible reaction is to point that out; not to say "OMG STOP TRYING TO CONTROL WOMEN YOU DON'T OWN ME WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO DRESS HOW YOU WANT ME TO" etc.
If you disagree that a given set of precautions will help, the sensible reaction is to point that out; not to say "OMG STOP TRYING TO CONTROL WOMEN YOU DON'T OWN ME WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO DRESS HOW YOU WANT ME TO" etc.
Original post by desdemonata
Erm. That doesn't really reply to what I said.
What you feel safe in is your choice, the claim that everyone else is safer in those clothes is unfounded, not "unfounded or not".
Original post by Kiss
It's just common sense that wearing a certain clothing in a specific context will increase the chances of a certain event occuring - go to a football game of the home team and wear the rival team's colours in the home stand increases your likelyhood of getting your head kicked in; going to a gay bar and wearing a pink leather outfit with ass chaps increases the likelyhood of getting hit on; going to a the gym wearing trousers and a shirt while on the treadmill will increase the likelhood of people looking round at you in disbelief.
And just like any of those cases, wearing something revealing increases the likelyhood of getting raped. Now no one here is saying that is the women's fault, it is the rapist's fault as they are the one who rapes. But at the same time you can't get all antsy every time someone says that it is just common sense that something revealing/sexually appealing will increase those odds. Women have every right to wear what they like just as men do, but you can't deny nor get angry when someone points out the obvious.
It's just common sense that wearing a certain clothing in a specific context will increase the chances of a certain event occuring - go to a football game of the home team and wear the rival team's colours in the home stand increases your likelyhood of getting your head kicked in; going to a gay bar and wearing a pink leather outfit with ass chaps increases the likelyhood of getting hit on; going to a the gym wearing trousers and a shirt while on the treadmill will increase the likelhood of people looking round at you in disbelief.
And just like any of those cases, wearing something revealing increases the likelyhood of getting raped. Now no one here is saying that is the women's fault, it is the rapist's fault as they are the one who rapes. But at the same time you can't get all antsy every time someone says that it is just common sense that something revealing/sexually appealing will increase those odds. Women have every right to wear what they like just as men do, but you can't deny nor get angry when someone points out the obvious.
It doesn't though. Firstly, its well documented that rapists aren't raping for sex. It is a dominance thing, to them rape is the ultimate act of imposing their dominance on a woman. That is why many victims of rapes are not young and attractive (elderly, disabled etc etc). Just because it is a sexual crime doesnt mean it is about 'shes fit, ill rape her'.
It is nothing like wearing an opposition teams football shirt to a match. It is a lot more like telling the mother of a child who has been sexually abused that it would of been less likely if there son wasn't dressed so nicely. Paedophiles dont hang around going 'phwor, look at that thomas the tank engine t-shirt'.
They look for vulnerable children who they can make submit to them. Exactly the same as rapists.
Its about vulnerability. People clearly dont know how to interpret data relationships. Yes, women may get raped on or after a night out. The correlation almost certainly is between them being vulnerable (ie highly drunk) and being attacked.
Their dress and vulnerability are both based on a common cause (ie going out to drink etc) but are not related directly.
And to move away from the feminist perspective, there is a big difference between a rapist and a drunk guy who maybe goes where he shouldnt. If two people go back together drunk, and the girl ends up engaging in activity she wouldnt have done sober, thats hard luck not rape. If two people are pretty much drunk beyond words, I dont think the onus should be on the man. If you go back with a guy (which is a normal inference for sex) and are both paralytic, and end up having sex, unless he pinned you down or was predatory in some way, its just as much your fault for putting so much alcohol into your body that you lost the ability to make any reasonable decision.
Original post by c471
It doesn't though. Firstly, its well documented that rapists aren't raping for sex. It is a dominance thing, to them rape is the ultimate act of imposing their dominance on a woman. That is why many victims of rapes are not young and attractive (elderly, disabled etc etc). Just because it is a sexual crime doesnt mean it is about 'shes fit, ill rape her'.
It is nothing like wearing an opposition teams football shirt to a match. It is a lot more like telling the mother of a child who has been sexually abused that it would of been less likely if there son wasn't dressed so nicely. Paedophiles dont hang around going 'phwor, look at that thomas the tank engine t-shirt'.
They look for vulnerable children who they can make submit to them. Exactly the same as rapists.
Its about vulnerability. People clearly dont know how to interpret data relationships. Yes, women may get raped on or after a night out. The correlation almost certainly is between them being vulnerable (ie highly drunk) and being attacked.
Their dress and vulnerability are both based on a common cause (ie going out to drink etc) but are not related directly.
And to move away from the feminist perspective, there is a big difference between a rapist and a drunk guy who maybe goes where he shouldnt. If two people go back together drunk, and the girl ends up engaging in activity she wouldnt have done sober, thats hard luck not rape. If two people are pretty much drunk beyond words, I dont think the onus should be on the man. If you go back with a guy (which is a normal inference for sex) and are both paralytic, and end up having sex, unless he pinned you down or was predatory in some way, its just as much your fault for putting so much alcohol into your body that you lost the ability to make any reasonable decision.
It is nothing like wearing an opposition teams football shirt to a match. It is a lot more like telling the mother of a child who has been sexually abused that it would of been less likely if there son wasn't dressed so nicely. Paedophiles dont hang around going 'phwor, look at that thomas the tank engine t-shirt'.
They look for vulnerable children who they can make submit to them. Exactly the same as rapists.
Its about vulnerability. People clearly dont know how to interpret data relationships. Yes, women may get raped on or after a night out. The correlation almost certainly is between them being vulnerable (ie highly drunk) and being attacked.
Their dress and vulnerability are both based on a common cause (ie going out to drink etc) but are not related directly.
And to move away from the feminist perspective, there is a big difference between a rapist and a drunk guy who maybe goes where he shouldnt. If two people go back together drunk, and the girl ends up engaging in activity she wouldnt have done sober, thats hard luck not rape. If two people are pretty much drunk beyond words, I dont think the onus should be on the man. If you go back with a guy (which is a normal inference for sex) and are both paralytic, and end up having sex, unless he pinned you down or was predatory in some way, its just as much your fault for putting so much alcohol into your body that you lost the ability to make any reasonable decision.
It's nice to see some guys on here can use logic when it comes to this. Thank you for restoring my faith in tsr male humanity.
Original post by Kiss
going to a gay bar and wearing a pink leather outfit with ass chaps increases the likelyhood of getting hit on
This evoked some serious chuckles from me.
Anyway, I'm not sure why we're still trying to correct OP. People have been making the same points to her for two days now, and she still hasn't got it.
Original post by Rasberrie
You keep talking about my arguments being destroyed but I just won one, and you can see the proof of that on this page.
I would like you to actually destroy a claim I've made rather then keeping on telling me I've been destroyed.
You're also obsessed by keeping on reading and responding to them.
My thread got deleted, I think this is a serious problem on here so I started another one to more clearly focus the problem and give people less of a chance to nitpick at irrelevant things like analogies.
So let's go, destroy every claim I've made in my op. because everything I say is so incorrect right?
I would like you to actually destroy a claim I've made rather then keeping on telling me I've been destroyed.
You're also obsessed by keeping on reading and responding to them.
My thread got deleted, I think this is a serious problem on here so I started another one to more clearly focus the problem and give people less of a chance to nitpick at irrelevant things like analogies.
So let's go, destroy every claim I've made in my op. because everything I say is so incorrect right?
Well, one of the posters conceeded a point, I don't see how that equates to absolute total victory for you.
I've never seen you concede a point on one of these threads ever, you were still rattling on about that straw man thing.
I wouldn't see the point to be honest, other posters have pretty much covered whatever there is to say on it already, even in the last thread where it was being discussed, I had to take great effort to use incredibly precise and neutral language to avoid a ****storm, but even then you were baiting me, daring me to say something that offended your feminist dogma.
I asked if parents giving their daughters advice on not dressing in a slutty way that would help them avoid unwanted male attention equated to victim blaming.
Raspberrie
But you chose the word unwanted male attention to make it sound more reasonable but in the process making it incomparable.
So why not say rape?
So why not say rape?
marcusfox
No, I meant unwanted male attention. See what I mean about my point about having to use incredibly precise language to avoid a feminist ****storm.
You obviously are absolutely gagging for somebody, me, anybody to say it so you can unleash a torrent of angry righteous abuse. Don't worry, you have made your intention perfectly clear.
In fact it illustrates the point people are making on this thread perfectly.
You presumably don't have a problem with using the words 'unwanted male attention' but would if I had used 'rape' so you can jump on the bandwagon mandated by your feminist dogma?
You obviously are absolutely gagging for somebody, me, anybody to say it so you can unleash a torrent of angry righteous abuse. Don't worry, you have made your intention perfectly clear.
In fact it illustrates the point people are making on this thread perfectly.
You presumably don't have a problem with using the words 'unwanted male attention' but would if I had used 'rape' so you can jump on the bandwagon mandated by your feminist dogma?
(edited 11 years ago)
Does anyone have links to these studies that show appearance doesn't affect whether you're likely to get raped? Whilst I appreciate people citing them are pointing out the culture of victim blaming is wrong, it is a bit all or nothing to dismiss appearance completely. To do so is to show a massive underestimation of how evil the male brain can be at its worst.
I'd like to read them, so if you have them please share, can't find anything on them other than contradictory studies from the 60s and 70s saying that it's all down to whether the woman wears miniskirts or not.
Just as a side thought, here is a spiel about preventing rape when the situation arises. What I think is quite relevant is the part about repulsive acts, putting people off.
I'd like to read them, so if you have them please share, can't find anything on them other than contradictory studies from the 60s and 70s saying that it's all down to whether the woman wears miniskirts or not.
Just as a side thought, here is a spiel about preventing rape when the situation arises. What I think is quite relevant is the part about repulsive acts, putting people off.
Spoiler
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Rasberrie
It's nice to see some guys on here can use logic when it comes to this. Thank you for restoring my faith in tsr male humanity.
I've just explained to you why people are getting annoyed at you over this and you have disregarded my post. If you are not open minded enough to consider changing your irrational indignation when someone dares to speculate on a possible link between clothing and rape then that is your problem and I'm not surprised people are sick of trying to argue with you.
It might seem uncomfortable to someone as hot-headed as yourself but educating people tends to be a more effective way to change attitudes than being snarky, throwing a tantrum and demonising anyone who reacts negatively to your incessant negativity.
Original post by Rasberrie
It's nice to see some guys on here can use logic when it comes to this. Thank you for restoring my faith in tsr male humanity.
LOL, this is a particularly amusing case of confirmation bias, because the courts position on the matter (and of course feminists hold it as gospel also) that when
If you go back with a guy (which is a normal inference for sex) and are both paralytic, and end up having sex, unless he pinned you down or was predatory in some way, its just as much your fault for putting so much alcohol into your body that you lost the ability to make any reasonable decision.
It is 100% rape, because the girl is not able to consent. So I just have to laugh at your selective reading.
Quick Reply
Latest
Posted 1 minute ago
Anyone studying Brunels msc in data science and analyticsPosted 5 minutes ago
Is it possible to find a good community feeling at UCL (similar to St. Andrews)?Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official University of Cambridge offer-holders thread for 2024 entryLast reply 6 minutes ago
Is getting a 3rd class honours in interior architecture and design bad?Last reply 12 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 15 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Further Mathematics Paper 3C (9FM0 3C) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 16 minutes ago
Best university for (mechanical) engineering?Last reply 18 minutes ago
HSBC Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 21 minutes ago
Falmouth University or University for the Creative Arts for Animation?Last reply 22 minutes ago
"Can't you hear me, S.O.S.?": TLG's PhD study blog!Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 1 month ago
TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?Last reply 1 month ago
2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxesTrending
Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 1 month ago
TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?Last reply 1 month ago
2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
