Sometimes women or girls are raped when they’re wearing a miniskirt and a tank tops.
Sometimes teen and tween girls are raped while they’re wearing school uniform (plaid skirt, white blouse, knee socks). There is a tremendous fetish some people have about that style, and it often makes the wearer look younger and more vulnerable than she is.
Sometimes women are raped when they’re wearing a business suit and carrying a briefcase. The rapist may have a resentment towards “uppity” women who earn more and belong to a higher social class than they.
Sometimes women are raped when they’re wearing a Laura Ashley pinafore. The rapist may have a resentment against anyone who fits the “conservative Christian” profile.
Sometimes women are raped for no reason except that they’re women.
Topic: You have got to be kidding, prisoner. No one can force a choice on anyone else. If a male has lustful thoughts while looking at a female, it is up to him to suppress them, or find an appropriate way to channel them.
And if you weren’t just talking about rape (haven’t read all of the other thread yet), but about “sinful” thoughts in general, well, you’re still stupid. If you truly believe that experiencing arousal is a sin, well, first of all, that’s a great way to warp a man’s mind and prevent him from having a normal, healthy sex life. But beyond that, it’s still up to the individual to control his own mind. People were having “lustful thoughts” even back in the day when no one, male or female, showed an inch of skin, outside the bedroom, except for hands and face. They dealt with it. So can a man in today’s society.
Just as a matter of interest - if this is your opinion, and you were to question your friend or acquaintance about the incident, including where, when and how it happened, she would know that you thought she was an idiot, and it would make an already horrible situation much, much worse.
In fact, if she’d been at home, behind a locked door, in sweats and you started questioning where/when/how, it would make the situation worse, and your opinion of the stupidity of her actions would be obvious. I pity your female friends should they be in this situation, and you’re they’re only source of comfort.
Taking money out of someone’s hands is a simple action. (Even if it’s done by force, it’s still fairly simple: “Hand it over or else.”) Breaking a window to steal jewelry is a simple action.
Rape is not a simple action. The rapist has to grab the victim, possibly chase her first, overpower her, get enough clothing off to proceed with the forced intercourse, and keep her subdued throughout the act. Some women do fight back successfully enough to avoid completion, or to avoid being killed afterwards. The rapist had to decide that he wanted to go to all that trouble. And as others have pointed out, rape is an act of violence. IOW, the struggle, the overpowering, the risk that the rapist himself might be injured, the risk of jail or a retaliatory beating, are often as enjoyable as the primary goal of sticking their penis into a vagina. Maybe more so.
Actually, the only person who I think is an idiot is you.
Tell me, if a female friend or relative moved to your city, into a garden apartment with unlockable windows, would you say something about that? Would you suggest that she get some window bars or locks to diminish the chances that she’d become a crime victim?
From your posts, it appears that you wouldn’t, because in your view, crime is all about the criminal, and has nothing to do with the victim’s decisions or actions. I have a different view. I have a different view. I would make the suggestion Idescribed (and have - this situation came up in real life).
Similarly, I have suggested that an ex-GF speak to her landlord about her flimsy, hollow core outside door, with no deadbolt lock or peephole, advising her that these deficiencies violated the local landlord-tenant law.
I have also driven female friends home (from social events) or walked them to their cars, specifically because it reduces the danger.
You have a different view, because any glimmer of a suggestion that people can, by their choices, increase the chances that they will become crime victims, somehow violates your political/social agenda.
Sorry for my friends? No. I’m sorry for your friends, whose safety you would sacrifice to some illusory social theory.
Your point? Is this somehow meant to support a claim that nothing a woman can do will ever decrease the chances of becoming a rape victim? If so, I don’t follow your logic.
Why do you not get the point that advising someone, BEFORE THE FACT, of steps they can take to protect themselves from violence is not the same as telling them, AFTER THE FACT, what they should have done differently?
Are you really that stupid? That insensitve? That dunder-headed? Apparently so.
And regarding your “helpful measures”, just be advised that as good as they make you feel, one of your friends or acquaintances probably WILL be attacked (most likely they already have), regardless of what you or she do to prevent it, and it won’t be you that they turn to for help. Of this, I have no doubt.
The point is that the onus should not be on women to protect themselves from being raped, but on the justice system to enforce laws against rapists and make sure everyone understands that it is not the woman’s fault that she was raped.
If you are stating that a rapist is 100% responsible for his crime, no matter what decsions the victim made, and that he should be vigorously prosected, I agree.
On the other hand, if you are implying that women, in the real world, need not take any steps to protect themselves, I think you’re confusing what is with what should be.
I think some people here are confusing “moral responisbility” with “causation”.
Everyone here, I think, is of the opinion that rapists and rapists alone are morally responsible for rape - except, I imagine, for Prisoner, whose comments to the contrary inspired this thread!
What some people here are arguing is that there may be a causal connection between the actions of the victim and the chance that she will be victimized.
I imagine that, in some cases, this may be a factor - in others, it may not be; as bad luck, plain and simple, is the cause - that is, crossing the path of the human monster.
The analogy here is to a disease like cancer. You can try to protect yourself from disease as best you can, and still get cancer; but people who are wise know that they can decrease their chances of cancer by avoiding certain activities, like smoking.
Think of a rapist as a sort of human cancer, only malevolent.
No, I’m not implying that at all. Everyone should know how to defend themselves, male or female. And exercise some common sense as well.
What I do think needs to change is the automatic reaction, when a woman is raped, of “Well, look at how she dresses/acts/looks. She should have known something like this could happen.”
Exactly. It’s this attitude about rape and about cancer that makes my blood boil. Yes, I know it’s a natural human attitude - it’s also a very ugly attitude that people should try to overcome, rather than embracing and defending at every turn.
You’re a hopeless case, aren’t you? Although I doubt that I can make any impression on someone as impervious to logic as you, I’ll make one more attempt before I lock my doors and go to bed for the night.
Point one: I have never suggested that anyone loudly tell a rape victim that she’s an idiot, or that she stupidly put herself in a position that increased the chances that she’d be attacked. In fact, I said just the opposite. Try reading my first post again.
Point two: You have said that “a rape has nothing to do with the woman (man) who was attacked, and everything to do with the attacker”, and have angrily challenged anyone in this thread who even hinted that a woman’s choices could ever increase the chances that she’d be attacked. If that’s true, then why does it matter when someone gives safety advice? Are you now conceding that poor choices (which may be avoided if safety advice is followed) can increase the chances that someone will be victimized? If not, then why are you (apparently) giving your blessing to pre-attack safety advice?
Point three: If you are conceding that safety advice has some value, what’s the meaning of your last paragraph? Did I ever say that following reasonable safety precautions would prevent all rapes? (I’ll give you a hint - I didn’t.) Are you saying that reducing the chances of an attack has no benefit?
See, the problem we have with your analogies is that you’re using diseases. Eating stupidly, not exercising, bringing a heart attack on yourself; that’s a baseless analogy. You have brought this upon yourself, IOW. That is what I find offensive. I don’t care how I dress. Where I walk. If I flirt. Rape is a crime. Not a disease. And no one brings it upon themselves. It’s. Wrong. Period. It is never. Ever. Ever. The victim’s fault. I don’t care what they are doing. The rapist knows what he is doing is wrong. He KNOWS that. And yet, blaming the victim is not only the norm, it’s used in court. Does the name Kobe Bryant mean anything to you? The second she says “no,” it’s rape. I don’t care if she’s splayed out on your hotel room bed. If she changes her mind, says no, and goes to leave, it’s rape. The end.
Random, the difference is that locking your doors and windows actually impedes burglary from taking place.
Nothing you can wear, short of a suit of armour, can impede a rapist in this manner. If a rapist doesn’t see a woman in a hoochie skirt, nothing’s to stop him from raping a woman in a twinset and slacks.
Likewise, not walking in certain areas would be a good way to avoid rape, if that was where the rapists all were, as if there were no rapists in good parts of town – or in one’s own family.
You cannot avoid the origin of all these arguments: that rape is an insentient act of God, and it is a woman’s fault for attracting it to her. All the gift-wrapping you put on it won’t change where this argument comes from.