If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   Lingerie Football League player tells women not to dress like whores (with Lingerie Football pic)   (cbc.ca) divider line 180
    More: Ironic, Toronto, Lingerie Football League, York University, nieces, Toronto Police  
•       •       •

17253 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Aug 2012 at 12:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-30 06:48:26 PM
Does expressing intense outrage and flying into histrionics every time someone gives potentially naive advice (e.g. "don't dress like a whore") really address the root of the problem? Does telling people to kill themselves or insinuating that they, themselves, are "probable rapists" because they advocate what they believe to be valid safety precautions make people want to listen to what you have to say?

Perhaps if we could drop the dramatics and act like adults, we might actually make some progress...
 
2012-08-30 06:49:35 PM
Don't teach women what to wear - teach men not to rape.
 
2012-08-30 06:54:15 PM
Oh good grief, I try to say consider the places you are going and give a second thought to your choice of wardrobe so as to mitigate (even though it's only a fractional thing) potential risks and I'm a bad guy for saying it? Get farked! There are bad people in the world, sure it is a very small percentage but you have to be prepared and know that they are out there.

And when you assert that clothing choice is an influence upon an individual's decision to sexually assault another, you'd better have evidence to back that assertion up and understand what you're communicating. So far, you haven't presented any evidence that rapists, stranger or acquaintance, are motivated enough by clothing for wearing "non-provocative" items to make any appreciable difference - in fact, research indicates that a sense of entitlement to a potential victim's body, a desire to control and dominate, and perceived physical vulnerability are the main factors (note that "attractive" != "vulnerable"). The fact that a person was wearing a short skirt or high heels doesn't seem to be even a secondary motivation, and given the wide array of ages, classes, and sartorial choices of victims across the population it's insulting to victims to imply such. I posted a link to a statement by a recent victim who made that very point.

In short: clothing choice does fark-all to mitigate the risk of being assaulted, and if you're going to assert otherwise you'd better bring facts, because bluster won't cut it. If you feel personally insulted that I continue to disagree and point out flaws in your assertions, tough shiat - demonstrate that your "common sense" suggestions have any evident relation to what actually happens.
 
2012-08-30 06:54:31 PM

ParallelUniverseParking: Don't teach women what to wear - teach men not to rape.


You may not have intended it, but your comment is one of the most disgustingly sexist things I've heard in a while.
 
2012-08-30 06:57:02 PM

ParallelUniverseParking: Don't teach women what to wear - teach men not to rape.


Now that's just crazy talk.
 
2012-08-30 07:04:33 PM

PlatinumDragon: Oh good grief, I try to say consider the places you are going and give a second thought to your choice of wardrobe so as to mitigate (even though it's only a fractional thing) potential risks and I'm a bad guy for saying it? Get farked! There are bad people in the world, sure it is a very small percentage but you have to be prepared and know that they are out there.

And when you assert that clothing choice is an influence upon an individual's decision to sexually assault another, you'd better have evidence to back that assertion up and understand what you're communicating. So far, you haven't presented any evidence that rapists, stranger or acquaintance, are motivated enough by clothing for wearing "non-provocative" items to make any appreciable difference - in fact, research indicates that a sense of entitlement to a potential victim's body, a desire to control and dominate, and perceived physical vulnerability are the main factors (note that "attractive" != "vulnerable"). The fact that a person was wearing a short skirt or high heels doesn't seem to be even a secondary motivation, and given the wide array of ages, classes, and sartorial choices of victims across the population it's insulting to victims to imply such. I posted a link to a statement by a recent victim who made that very point.

In short: clothing choice does fark-all to mitigate the risk of being assaulted, and if you're going to assert otherwise you'd better bring facts, because bluster won't cut it. If you feel personally insulted that I continue to disagree and point out flaws in your assertions, tough shiat - demonstrate that your "common sense" suggestions have any evident relation to what actually happens.


I get it you want to be angry and infer more into my statements than was intended. Now go away
 
2012-08-30 07:07:40 PM

WhippingBoy: ParallelUniverseParking: Don't teach women what to wear - teach men not to rape.

You may not have intended it, but your comment is one of the most disgustingly sexist things I've heard in a while.


Well, you can tell people in general not to rape, and that's an equitable enough statement. The fact that the overwhelming majority of assaults on people - male, female, transmale/female - are committed by men is something worth studying. All else being equal, the rate of assault should be close to equal between men and women. It's not, not even close, and there are people who've been trying to figure out why.
 
2012-08-30 07:10:07 PM

Representative of the unwashed masses: PlatinumDragon: Oh good grief, I try to say consider the places you are going and give a second thought to your choice of wardrobe so as to mitigate (even though it's only a fractional thing) potential risks and I'm a bad guy for saying it? Get farked! There are bad people in the world, sure it is a very small percentage but you have to be prepared and know that they are out there.

And when you assert that clothing choice is an influence upon an individual's decision to sexually assault another, you'd better have evidence to back that assertion up and understand what you're communicating. So far, you haven't presented any evidence that rapists, stranger or acquaintance, are motivated enough by clothing for wearing "non-provocative" items to make any appreciable difference - in fact, research indicates that a sense of entitlement to a potential victim's body, a desire to control and dominate, and perceived physical vulnerability are the main factors (note that "attractive" != "vulnerable"). The fact that a person was wearing a short skirt or high heels doesn't seem to be even a secondary motivation, and given the wide array of ages, classes, and sartorial choices of victims across the population it's insulting to victims to imply such. I posted a link to a statement by a recent victim who made that very point.

In short: clothing choice does fark-all to mitigate the risk of being assaulted, and if you're going to assert otherwise you'd better bring facts, because bluster won't cut it. If you feel personally insulted that I continue to disagree and point out flaws in your assertions, tough shiat - demonstrate that your "common sense" suggestions have any evident relation to what actually happens.

I get it you want to be angry and infer more into my statements than was intended. Now go away


I'm angry? You're the one telling me to "get farked" and "go away" because I keep challenging you to present evidence to support your assertions.
 
2012-08-30 07:13:44 PM

PlatinumDragon: WhippingBoy: ParallelUniverseParking: Don't teach women what to wear - teach men not to rape.

You may not have intended it, but your comment is one of the most disgustingly sexist things I've heard in a while.

Well, you can tell people in general not to rape, and that's an equitable enough statement. The fact that the overwhelming majority of assaults on people - male, female, transmale/female - are committed by men is something worth studying. All else being equal, the rate of assault should be close to equal between men and women. It's not, not even close, and there are people who've been trying to figure out why.


You're arguing that most rapists are men; I agree that this is true.
I'm arguing that most men are not rapists; therefore the general, unqualified statement "teach men not to rape" is insulting and sexist. I don't know any men who need to be taught not to rape.
 
2012-08-30 07:23:27 PM

Representative of the unwashed masses: Loomy: Representative of the unwashed masses: Keizer_Ghidorah:

Somehow I doubt that a person lurking in a dark alley for someone to rob/rape would care what they were wearing as long as they could rape/rob them.


[fc09.deviantart.net image 750x600]

Then I take it no one should ever take precautions because it's destined to happen? Hell you'd think I came in here and called all women sluts or something. One last time. Be careful. Consider taking precautions. It's what smart people do.


And the point being made is that wearing more concealing clothing doesn't really constitute a precaution (at least according to many studies linked ITT). Not walking home alone, drunk, in the dark, through a secluded/dangerous place? That's a precaution. Walking tall, as Ms. Ford suggested, as to not make oneself look weak and rape-able, while also carrying a weapon? That's a precaution, too. But if you're gonna be the victim of a 'wrong place, wrong time' rape, how sexily you're dressed doesn't really play into it.

sigh... ok pretend I am a dad talking to a daughter then. I don't care. I have no issue with people wearing whatever the fark they want. Of course there are people out there who mean to harm others. Nothing you do can prevent that. As a friendly statement I would say think about what you are doing, where you are going etc and try to be ready for it.

Look we're basically saying the same thing. I'm merely suggesting that in some cases it may not be wise to wear something that draws attention to you. How that's defined is different for everyone. I had my opinion on what I would want my daughter/girlfriend etc to wear in those kinds of cases. And just like assholes, everyone has an opinion.


Anything you wear can draw attention to you for any reason. The point is that rapists don't give a flying fig about what someone wears, if they're going to rape someone they're going to rape someone regardless of dress. Women get raped in the middle of winter while wearing snow pants and wool jackets, should they not have worn those provocative clothes? How about all those women on beaches and at pools, if clothes is why rapes occurred those places should be filthy with rapes.

You can keep trying to make attire the main cause of rape all you want, the rest of us will be sensible and stop trying to blame the victim and stop spreading the notion of slut-shaming.
 
2012-08-30 07:24:09 PM

PlatinumDragon: Representative of the unwashed masses: PlatinumDragon: Oh good grief, I try to say consider the places you are going and give a second thought to your choice of wardrobe so as to mitigate (even though it's only a fractional thing) potential risks and I'm a bad guy for saying it? Get farked! There are bad people in the world, sure it is a very small percentage but you have to be prepared and know that they are out there.

And when you assert that clothing choice is an influence upon an individual's decision to sexually assault another, you'd better have evidence to back that assertion up and understand what you're communicating. So far, you haven't presented any evidence that rapists, stranger or acquaintance, are motivated enough by clothing for wearing "non-provocative" items to make any appreciable difference - in fact, research indicates that a sense of entitlement to a potential victim's body, a desire to control and dominate, and perceived physical vulnerability are the main factors (note that "attractive" != "vulnerable"). The fact that a person was wearing a short skirt or high heels doesn't seem to be even a secondary motivation, and given the wide array of ages, classes, and sartorial choices of victims across the population it's insulting to victims to imply such. I posted a link to a statement by a recent victim who made that very point.

In short: clothing choice does fark-all to mitigate the risk of being assaulted, and if you're going to assert otherwise you'd better bring facts, because bluster won't cut it. If you feel personally insulted that I continue to disagree and point out flaws in your assertions, tough shiat - demonstrate that your "common sense" suggestions have any evident relation to what actually happens.

I get it you want to be angry and infer more into my statements than was intended. Now go away

I'm angry? You're the one telling me to "get farked" and "go away" because I keep challenging you to present evidence to support your assertions.


And how many times did I say that I don't really care, but tht in certain situations based on a persons comfort level dressing slightly more conservatively can't hurt. I'm not pointing going slut, whore or otherwise. I can respect "I have a different opinion" not a wall of text lecturing me.

Big difference
 
2012-08-30 07:25:04 PM

WhippingBoy: PlatinumDragon: WhippingBoy: ParallelUniverseParking: Don't teach women what to wear - teach men not to rape.

You may not have intended it, but your comment is one of the most disgustingly sexist things I've heard in a while.

Well, you can tell people in general not to rape, and that's an equitable enough statement. The fact that the overwhelming majority of assaults on people - male, female, transmale/female - are committed by men is something worth studying. All else being equal, the rate of assault should be close to equal between men and women. It's not, not even close, and there are people who've been trying to figure out why.

You're arguing that most rapists are men; I agree that this is true.
I'm arguing that most men are not rapists; therefore the general, unqualified statement "teach men not to rape" is insulting and sexist. I don't know any men who need to be taught not to rape.


The problem, as demonstrated by the ongoing Julian Assange debacle, is that a lot of people who wouldn't consider themselves rapists are willing to tolerate acts that are, in fact, rape, or excuse otherwise obvious acts of assault because they like the alleged rapist. You're correct in that most men don't commit sexual assault, but I strongly suspect a lot of people don't quite understand what "consent" means, or don't really care. Some of them have demonstrated as much in this thread, and other comment threads. This results in people trying to excuse spousal or acquaintance assaults, or claiming "date rape" is somehow nebulous and less serious than "forcible rape". You have legislators trying to make such garbage the law again. Sexual assault laws didn't apply to married couples on this continent until unnervingly recently, and it is practically ignored in many other places, even though spouses commit at least a tenth of all sexual assaults.
 
2012-08-30 07:26:33 PM

Representative of the unwashed masses: PlatinumDragon: Representative of the unwashed masses: PlatinumDragon: Oh good grief, I try to say consider the places you are going and give a second thought to your choice of wardrobe so as to mitigate (even though it's only a fractional thing) potential risks and I'm a bad guy for saying it? Get farked! There are bad people in the world, sure it is a very small percentage but you have to be prepared and know that they are out there.

And when you assert that clothing choice is an influence upon an individual's decision to sexually assault another, you'd better have evidence to back that assertion up and understand what you're communicating. So far, you haven't presented any evidence that rapists, stranger or acquaintance, are motivated enough by clothing for wearing "non-provocative" items to make any appreciable difference - in fact, research indicates that a sense of entitlement to a potential victim's body, a desire to control and dominate, and perceived physical vulnerability are the main factors (note that "attractive" != "vulnerable"). The fact that a person was wearing a short skirt or high heels doesn't seem to be even a secondary motivation, and given the wide array of ages, classes, and sartorial choices of victims across the population it's insulting to victims to imply such. I posted a link to a statement by a recent victim who made that very point.

In short: clothing choice does fark-all to mitigate the risk of being assaulted, and if you're going to assert otherwise you'd better bring facts, because bluster won't cut it. If you feel personally insulted that I continue to disagree and point out flaws in your assertions, tough shiat - demonstrate that your "common sense" suggestions have any evident relation to what actually happens.

I get it you want to be angry and infer more into my statements than was intended. Now go away

I'm angry? You're the one telling me to "get farked" and "go away" because I keep challenging you to present evidence to support your assertions.

And how many times did I say that I don't really care, but tht in certain situations based on a persons comfort level dressing slightly more conservatively can't hurt. I'm not pointing going slut, whore or otherwise. I can respect "I have a different opinion" not a wall of text lecturing me.

Big difference


So you're willing to "make suggestions", but you don't care when multiple people point out in detail the flaws with those suggestions.

OK.
 
2012-08-30 07:30:38 PM

WhippingBoy: PlatinumDragon: WhippingBoy: ParallelUniverseParking: Don't teach women what to wear - teach men not to rape.

You may not have intended it, but your comment is one of the most disgustingly sexist things I've heard in a while.

Well, you can tell people in general not to rape, and that's an equitable enough statement. The fact that the overwhelming majority of assaults on people - male, female, transmale/female - are committed by men is something worth studying. All else being equal, the rate of assault should be close to equal between men and women. It's not, not even close, and there are people who've been trying to figure out why.

You're arguing that most rapists are men; I agree that this is true.
I'm arguing that most men are not rapists; therefore the general, unqualified statement "teach men not to rape" is insulting and sexist. I don't know any men who need to be taught not to rape.


Sorry if it offends your fragile ego that men are the aggressors more often than women and maybe something should be done about it. Maybe if more men stopped thinking "She's dressed in a way I find hot, she obviously wants me to lay her" and stopped trying to pin the world's problems on women (even the Bible states that it's all woman's fault we're where we are today), we wouldn't be having these problems.

If you're a kind and understanding guy, good for you. You don't need to get indignant and offended for the rest of malekind when someone suggests that more men could be like you.
 
2012-08-30 07:37:06 PM

PlatinumDragon: WhippingBoy: PlatinumDragon: WhippingBoy: ParallelUniverseParking: Don't teach women what to wear - teach men not to rape.

You may not have intended it, but your comment is one of the most disgustingly sexist things I've heard in a while.

Well, you can tell people in general not to rape, and that's an equitable enough statement. The fact that the overwhelming majority of assaults on people - male, female, transmale/female - are committed by men is something worth studying. All else being equal, the rate of assault should be close to equal between men and women. It's not, not even close, and there are people who've been trying to figure out why.

You're arguing that most rapists are men; I agree that this is true.
I'm arguing that most men are not rapists; therefore the general, unqualified statement "teach men not to rape" is insulting and sexist. I don't know any men who need to be taught not to rape.

The problem, as demonstrated by the ongoing Julian Assange debacle, is that a lot of people who wouldn't consider themselves rapists are willing to tolerate acts that are, in fact, rape, or excuse otherwise obvious acts of assault because they like the alleged rapist. You're correct in that most men don't commit sexual assault, but I strongly suspect a lot of people don't quite understand what "consent" means, or don't really care. Some of them have demonstrated as much in this thread, and other comment threads. This results in people trying to excuse spousal or acquaintance assaults, or claiming "date rape" is somehow nebulous and less serious than "forcible rape". You have legislators trying to make such garbage the law again. Sexual assault laws didn't apply to married couples on this continent until unnervingly recently, and it is practically ignored in many other places, even though spouses commit at least a tenth of all sexual assaults.


I agree. The flip side, however, is that seems to be some people who want to change the spirit of the law from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" when it comes to rape. There also seems to be a double standard when it comes to consent. For example, if a man and a woman get equally drunk and have sex without either of them giving consent, and they both wake up in the morning and regret it, certain... individuals would claim that the woman was raped whereas the man was not. There's also the devastating power of false accusations (which, although very rare, seem to be getting less rare).
 
2012-08-30 07:39:59 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: WhippingBoy: PlatinumDragon: WhippingBoy: ParallelUniverseParking: Don't teach women what to wear - teach men not to rape.

You may not have intended it, but your comment is one of the most disgustingly sexist things I've heard in a while.

Well, you can tell people in general not to rape, and that's an equitable enough statement. The fact that the overwhelming majority of assaults on people - male, female, transmale/female - are committed by men is something worth studying. All else being equal, the rate of assault should be close to equal between men and women. It's not, not even close, and there are people who've been trying to figure out why.

You're arguing that most rapists are men; I agree that this is true.
I'm arguing that most men are not rapists; therefore the general, unqualified statement "teach men not to rape" is insulting and sexist. I don't know any men who need to be taught not to rape.

Sorry if it offends your fragile ego that men are the aggressors more often than women and maybe something should be done about it. Maybe if more men stopped thinking "She's dressed in a way I find hot, she obviously wants me to lay her" and stopped trying to pin the world's problems on women (even the Bible states that it's all woman's fault we're where we are today), we wouldn't be having these problems.

If you're a kind and understanding guy, good for you. You don't need to get indignant and offended for the rest of malekind when someone suggests that more men could be like you.


I'm not personally offended. I'm just saying you're going to have a more difficult time convincing people of the validity of your argument if you treat them with contempt and disrespect. I don't think a lot will get accomplished if we adopt an "us" vs. "them" mentality.
 
2012-08-30 07:45:19 PM

WhippingBoy: ParallelUniverseParking: Don't teach women what to wear - teach men not to rape.

You may not have intended it, but your comment is one of the most disgustingly sexist things I've heard in a while.


You may not have intended it, but your comment to my comment is one of the most dumbest things I've read in a while.
 
2012-08-30 07:48:26 PM

PlatinumDragon: WhippingBoy: PlatinumDragon: WhippingBoy: ParallelUniverseParking: Don't teach women what to wear - teach men not to rape.

You may not have intended it, but your comment is one of the most disgustingly sexist things I've heard in a while.

Well, you can tell people in general not to rape, and that's an equitable enough statement. The fact that the overwhelming majority of assaults on people - male, female, transmale/female - are committed by men is something worth studying. All else being equal, the rate of assault should be close to equal between men and women. It's not, not even close, and there are people who've been trying to figure out why.

You're arguing that most rapists are men; I agree that this is true.
I'm arguing that most men are not rapists; therefore the general, unqualified statement "teach men not to rape" is insulting and sexist. I don't know any men who need to be taught not to rape.

The problem, as demonstrated by the ongoing Julian Assange debacle, is that a lot of people who wouldn't consider themselves rapists are willing to tolerate acts that are, in fact, rape, or excuse otherwise obvious acts of assault because they like the alleged rapist. You're correct in that most men don't commit sexual assault, but I strongly suspect a lot of people don't quite understand what "consent" means, or don't really care. Some of them have demonstrated as much in this thread, and other comment threads. This results in people trying to excuse spousal or acquaintance assaults, or claiming "date rape" is somehow nebulous and less serious than "forcible rape". You have legislators trying to make such garbage the law again. Sexual assault laws didn't apply to married couples on this continent until unnervingly recently, and it is practically ignored in many other places, even though spouses commit at least a tenth of all sexual assaults.


Well said.
 
2012-08-30 07:51:35 PM

ParallelUniverseParking: WhippingBoy: ParallelUniverseParking: Don't teach women what to wear - teach men not to rape.

You may not have intended it, but your comment is one of the most disgustingly sexist things I've heard in a while.

You may not have intended it, but your comment to my comment is one of the most dumbest things I've read in a while.


Thanks. I try my best.
 
2012-08-30 08:44:31 PM

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: This is good advice, from a family planning perspective. I mean, if you don't dress like a whore, then you can't get pregnant according to Todd Akin.

Theaetetus, you outed yourself as a witch-hunting, bigoted feminist in the recent "Oklahoma Hate Crimes" threads. Your opinion has no relevance anymore.

Have a nice day.


Oh little guy, looks like your feelings got hurt. But your Fark handle makes you such an easy target.
Have a Kleenex.
 
2012-08-30 08:50:15 PM

Mr. Right: PlatinumDragon:

BTW, while no means no and how a woman is dressed in no way permits a man to take any liberties with her whatsoever, let's also make clear that when an attractive woman is provocatively dressed, men will look. I understand that drooling is classless but when an attractive woman is wandering the beach in 3 postage stamps and a small piece of yarn, men are going to stare, unless accompanied by a sharp-elbowed spouse. And even then, we're going to get the most out of our peripheral vision. Still no permission to touch or otherwise harass, but we will gaze longingly. And she was asking for that.


why the fark are you writing this? Relevancy? Because posting this derp in a rape thread kind of sounds like you might really believe women who dress like "whores" really sorta kinda are responsible for unwanted anything, up to and maybe sorta including rape. But you know you'll get pummelled for saying it outright, so you just go up to the line but don't cross it.
 
2012-08-30 08:56:42 PM

precious_crotchflake: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: This is good advice, from a family planning perspective. I mean, if you don't dress like a whore, then you can't get pregnant according to Todd Akin.

Theaetetus, you outed yourself as a witch-hunting, bigoted feminist in the recent "Oklahoma Hate Crimes" threads. Your opinion has no relevance anymore.

Have a nice day.

Oh little guy, looks like your feelings got hurt. But your Fark handle makes you such an easy target.
Have a Kleenex.


I have no feelings.
 
2012-08-30 09:12:57 PM

precious_crotchflake: Mr. Right: PlatinumDragon:

BTW, while no means no and how a woman is dressed in no way permits a man to take any liberties with her whatsoever, let's also make clear that when an attractive woman is provocatively dressed, men will look. I understand that drooling is classless but when an attractive woman is wandering the beach in 3 postage stamps and a small piece of yarn, men are going to stare, unless accompanied by a sharp-elbowed spouse. And even then, we're going to get the most out of our peripheral vision. Still no permission to touch or otherwise harass, but we will gaze longingly. And she was asking for that.

why the fark are you writing this? Relevancy? Because posting this derp in a rape thread kind of sounds like you might really believe women who dress like "whores" really sorta kinda are responsible for unwanted anything, up to and maybe sorta including rape. But you know you'll get pummelled for saying it outright, so you just go up to the line but don't cross it.



I think he's undelicately pointing out that the oft-mentioned "it" provocatively dressed and/or scantily clad women are "asking for" is the visual attention (and lustful thoughts) of surrounding males, nothing more. Not a good rogering, as some would like to suggest.

Perhaps it's also a commentary on how some clueless women will liken a boorish gaze to 'visual rape', or some other nonsense, which is ironic, since a woman can generally control, with their fashion choices, how much unsavoury visual attention they attract (to a degree; "men are pigs" and whatnot), whereas they can't similarly control their rape victimhood.
 
2012-08-30 09:16:11 PM

WhoGAS: Theaetetus: WhoGAS:
Oh, wait a minute, now. When did we switch to the punishment phase of this?

Am I punishing a stranger by laughing behind their back, no.

I disagree. Where they're a victim of a crime, laughing at them is minimizing the crime, particularly where you laugh at them based on an action or trait that is associated with the crime, even if it's done so erroneously. It sends a public message that you believe they're less worthy of sympathy and status as a member of society, and I find that despicable.

I did not ask what you'd do on a jury. What you do in public is enough.

Oh. Okay. That's cool, then. I can agree that you have an opinion on that. I disagree with the assumption but okay.

Have a beer now? Or did I misjudge your intellect?


What is this weird "will you be my friend?" thing you have going on? You've said some really asinine stuff here, (telling everyone that some rape victims are "worthier" of your sympathy than others? Why do you think your ignorant opinion is any yardstick for doling out who should get what kind of treatment?) But seriously, you just sound really lonely and awkward, trolling for beer buddies here. Might have to do with your arrogance about what you think rape victims deserve. Makes for very creepy company.
 
2012-08-30 09:21:25 PM

Loomy: precious_crotchflake: Mr. Right: PlatinumDragon:

BTW, while no means no and how a woman is dressed in no way permits a man to take any liberties with her whatsoever, let's also make clear that when an attractive woman is provocatively dressed, men will look. I understand that drooling is classless but when an attractive woman is wandering the beach in 3 postage stamps and a small piece of yarn, men are going to stare, unless accompanied by a sharp-elbowed spouse. And even then, we're going to get the most out of our peripheral vision. Still no permission to touch or otherwise harass, but we will gaze longingly. And she was asking for that.

why the fark are you writing this? Relevancy? Because posting this derp in a rape thread kind of sounds like you might really believe women who dress like "whores" really sorta kinda are responsible for unwanted anything, up to and maybe sorta including rape. But you know you'll get pummelled for saying it outright, so you just go up to the line but don't cross it.


I think he's undelicately pointing out that the oft-mentioned "it" provocatively dressed and/or scantily clad women are "asking for" is the visual attention (and lustful thoughts) of surrounding males, nothing more. Not a good rogering, as some would like to suggest.

Perhaps it's also a commentary on how some clueless women will liken a boorish gaze to 'visual rape', or some other nonsense, which is ironic, since a woman can generally control, with their fashion choices, how much unsavoury visual attention they attract (to a degree; "men are pigs" and whatnot), whereas they can't similarly control their rape victimhood.


yes,I understand, what I'm saying it the context is just peculiar. I'm just wondering why there is always some guy who feels a thread about rape is the right place to get into the whole "but women who dress provocatively like the attention" thing.
 
2012-08-30 09:48:28 PM

precious_crotchflake: Loomy: precious_crotchflake: Mr. Right: PlatinumDragon:

BTW, while no means no and how a woman is dressed in no way permits a man to take any liberties with her whatsoever, let's also make clear that when an attractive woman is provocatively dressed, men will look. I understand that drooling is classless but when an attractive woman is wandering the beach in 3 postage stamps and a small piece of yarn, men are going to stare, unless accompanied by a sharp-elbowed spouse. And even then, we're going to get the most out of our peripheral vision. Still no permission to touch or otherwise harass, but we will gaze longingly. And she was asking for that.

why the fark are you writing this? Relevancy? Because posting this derp in a rape thread kind of sounds like you might really believe women who dress like "whores" really sorta kinda are responsible for unwanted anything, up to and maybe sorta including rape. But you know you'll get pummelled for saying it outright, so you just go up to the line but don't cross it.


I think he's undelicately pointing out that the oft-mentioned "it" provocatively dressed and/or scantily clad women are "asking for" is the visual attention (and lustful thoughts) of surrounding males, nothing more. Not a good rogering, as some would like to suggest.

Perhaps it's also a commentary on how some clueless women will liken a boorish gaze to 'visual rape', or some other nonsense, which is ironic, since a woman can generally control, with their fashion choices, how much unsavoury visual attention they attract (to a degree; "men are pigs" and whatnot), whereas they can't similarly control their rape victimhood.

yes,I understand, what I'm saying it the context is just peculiar. I'm just wondering why there is always some guy who feels a thread about rape is the right place to get into the whole "but women who dress provocatively like the attention" thing.


This isn't a thread about rape. It's a thread about women dressing like whores.
 
2012-08-30 10:45:55 PM

precious_crotchflake: yes,I understand, what I'm saying it the context is just peculiar. I'm just wondering why there is always some guy who feels a thread about rape is the right place to get into the whole "but women who dress provocatively like the attention" thing.


This is a thread about dressing like a whore. It has been posited that rape may be precipitated by a woman's dress. I think it has been pretty well argued that how a woman dresses is never an excuse for rape, if for no other reason than rape is inexcusable. But it was also argued that another reason that dress is probably not a reason women get raped is that forcible rape is not about sex or being sexy. It is about controlling and terrorizing the victim. The goal is to demean the victim and destroy her security and self-confidence.

I made the comment about women dressing provocatively because I don't think women who dress very provocatively are doing themselves any favors in the respect department. As much as I enjoy feminine beauty, it does not have to be crassly displayed in order to be attractive. My argument is that a woman who wears 3 postage stamps and a bit of string to the beach is going to get attention and it will not be respectful attention. It is, in my opinion, a demonstration of the woman's insecurity and need for attention. It's not hard to get attention when you leave nothing to the imagination.. And while rape is never excused, dressing provocatively will draw attention, even if the woman protests that she doesn't want the attention. As an old professor of mine used to say, "If you keep sending out invitations, don't be surprised when people show up expecting to find a party."
 
2012-08-31 12:22:12 AM

Mr. Right: precious_crotchflake: yes,I understand, what I'm saying it the context is just peculiar. I'm just wondering why there is always some guy who feels a thread about rape is the right place to get into the whole "but women who dress provocatively like the attention" thing.

This is a thread about dressing like a whore. It has been posited that rape may be precipitated by a woman's dress. I think it has been pretty well argued that how a woman dresses is never an excuse for rape, if for no other reason than rape is inexcusable. But it was also argued that another reason that dress is probably not a reason women get raped is that forcible rape is not about sex or being sexy. It is about controlling and terrorizing the victim. The goal is to demean the victim and destroy her security and self-confidence.

I made the comment about women dressing provocatively because I don't think women who dress very provocatively are doing themselves any favors in the respect department. As much as I enjoy feminine beauty, it does not have to be crassly displayed in order to be attractive. My argument is that a woman who wears 3 postage stamps and a bit of string to the beach is going to get attention and it will not be respectful attention. It is, in my opinion, a demonstration of the woman's insecurity and need for attention. It's not hard to get attention when you leave nothing to the imagination.. And while rape is never excused, dressing provocatively will draw attention, even if the woman protests that she doesn't want the attention. As an old professor of mine used to say, "If you keep sending out invitations, don't be surprised when people show up expecting to find a party."


I'm pretty sure not all women who dress "skankily" do it because they have low self-esteem. Some probably enjoy showing off, some are probably confident enough in themselves to not try to hide, and some probably don't give a damn. Plus the fact that a large percentage of rape and assault is by friends, relatives, co-workers, people who would likely not be interested in how she dresses anyway. With total stranger rape, they're not interested in clothes either, they want the woman and it doesn't matter what she's wearing they want what's underneath and to impose themselves upon somebody. Rape is about domination, humiliation, and power far more often than it is about satisfying sexual urges.

Also, going by "The more she shows, the more she'll be wanted and eventually raped", explain why nude beaches (and beaches in general), nudist colonies, swimming pools, and other low-clothing places aren't orgies of rape.
 
2012-08-31 01:28:47 AM

precious_crotchflake: WhoGAS: Theaetetus: WhoGAS:
Oh, wait a minute, now. When did we switch to the punishment phase of this?

Am I punishing a stranger by laughing behind their back, no.

I disagree. Where they're a victim of a crime, laughing at them is minimizing the crime, particularly where you laugh at them based on an action or trait that is associated with the crime, even if it's done so erroneously. It sends a public message that you believe they're less worthy of sympathy and status as a member of society, and I find that despicable.

I did not ask what you'd do on a jury. What you do in public is enough.

Oh. Okay. That's cool, then. I can agree that you have an opinion on that. I disagree with the assumption but okay.

Have a beer now? Or did I misjudge your intellect?

What is this weird "will you be my friend?" thing you have going on? You've said some really asinine stuff here, (telling everyone that some rape victims are "worthier" of your sympathy than others? Why do you think your ignorant opinion is any yardstick for doling out who should get what kind of treatment?) But seriously, you just sound really lonely and awkward, trolling for beer buddies here. Might have to do with your arrogance about what you think rape victims deserve. Makes for very creepy company.


Awwww. Aren't you cute thinking your words have any weight with me. *smooches*
 
2012-08-31 05:53:27 AM
"Stay alert, walk tall, carry mace, take self-defence classes & don't dress like a whore."

If Mittens said the same thing, he'd be crucified instead of just criticized.
 
Displayed 30 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report