What I’ve often thought is interesting about this is that you say that it’s OK to be desirous of having sex with a sixteen year old. In other similar threads, I’ve always noticed that those posters in states or countries where the age of consent is, say, 17, express strong moral outrage at the thought of a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old. Those in states or countries where the age of consent is 16 show no moral qualms. It seems that the law directs not only the legal consequences but controls the moral attitude. So those people would be outraged at your suggestion that it’s OK to desire sex with a sixteen year old.
13? I think they need to revise this, as it seems out of date. Even almost 30 years ago when I was 13, I didn’t see too many prepubescent 13-year-olds.
Complete BS? I don’t have so much confidence in the probity of men. The risk factor is far too great.
Sadly, not all people are as decent as some of the members of the SD.
But some men *are *so out of control that they will attack young girls. You don’t think that flashing their bare genitalia could be interpreted as a come on to those people?
I agree that some men are monsters that don’t need provocation, but I really don’t agree that some will not be encouraged by blatant provocation. And I do think that there is difference between skimpy clothing and displaying what is normally considered your most intimate part of your body.
See, this is the kind of assumption that bugs the hell out of me: that all women are tender, delicate blossoms who need protection from rapacious men, and that all the hitting on is one-way traffic. We already have identifying devices like that - they’re called wedding rings - and I’ve never been hit on by women as much {and yes, I have been hit on by women, quite physically aggressively sometimes, to the extent that could lead the cops to be called if the gender roles were reversed} since I began wearing one: for a certain type of woman, a signal that a man is “taken” is a green light.
I agree that the situation you described, girls flashing their genitalia, was inappropriate. But that was inappropriate because anyone flashing their intimate bits in public is inappropriate.
I still don’t think that seeing a skimpily dressed female is all that’s needed for a man to shift from normal joe to rapist. As another poster pointed out, if you see a pile of money on a counter, you might want it, but you don’t take it.
And unfortunately, case after case after case has shown instances of conservatively dressed women being attacked and/or raped. Look at the early entry in this thread about sexual harassment in Egypt, where most of the women questioned were wearing head coverings. Rape in the US and other western countries is not limited to women who are dressed provocatively. It’s not that simple.
More of, your argument makes me really uncomfortable because it falls right on to that slippery slope of saying that a rape victim deserves it, or that she asked for it. I doubt your own feelings mirror this sentiment, but can you see how close that argument is? “Women cause men to become uncontrolled by dressing that way” to “She was dressed provocatively, it’s not his fault, she was asking to be raped”?
You’re extrapolating from one extreme example taken from a particular statement. I was using my example to emphasise that young people need to be told about the message they’re sending if that message could be dangerous for them. Not that the way a women dresses means they’re asking for rape. I’ve said it before: exposing your genitals is nothing to do with the way you dress.
But from your original example, do you think those girls did not know what message they were sending? Oh, and I am imagining like 13 or 14 year olds, what age were these girls?
But if they 13 or 14, I am imagining they know that flashing their privates at guys is going to bring them attention. If they’re 5 or 6, then the behavior has a different meaning.
I guess 13/14. I don’t really know what message they were trying to send. What do you think it was? Just to bring them attention? IMO, if so, they definitely need a word to the wise. Do you think this is common practice in this age group?
Common, no. I mean, I don’t have statistics on it, just I’ve never known anyone to admit to doing that or seeing it, so I imagine it’s somewhat rare.
As for what message, I presume it was more about what messages they got back. Young females hitting that “whoa, I can attract men!” phase, I imagine they were fishing for attention.
Realistically, they have probably already been told, “hey, flashing your privates at people is inappropriate”. Beyond that, what do you think should be told to them? I’m also looking at this as an extreme example of young girls being provocative, but I am really really against walking up to any girl and saying “hey, you doing X could cause a man to harm you”. It’s really not true. A man harming them is related to him, not them causing it.
However, them doing X could cause some unwanted attention in the form of suggestive comments, excessive flirting, whatever. Things that might make them uncomfortable without injuring them. Over time, I think females learn what brings attention. Dressing provocatively will bring them attention, and they can learn to deal with that. Perhaps its better for them to do it and learn it at a young age, where the law is still protecting them somewhat.
I’ve always been interested in criminal justice, particularly the psychology of violent criminals. I’ve read books and taken classes on the subject. I have never found one expert who says that rape is caused by being scantily clad. In fact, most of the experts that I’ve read argue that rape is a power crime, not a sexual crime.
I have to relate this (again) only because of the thread title:
I own, and pay $250 every five years to maintain, the livestock brand my grandfather first registered back in the 1920s. I let all of my family use the brand as a sort of family crest – it adorns my personal stationery and is proudly displayed in my living room.
Several years ago Razorette’s younger sister got her first tattoo, and my wife was seriously considering getting one. Both of our daughters-in-law (fine ladies, both!) have small tattoos dedicated to their husbands, and my wife thought that would be nice. You can see where this is going, can’t you?
If not, I’ll finish the thought: I suggested the family brand, on her “flank”. She was not amused. She remains un-tattooed to this day.
