Yes, give the circumstances described. However, let’s not derail this important and controversial thread about women dressing like sluts and “asking for it” with trivialities such as the ObL matter.
I would say that some posts such as astro’s did seem to find a moral value, and a responsibility for the result (“blame”), in “unwise” assumptions of risk.
The “she was asking for it” line is a simple and obvious attempt to shift blame for the rape to the victim. I’m sure it would sail in some forums … try your average conservative forum and see what you get. Won’t sail on the Dope.
My answer is the same as everyone’s, but I wanted to add one other thing: it’s similar to the definition of murder. Rape means that she by definition was not asking for it.
I also would love to see a citation for what is asserted by olives in the other thread. I would think at least the type of rape where the person is aroused (and not angry) would correlate with how the person was dressed.
I know (from another thread I can’t find) that, in cultures where women dress more conservatively, there is not a lower incidence of rape. Still, that doesn’t answer the question of whether, if a more provocatively dressed woman were present, she would be a larger target.
Murder, by definition, is not legally justified. It’s conceivable for a killing to be morally or ethically justified and still illegal.
But what if someone says “Yo’ mum’s a big ho, and I know becuz’ I did her?”
I’ve heard of at least one case where Ms X claimed that an even more direct phrasing than that should not have counted as asking for it, and that a drunk horny guy should know that the drunk horny girl in question would never soberly look at him. So it’s not as cut and dried as you’d think.
To the OP- No, of course not. But in some settings, neither is it a wise move.
Conceivable, but since the comparison is to rape, I don’t see how that is relevant. Was anyone in the rape thread arguing that there are times when it is “morally or ethically” justified to rape someone?
I didn’t read the rape thread. I cannot imagine a situation in which rape is morally or ethically justified. I commented as I did because I don’t think your analogy was apt.
It wasn’t my analogy. At was Argent Towers’.
But if we address the analogy, I suppose we can also say that “rape”, by definition, is never justified in the same way that “murder” is, by definition, never justified.
Look, “murder” is not an act. Murder is a criminal charge. The act is called killing. It is up to a jury to determine whether the killing was murder, or manslaughter or other things. (Actually, “manslaughter” sounds more gruesome than “murder”.)
I am sure that Osama’s followers think the US murdered him. We here in the US think that he was “killed.”
The comparison should be between “rape” and “killing,” not “rape” and “murder.” And while killing can be justified, rape cannot.
You’re probably right - dressing proactively would mean anticipating the situations we might be in that day when we get dressed and dressing accordingly, but that’s pretty much automatic for most of us.
Oh wait…you meant to say ‘provocatively,’ didn’t you?
[Emily Litella]
Never mind.
[/Emily Litella]
Another vote for “of course not”.
I’ve heard that asserted on occasion and never bought it. It seems to go along with the claim that rape is always about power, never about sex and is always a political act. Apparently, there’s not a single male criminal on Earth motivated just by self indulgence. :rolleyes:
Read the locked thread.
I’m not a rapistist, but I’ll hazard a guess that there are basically two kinds of rapists: those who do it because it’s the only way they can really get sexual gratification, in which case it is about power, and those who do it because it’s a crime of opportunity and they want sexual pleasure but would just as well rather have consensual sex with the woman in question.
I’ll also hazard a guess that the latter type of rapist is more common than the former.
[tangent]Suppose a woman kidnaps other women and sells off sessions to rape them. Would sentencing that woman to multiple rape be justified?[/tangent]
ontopic: Wearing sexy clothes isn’t asking for rape. It might be an unwise thing to do, depending on where you are because it marks you as a potential target. Like wearing an expensive Rolex or fiddling through your money clip in a bad neighborhood.
Even if someone answered “Yes” to the question as phrased in the OP, I would have to assume they were trolling.
I doubt you’d even be able to elicit a serious “yes” with the slightly less strawmannish question: Can the attire of the victim ever lessen the moral culpability of the rapist?
I mean, come on, even if I go for a stroll in the most dangerous neighborhood in America, it doesn’t mean it’s morally any more OK for someone to murder me, right?
On the other hand, one could argue that it makes my fate somewhat “my fault” (while at the same time not making my killler’s actions any more moral). And maybe if you asked the question that way, e.g. “Can a rape victim’s attire make her partially responsible for her vicitimization?” then you’d get a few serious “yes” replies. Not from me, though.
I remember when some Christian missionaries were killed by Somalian pirates, a lot of people right here on this board were in effect saying “they got what they deserved,” because “anyone sailing a yacht in those waters should KNOW BETTER”. I assume, by these individuals’ reasoning, the same is true of someone who goes walking through the ghetto wearing a three piece suit and carrying a big expensive-looking briefcase.
I would never say the people in those situations “got what they deserved”, but I would say they were at best dangerously naive.