Invitation to Rape?

[sami]

I'm not at all saying men should not be held responsible for their actions. However, girls should also understand human nature, hormones and the rules of the game. There are girls who can really drive men creasy . Some are a complete turn off no matter how revealing they may dress. So it all depends.

[midori]

Originally posted by sami

I'm not at all saying men should not be held responsible for their actions. However, girls should also understand human nature, hormones and the rules of the game. There are girls who can really drive men creasy . Some are a complete turn off no matter how revealing they may dress. So it all depends.

 

I'd be careful about using a "human nature" argument, because that ultimately leads right back to men not being able to be fully in control of themselves. If you argue that it's "human nature" for men to rape once they're aroused to a certain point, then the only logical conclusion is that all men must be restricted, constrained, and controlled, for their own sakes, and for society's.

 

Women who dress in a way that invites men to think about having sex with them might well be arousing. But inviting men to think about having sex with her does not give them -- not ever, no matter how much you might wish it did -- the right to force her to have sex with them. Just as having something valuable and desirable might invite others to think about how nice it would be to have the object for themselves. They do not, not ever, no matter what, have the right to steal.

 

It's weird how some people just don't get that.

[midori]

Originally posted by sami

the rules of the game. There are girls who can really drive men creasy.

 

What rule is that? Might makes right? An aroused man must be satisfied, and it's a woman's job to satisfy him?

[sami]

It is the woman's job not to arouse him.

[midori]

Originally posted by sami

It is the woman's job not to arouse him.

 

Interesting rationale. So for your average American guy that "arousing" threshhold would be: tight shirt, short skirt, and high heels, or something similar, right? But for the Taliban, it would be any visible portion of a woman's body -- hair, toe, eyelash, anything. Or a cloaked female figure, unescorted. Or not sufficiently escorted to provide adequate protection from a man's lust.

 

I'm sorry sami, but I think your idea doesn't hold water. If a man decides he wants to steal your nice shiny new car, is it your fault for having the car in the first place? If I'm dressed conservatively and quietly doing my grocery shopping, does a man who gets aroused by the sight of me examining a bunch of bananas have the right to assault me? What's the standard?

 

Do you really think that people can blame others for their actions?

 

But ladies, take note: it's this attitude that makes uriel's and others' warnings very, very necessary. You will run into this attitude in more places than you might imagine. It's convenient to blame thwarted lust on the perceived object of desire.

[sami]

You completely misunderstood my point. You may put it in any context you want.

[shamen]

Originally posted by midori

But ladies, take note: it's this attitude that makes uriel's and others' warnings very, very necessary. You will run into this attitude in more places than you might imagine. It's convenient to blame thwarted lust on the perceived object of desire.

 

Point taken.

[meanon]

The warning is necessary yet it reinforces the tendency to believe that the victim is somehow to blame. This effect is not so apparent for warnings given in similar situations. Young women at Uni for the first time are routinely issued with rape alarms yet there is never a suggestion that they were lacking in judgement if they were not carrying it when they were attacked. We are told to look both ways before we cross the road but if you are mown down on a pedestrian crossing there isn't a debate about the hazards of not being cautious enough. Not that I'm critcising the debate. I just think it's interesting that dress is such an emotive subject, linked as it is to the sexuality of young women.

 

Yes we should warn but the young often ignore such advice, it's their nature. All the cautions will not stop the majority flaunting their sexuality (both genders) and making mistakes. Both are part of growing up. In adulthood we are wiser but use this wisdom in different ways, making different judgements on how far to compromise personal freedoms to limit risk.

[moimeme]

when men get aroused they loose control

 

Oh bullfeathers! What a steaming pile of crap! Men get aroused if a breeze blows and very few of them 'loose' control (BY THE WAY, THE WORD IS LOSE - ONE O).

 

The ones who do LOSE control, of course, need to be locked up since they are missing some elemental mental functioning; the bit called 'self-control'.

 

I got news for you , Sami boy. You try that little defense of yours about losing control in court and your butt would be in jail so fast you wouldn't notice you still had it until the big guy in the next bed grabbed it.

[RowanRavyn]

Originally posted by moimeme

when men get aroused they loose control

 

Oh bullfeathers! What a steaming pile of crap! Men get aroused if a breeze blows and very few of them 'loose' control (BY THE WAY, THE WORD IS LOSE - ONE O).

 

The ones who do LOSE control, of course, need to be locked up since they are missing some elemental mental functioning; the bit called 'self-control'.

 

I got news for you , Sami boy. You try that little defense of yours about losing control in court and your butt would be in jail so fast you wouldn't notice you still had it until the big guy in the next bed grabbed it.

 

 

 

Thank you Moi! UGH!

 

This thread is getting under my skin. We are all responsible for our behaviors but where is that thin line and WHO defines when it is crossed?

 

Just how are we supposed to "know" these predators? Is it supposed to be marked on them some where OR are we to assume that all men are dangerous predators and therefore live our lives in fear? Its BS. (I apologize for making this gender specific, but this is personal for me.)

 

At fifteen I had the body of a much older woman. I dressed conservatively. I was dating a guy from church, and BECAUSE he was from church my parents trusted him. He took me to his parents for "dinner". No one was home. My mother had frequently voiced a belief that if a man can get it in you, then you asked for it. (Her opinion has changed as she got older). With this knowledge he raped me. He knew I wouldn't tell. The marks I left on him, he claimed a cat attacked him. When I cried he told me I looked like a woman to shut up and act like one.

 

I did not ask for this.

 

As some of you have read I later ended up in a Domestic Violence relationship that lasted for ten years. When I talked about what was happening...I was told that I needed to pray more, fast more and submit more.

 

I have been blessed to have wonderful counselors, and I refuse to walk around bitter and looking over my shoulder. I may be a statistic, but I am not a victim anymore.

[uriel]

"But ladies, take note: it's this attitude that makes uriel's and others' warnings very, very necessary. You will run into this attitude in more places than you might imagine. It's convenient to blame thwarted lust on the perceived object of desire."

 

Thanks, Midori. I believe this sort of outdated patriarchal thinking is far more dangerous to women than their open expression of their sexuality (which would, in an ideal world, be as safe and permissable as any man's).

 

I wish I were surprised to hear Sami expressing this attitude about women getting what they deserve for teasing men. I actually have a better view of men in general than Sami's posts seem to portray. Most men do control themselves, whatever the "provocation." Plenty of good guys take a drunk girl home and see her safely to her door ONLY without taking advantage.

 

Men's control decreases in certain crowd / peer environments -- as does their tendency toward any violence. That, I'm afraid, is human nature -- based on sound social psychological research. However, even in such hotbed environments as Tailhook or the LA Riots, some individuals of character -- many in fact -- resist the draw of the temporary violent majority. And, those hotbed environments in general may contain what is NOT a representative sampling of men -- but a group of younger, more immature, more traditional, and (depending on the venue) more aroused or disaffected men than the average draw off the street.

 

Let's do as Midori is doing, and give men credit for the capacity for self-restraint. They have it -- and we should surely, as a society, expect them to use it.

 

-- uriel

[FolderWife]

I don't think anyone contributing to this thread thinks that a woman wearing a skimpy skirt is asking to be raped. A woman walking the streets alone at night isn't asking to be raped either. A woman who leaves her door unlocked while she's home isn't asking for it either.

 

The point is, women need to be a LOT more careful. If there's a sicko rapist running around, are you going to go out in a mini skirt and halter top, or are you going to dress more casual?

 

That's a bad example. Ok, I look at EVERY man as a possible attacker. If I'm out at night, I carry my keys like the teacher in "The Faculty" did, so I can do some damage. I don't chat on a cell phone while I'm walking about, I keep my eyes and ears open and focused, so I can be alert.

 

No, wearing skimpy clothes is not an invitation to rape, and not, it's not up to the woman to dress down so a guy won't attack her. It's not her fault.

 

But if some sicko is out there, and he sees a woman wearing nearly nothing, he may think in his sick head that she wants to have sex, so he forces it on her. Or, if he's a sicko, he just gets aroused at the sight of her, and attacks her.

 

I think any woman should be more aware of how she portrays herself.

 

Heck forget the possiblity of a rapist thinking your asking for it by dressing like a ho....why would you want people looking at you and thinking your a slut because of the way you dress??? You can be sexy without looking trashy.

[FolderWife]

I'm not sure what I'm even arguing for any more. I guess I'm trying to say that women need to be more careful, because they are doing dumb things and getting raped.

 

Take the Kobe Bryant case for instance. She claims that she went back to his hotel room with him willingly, and was making out with him, but then tried to stop it. She didn't ask for it, but she certainly wasn't very smart about it.

[sami]

The whole Koby Brayant's case is mystry to me. It is indeed an unusual case.

[Fayebelle]

It's a BS case. Trials like this make it harder on other rape survivors when they go to court. That woman seems sheisty- I think she's in it for the $- but precidents set in this high profile case will carry over to other trials.

[HokeyReligions]

Something sami said made me think of this. A few years ago I was sitting in a court room and listening to trials and taking notes, etc. for a course I was taking.

 

One of the cases was a woman suing her employer for not providing adequate safety measures against theft at work, she was robbed as well as the store, and she wanted her employer to compensate her for her personal loss.

 

The woman worked in a retail store and worked either on the floor (stocking, etc.) or as a cashier. All the employees were multi-taskers.

 

This woman was at the cash register when some suspicious people came in. No one else was on the floor--she was alone in the store. Anyway, they robbed the store, and also took her diamond rings, bracelets, necklace and earrings - that were much more valuable than the money the thieves got. In court the woman presented an official appraisal of the value of the pieces she lost. They were not insured.

 

The judge determined that even though procedures were not followed in the store and determined that if procedures HAD been followed(always supposed to be two people on the floor, failure to use appropriate emergency signal, etc.) that the robbery could have been prevented.

 

The judge denied her suit and then told her that she should not have worn her jewelry to the store that from now on she should wear her jewelry appropriately and to appropriate places, and that her job was not a place to wear a diamond bracelet or earrings!!

 

THAT is the kind of thinking that is still reflected in courtrooms regarding rape and victim responsibility. There was a case years ago where the victim was admonished for not wearing panty hose under her dress. It was determined by a judge that if she had been wearing panty hose, the rapist would not have had time to rip them off and rape her, or something like that (I don't remember the whole case, but I do remember reading about the 'panty hose defense' in a rape case) I think the rapist was still convicted, but to tell a woman that she could have prevented the rape by wearing panty hose which do not allow rapid easy access, is just horrible! That was back in the 50's or 60's I think.

[Fayebelle]

b/c the woman begged him to wear a condom- he broke in to her home - stripped her of her nightgown- and raped her. The judge felt that asking him to use protection constituted permission!

[Bronzepen]

I read about another case where the judge said that it was consensual and not rape because the woman wore real tight jeans and the rapist could not have taken her pants off against her will. Only she could have taken her pants off, thus she was consenting.

[Fayebelle]

One group of drunk guys gang raped a girl at the beach and said she was "asking for it" sitting on a bench w/her legs open and skirt hiked up. They all testified that she was "showing her goods". Then the survivor came in....w/her seeing eye dog! Their defense was totally blown! The drunk a**h***s never realized the girl was blind and had no way of knowing her knickers were visible.

[Moose]

From what I gathered, and to consolidate everyone's responses:

 

It's not only the way some women dress, it's how they carry themselves, and what situation they happen to be in. We all agree that some form of warning should be instilled in women to always beware of the possibilities and keep their guard up. Don't put yourself in that situation.

 

My wife told me the other day driving home that she can understand now where I was coming from. Here was a young girl holding up a sign for a free car wash in a two piece, dancing around, showing her behind and smacking it while perfect strangers drove by hanging out their windows whistling and running into ditches.....What would stop a couple of guys in a pick up if they pulled up to her, knocked her upside the head, threw her in and take off? Chances are somone would see it.....but damage has already been done. What if by chance they did get away with getting her to a secluded area? Then more damage is done.

 

I'm just saying, that if the elements are present, ( I would almost say they are ALWAYS present because you don't know who's a sicko and who isn't ), then why even chance dressing skimpy when something like this could happen.

 

Rape is a terrible, terrible trauma.....that's why I think it's very important to remove the elements that may cause it. And that's why I'm concerned with the way my wife dresses sometimes.

[YellowLioness]

Even if you have never been violated, you still must understand that rape is not O.K. under any circumstances.

 

How is it that you think women invite rape? I don't think that anyone invites it, which makes it rape.

 

If the woman wanted the sex then it would not be a crime.

 

 

 

Crime=Wrong.

 

Are you following me?

 

Rape is wrong, therefore, under any circumstance. If the victim is asleep when it happens, if she is wearing no underwear and a tight dress... none of that matters.

 

If she is saying "No" or "stop" or "that makes me uncomfortable" then to go further is a crime, regardless of how she is acting, where she is, or what she is wearing. It doesn't matter if she was flirty before. The moment she says no, the physical contact needs to stop.

[midori]

Originally posted by Moose

 

I'm just saying, that if the elements are present, ( I would almost say they are ALWAYS present because you don't know who's a sicko and who isn't ), then why even chance dressing skimpy when something like this could happen.

 

But the thing is, a determined sicko isn't going to be stopped by what a woman is wearing. At the end of the day it's a pretty simple formula: situation where woman doesn't want to have sex = situation where sex should not be occurring.

 

I think there are other issues buried in this, and they're definitely worth discussing, although I think they belong in a different thread. What about women who use their sexuality -- even their sexual behavior -- to manipulate men? What about those girls running the car wash that Moose saw? Sounds like Moose was simply disgusted by their behavior. I'd be willing to bet that there were more than a few male passersby who appreciated the view, and perhaps the girls actually did get some customers who thought that just maybe they'd come away with more than a clean car (like a phone number or a date). Is it fair for women to manipulate men with the suggestion of sex? A huge portion of our advertising industry thinks so!

 

I think it's wrong to use sexuality for personal gain, although at the same time I don't have a problem with strippers or prostitutes -- not that I patronize them -- because there the exchange is blatant. In other situations that's not the case. Whether it's "sleeping your way to the top" (and while it's not fair to assume a successful woman has done that to get ahead, let's face it, it does happen), or a woman flirting with a guy so that he'll buy her a drink, although she has no intention of giving him her number, I think it's dishonest and wrong to manipulate others with sex, or to try to substitute sex for merit in order to get rewards you haven't legitimately earned.

 

But the question doesn't belong in a rape discussion thread. If a woman strips naked in front of you and then says "no no, you mustn't touch," then you mustn't touch. You might get a thorough disgust of the woman in question and decide to never have anything to do with her again. That would be a reasonable response to such provocation.

 

It's simply never OK to force someone to have sex, no matter how alluring they are, no matter how promiscuously you think they are dressed or behaving -- I think we're all pretty much in agreement on that one.

[jesicka30]

okey lets say its the exact same situation your wife is at the neibors apt and the pillow fight occures but what if she was wearing a sweatsuit 2 sizes too big. now what im wondering is if the rapist puts in his head that the victom realy wants it cuz shes dress sum what skimpy or if he wanted to rape he would do so anyway.

[fritziematt]

I don't think that clothes or dress or how a woman carries herself has anything to do with rape. I think it has nothing to do with the victim but with the rapists and their mind set and fantasies. Most rapists when asked don't even remember what their victim was wearing or looked like...they find someone who they can control that they can get to when the victim is alone...it's not really about sexual attraction...

 

This is a good article...

[fritziematt]

Originally posted by uriel

As for the discussion of Muslim prohibitions in women's dress, I just want to say that these are as much about controlling women's sexuality as supposedly guarding them for their own welfare. Genital mutilation, also promoted in Muslim-influenced African cultures, is likewise about controlling women's sexuality -- even more so.

 

I don't buy these modern pro-coverage arguments about the primary goal of the dress being women's protection (although I've heard many Muslim women say it gives them that feeling of security). Women are more often than not punished in such cultures for being victims of rape -- even to the point of being slain in "honor" killings.

 

 

 

-- uriel

 

 

Here are some quotes from the Qur'an and other holy writings of Islam (they are considered inspired by Allah by many Muslims...but not all) about women and covering themselves...

 

Qur’an 33:59 “Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and all Muslim women to draw cloaks and veils all over their bodies (screening themselves completely except for one or two eyes to see the way). That will be better.”

 

Qur’an 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”

 

Bukhari:V1B22N28 “The Prophet said: ‘I was shown the Hell Fire and the majority of its dwellers were women who are disbelievers or ungrateful.’ When asked what they were ungrateful for, the Prophet answered, ‘All the favors done for them by their husbands.’”

 

Tabari I:280 “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”

 

Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”

 

Bukhari:V4B55N547 “The Prophet said, ‘But for the Israelis, meat would not decay, and if it were not for Eve, wives would never betray their husbands.’”

 

Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

 

Ishaq:584 “Tell the men with you who have wives: never trust a woman.”

 

 

It all about control of women...if a woman is raped it's her fault because she betrayed her husband and seduced the rapist to do it...that's why there are honor killings. Plus the testimony of a man is worth the testimony of four women because they are stupid I guess...