Never been to a college campus, I see. 
Where do you live? Because drawing out a victim’s history is pretty much game here. It needs more ‘justification’, but did we all forget Kobe already? 
How 'bout showing me a cite where someone claimed that as a rationale for why the Somali pirates should not be executed/imprisoned?
Or looked on the internet at all, really. Digital cameras have opened up the content envelope of what pictures are “printable” and which aren’t. I’m constantly amazed at what clothes young women will allow themselves to be photographed in, or out of. It’s an ongoing research project of mine.
Plenty of women and girls have found themselves accused of it without ever having had the intention.
The title of this thread and the first post are asking two different questions, and have two different answers. A woman who dresses sluttily may well be “asking for it”, but she may be asking only a specific person, or group of people. If one of those people whom she wants to have sex with her has sex with her, that’s clearly not rape. However, just because she’s asking some subset of men to have sex with her doesn’t mean she’s asking every man.
For example, a year or two on this board, there was a woman who was complaining that her SO didn’t notice that she was wearing her “fuck me shoes”, which she was wearing specifically because she wanted to send him the message that she was horny. In that case, yes, by dressing like a slut, she was asking for it… From him, at least. Which of course wouldn’t justify rape.
Philadelphia, which means I haven’t forgotten the bastard. He dunked on me in middle school.
But Colorado has and had at the time a rape shield law that limits the admissibility of such evidence. That’s not the same as a complete ban, but it’s also not the same as “pretty much game.” It was the subject of much controversy that the judge in that case allowed certain pieces of evidence to be heard in a closed pretrial setting. What I’m saying is that it used to be the case that any such evidence was freely admissible in every setting in which it was relevant.
How come the only request guys apparently listen to is to be raped? When I asked for more vacation days and a different shift, nobody listened to those requests.
If she makes a request it’s not rape. People are instead saying that the rape victim drove a man to the point of rape, which I find hard to believe and impossible to sympathize with, given the number of women raped in countries which feature restrictive clothing for women. A woman cannot make any voluntary movement toward encouraging a guy, so what anybody with this attitude is really saying is that men go around looking for provocation. Or what they call provocation.
If a woman does have a ‘bad’ reputation, that would tend to indicate that if she claims she said no to a man, that she’s the reliable one because if she says yes so often, and says no to this loser, he might have acted out of spite, because if she says yes to all those guys, why wouldn’t she be open about it? Why wouldn’t she say yes to him, too? Of course, this assumes that being a slut is a bad thing. It’s actually a good thing, because if somebody uses it then you can point them back at the fifteenth century where they belong.
No it does not give him justification to rape her. Women who dress like sluts should realize that they will get attention from men and most of that attention will not be positive.
The logical thing would be for men to find the wearing of skimpy clothes attractive, because one hears all the time that men like to look at women. Why, then, should dressing in a revealing way—or however one defines slutty-----be upsetting or angering? Rape is not something that one does affectionately, for example. It strikes me as an incredibly angry, furious act.
Men who want to get laid, one would think, would approve of women who dress like this and women who in fact like sex and having sex with various men. It makes no logical sense that a woman who says yes often would not say no and mean it.
Nor do I understand why dressing skimpily—if that’s the definition of slutty—is unacceptable. One can always look elsewhere. My neighbor has a furry white crack which I had the misfortune to see because he wears ill fitting clothes that he apparently bought when he was younger and less, um, beefy. He also has a gut which looks like he’s carrying octoplets, yet the response to him would not be rape, but sarcasm and a speedy escape elsewhere.
No. However, women whose outfits are designed to turn men on, are at a higher risk of attracting a rapist. Sad, but true.
You got any cites or stats there? From what I’ve read, rapists are not really all that concerned with looks, age, etc.
Absolutely not. However much she invites, she retains the right to say, “No.”
I’ll have more of a look later, but it does seem to be a feature for s8xually aggressive men:
www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/cfarris/index_files/psychScience2006.pdf -
Should have worn a wetsuit and pyjamas, or something.
I think this issue is a tiny bit less cut and dried than some of you are making it out to be. First of all, I hope it goes without saying that how a woman dresses in no ways decreases the culpability, legal or ethical or moral, of a rapist. Someone convicted of rape should get the same sentence regardless of how the victim was dressed.
And as Left Hand of Dorkness eloquently pointed out in post #19, it’s insensitive nearly beyond belief to question a rape victim in a way which even vaguely resembles blaming her for what happened.
BUT, imagine this situation: you have a 17-year-old female cousin (A) who grew up in an incredibly sheltered and innocent environment, and is visiting the big city. She is staying with a relative (B) who should know better. (B) decides they are going to have a night out on the town, lends (A) some extremely revealing clothes, and takes them to a sketchy club in a bad part of town late at night, and (A) is raped.
Obviously the rapist is 100% guilty here, and no other circumstances in any way exonerate him or lessen his guilt or the punishment he deserves. BUT, it’s hard to see how someone would not blame (B) in this situation. Not legally, but emotionally and logically and ethically, (A)'s parents would presumably be furious at (B), and (I’d say) rightfully so. Why? Did (B) commit rape? No, not even remotely. But (B) clearly acted recklessly, and a predictable terrible outcome occurred.
So take (A) out of the picture entirely. (B) dresses in revealing clothes, goes to a sketchy club, gets raped. Again (and I can’t stress this point enough) the rapist is in no way excused by (B)'s choice of clothes, but if (B)'s action in the first hypothetical were reckless and ill-conceived, they’re still reckless and ill-conceived in the second one, although less damning as she’s risking only herself, not a relative.
I think a lot of people are bothered by the idea that any discussion of this sort necessarily implies decreasing the blame on the actual criminal, the rapist. Blame isn’t a zero sum game. If a murderer kills someone because that person’s roommate forgot to lock the door, that person’s roommate is partly responsible for the murder, but the murderer is exactly as responsible as he would have been had he broken the door down.
For starters, is that a hypothetical situation or the plot to a truly shitty Broadway musical, if you take out the rape?
Oh, and no matter how many times you protest too much, you’re still blaming the victim. The only constant you find in rape is the rapist.
Also, your hypothetical it not an especially clever update of the dark alley/short skirt cliche, which means again…blaming the victim. Why are you so interested in finding culpability where there is absolutely none? All your protestations aside, you’re saying that A shouldn’t have gone to the club, shouldn’t have worn those clothes, otherwise she wouldn’t have gotten raped.
Leaving a door unlocked is an accident. One cannot attach any blame or ‘partial responsibility’ to it unless one does not understand what responsibility means. Or unless one is sort of vicious. The murder was 100% committed by the murderer. The rapist committed the rape. In both instances, the victims were unlucky, not culpable.
And I really do hate it when people say, “I’m totally not blaming the victim but they shouldn’t have worn that outfit or left the door unlocked, because it’s partially their fault.”
When it comes to rape, blame is in fact a zero sum game, and the blame is all the rapist’s. Period.
Dad, you’re drunk. Go home.
Regards,
Shodan
No. The roommate is not responsible for the murder, not at all. Nor is “B” in your other hypothetical to blame for the rape. They might be guilty of carelessness or unwise decisions, but those are not crimes.
“Guilty”, “to blame for”, “responsible for”… none of these are precisely defined terms (except sometimes in legal terms, which is not what we’re discussing here).
If the roommate left the door unlocked, allowing the murderer in, then the roommate did something which, had he not done it, the murder wouldn’t have occurred. The roommate is certainly not “guilty” of murder, legally or otherwise. But I claim the roommate is, almost by definition, somewhat responsible. The roommate did something that he should not have done… he made a mistake. A horrible but not unpredictable outcome occurred. Ergo, responsibility.
It seems about that simple to me, honestly. Are you disagreeing with my underlying point or with my choice of words? If this situation happened and you knew both parties (well, both roommates, not the murderer), would you be angry at or blame the one who’d left the door unlocked?