:dubious: In other words, you are trying to present a waitress’s wearing shorts in an informal outdoor restaurant in summer in Georgia as equivalent to neglecting a standard, routine, universally recommended and highly effective precaution like password-protecting a bank account or locking a door.
Yes, that is victim-blaming via a dishonest false equivalence. Password protection and door locking are demonstrably effective and ubiquitous precautions against theft, but not wearing shorts is not an effective preventative of groping. Nor is there anything neglectful, irresponsible or out of the ordinary about women wearing shorts in an informal American outdoor social setting in hot weather.
A more accurate analogy would be to ask something like “Do you make sure to pray every night that nobody hacks your bank account? Do you always take your TV and computer with you whenever you leave the house?”
That is the kind of senseless, burdensome ritualistic restriction that you are asking women to adopt as an alleged potential “mitigation” of the chances of being victimized by gropers. Its only real function is to deflect attention and responsibility away from the behavior of victimizers onto that of victims.
Say what? I just said I wasn’t advocating people need to cover up. You even quoted that. What’s wrong with your reading?
I’m saying jumping down a person’s throat when they present a point of view is not the proper way to debate and it alienates people who are quite likely aligned with your way of thinking in many ways. That’s the problem with many of you folks. You flat out cannot read.
You all ought to emulate epbrown01 above. His or her post addressed the topic reasonably. No name calling necessary.
Jesus Murphy, if a guy can’t keep his hands on the ends of his wrists where they belong, it’s no one’s fault but his. How are people being raised such that “she was cute and bending over” comes to mind as a plausible excuse for anything?
Well, from your point of view, what’s wrong with my reading is that it is inconveniently pointing out the glaring flaws in your writing.
To wit, you tried to defend the OP by saying “the OP and folks who bring up behaviors that can mitigate being victimized aren’t victim blaming” on the basis of mealy-mouthed generalizations such as “there are many variables that lead to crime” and “to say that the criminal lives in a vacuum is absurd”. And you tried, unsuccessfully, to present women’s wearing shorts in hot weather as analogous to neglecting routine safeguards like account passwords and door locks.
In fact, as I explained, such arguments do qualify as victim-blaming. And when I pointed that out in a reasoned and non-profane debate argument that logically contested the issue in the way you claimed to be seeking, you retreated into whining that people aren’t debating in the proper way by contesting the issue.
In other words, octopus, when you believe you can make a successful argument on the content of an issue you attempt to make the argument, and when you realize that your argument has been refuted you fall back on whining that other people are being “too aggressive” and “jumping down throats” and “alienating potential allies”.
And yet epbrown01’s post apparently still wasn’t enough to save you from the stupidity of trying to draw a false equivalence between normal, conventional clothing choices and failing to put a password on one’s bank account.
Tell us, octopus: if you don’t like “potty-mouthed” “name-calling” aggression but you persist in disregarding logical arguments that are reasonable and invective-free, how exactly is anybody supposed to disagree with you? I’m starting to suspect that it’s the mere fact of being disagreed with that you find so offensive.
And by the way, “snowflake” does not begin to convey my disdain for the egotistical fragility of a disputant—on the Straight Dope Message Board, no less—who would actually let themselves be “alienated” from a reasonable and ethical position that “aligns with their way of thinking” just because they got flamed for challenging it in a messageboard forum specifically devoted to flame wars. Oh dear, the poor, poor, poor delicate baby. :rolleyes:
I don’t know, but the fact that I think something that is different than what you think seems to really annoy you.
Not just me, of course, but smart people generally. It’s as if we do so just to spite you, judging from your reaction. Would it help if I cursed at you so you could dismiss me as a potty mouth? I am generous enough to consider the option.
You mean like your reaction to what you perceive as ‘potty mouth’? You’re right, it’s SAD! Beyornd sad. Kinda pathetic.
Not as shameful as victim blaming but no one is surprised to see you engage in both. And the problem isn’t that others can’t read well , the problem is you can’t think well.
Attempting to mitigate the gropers responsibility, to ANY degree, because of what gropee was wearing IS straight up, 100%, clear and overt victim blaming.
It is beyond laughable to believe that the waitress chooses the uniform. I worked 30+ yrs in service and not once did I get to choose my attire. You’re clearly not good at thinking.
Your attempts to rationalize it as something else is juvenile, pathetic, misguided and beyond offensive to every victim of groping. And a really clear reflection of your own inability to think rationally.
Every time you post, you reveal how vile a person you really are, while laughably faulting others for their potty mouths. You so proudly broadcast your vileness at every opportunity. Ugh.
Your point would have some validity except for one important detail:
The Republicans are far more guilty than “liberals” of lies, exaggerations, personal attacks, and hate speech. For every instance of a liberal anonymous message-board poster who speaks unwisely, we can find an example of foul-mouthed hate-filled lies from top Republican “thinkers” like Donald Trump, Trey Gowdy, Rush Limbaugh, etc. etc. Moreover liberals, even when misguided, seek to advance social justice. The R’s, OTOH, gleefully foment hatred because they know it’s a political shortcut to indulging their greeds.
From time to time you seem almost intelligent, octopus. But are you capable of acknowledging the truth in the previous paragraph?
Of course you’re not advocating that people need to cover up or accept responsibility. You’re just advocating that people who don’t take such precautions are responsible.
Have you considered a move to Saudi? They’re really keen on the whole “Women who don’t cover up are asking for it” shtick. You’d fit right in.
What the fuck is with people defending the OP? He said that the groper was triggered by seeing skin. In other words, he had a completely involuntary reaction to seeing her skin and groped her. An involuntary action is one that is not your fault. Saying something is not someone’s fault is defending them. Therefore SaneBill definitely 100% defended the groper. Q.E.D.
As for the rest, it’s 2018. Surely by now you know the actual thing gropers look for: “Can I get away with it?” Maybe at some point in the past showing skin suggested you were of “ill repute” and would likely not be able to do anything about it. But, again, this is 2018. Someone showing more skin is likely to be more liberated, and thus a worse target.
So there is no point comparing how women dress with actual risky behaviors. All of those examples are also about making it easier to get away with. If you leave money out, it’s easier for a thief to get away with stealing. If you go into a dark alley at night, it’s easier for someone to get away with beating you up. That’s the common denominator.
What’s more, because of this, it is in women’s best interest to never, ever let someone think that they can get away with sexually mistreating them because of how they are dressed. So this sort of thing is never going to stop. The gropers will continue to be punished, and those who try to defend them in any way will be shamed.
I assume that he gropes women not due to poor impulse control, not due to what they are wearing, but only due to a desire to avoid ideological purity.
As far as what she wears, the only comment I have on that is that I think it would be interesting if they figured out a safe way to electrify women’s shorts(and tops and ankles and septum, or whatever else a perv thinks to grab). (safe for the woman, of course, not the groper.) May get people to learn to keep their hands to themselves.
Better a thousand women raped than one step toward liberalism, one might say. They were gonna get raped anyway, dressing like that, but liberalism is awful.
As I’ve said, I don’t care what someone is wearing. Being naked isn’t an excuse for unwanted touching. So I agree with the premise that the fault is on the groper. And entirely on the groper.
However, I don’t think it’s a problem if other people want to advance a different point of view. What you folks are doing, you wise and “intelligent” folks, is projecting your inability to accept differing points of view onto me.
I’m instructing you and others on how to more effectively communicate. Consider it a public service.
