Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You said that women aren't responsible for being raped, but you also say that they bring it on themselves with their clothing.
You say one thing then you say another.
Women are never responsible for being raped. Never, under any circumstances.
It doesn't matter what they wear.
Nice attempt to backtrack.
There is no caveat to them not being responsible.
No not even by saying that they should wear different clothing. That's a blame issue.
Where did RAINN talk about what you call "skimpy" clothing?
It doesn't; it's a non-issue.
Violence is violence, with no caveats.
Shame on you, sir.
There's absolutely no backtracking. Just sensible precautions to make oneself less of a target of any crime. I've been saying the same thing from the beginning.
By your logic, if a woman doesn't trust her instinct, doesn't walk with purpose, or is carrying a lot of packages, then she is responsible for whatever happens to her because she didn't heed the suggestions of RAINN.
You're cherry-picking the precautions you think are acceptable. It doesn't work that way. When you're dealing with violent criminals driven by a desire for power over their victims, whether to steal their money or beat them or rape them, any precautions taken to minimize the sense that such a criminal could establish power over a person are wise to take.
When I sense a potentially dangerous situation (trust my instinct), I walk with purpose and avoid isolation. If I'm attacked, though, I'm certainly not responsible for the crime. The perpetrator is responsible. I'm simply taking actions to minimize the risk of attack in the first place.
There's absolutely no backtracking. Just sensible precautions to make oneself less of a target of any crime. I've been saying the same thing from the beginning.
By your logic, if a woman doesn't trust her instinct, doesn't walk with purpose, or is carrying a lot of packages, then she is responsible for whatever happens to her because she didn't heed the suggestions of RAINN.
You're cherry-picking the precautions you think are acceptable. It doesn't work that way. When you're dealing with violent criminals driven by a desire for power over their victims, whether to steal their money or beat them or rape them, any precautions taken to minimize the sense that such a criminal could establish power over a person are wise to take.
When I sense a potentially dangerous situation (trust my instinct), I walk with purpose and avoid isolation. If I'm attacked, though, I'm certainly not responsible for the crime. The perpetrator is responsible. I'm simply taking actions to minimize the risk of attack in the first place.
No, I'm not.
And unless you've been a victim, you can spout off all you like and make caveats and blaming.
That's on you. There is never, under any circumstance, at any time, a reason to rape a woman.
She is never at fault.
You're still saying that the woman is to blame. Based on your instincts, she should do x, y, z. How do you know that she doesn't? It's still your blame game.
No, I'm not.
And unless you've been a victim, you can spout off all you like and make caveats and blaming.
That's on you. There is never, under any circumstance, at any time, a reason to rape a woman.
She is never at fault.
You're still saying that the woman is to blame. Based on your instincts, she should do x, y, z. How do you know that she doesn't? It's still your blame game.
Shameful.
I can't even follow the logic of your argument anymore. I think any reasonable person would see that I'm not saying anything close to what you're accusing me of saying.
It's really outrageous - beyond words - that you could read what I wrote ("If I'm attacked, though, I'm certainly not responsible for the crime. The perpetrator is responsible") and somehow say to me, "There is never, under any circumstance, at any time, a reason to rape a woman."
Gee. Thanks. I'll make a note of it. Oh wait. I've said that about 4 times in this thread alone.
Perhaps you're blinded by some rage from a bad experience. Perhaps you're just conditioned into a response. I don't know. Please read my posts for comprehension. If you're going to promote the suggestions given by RAINN for people to take actions that minimize risk of attack, then you're just being hypocritical to attack me for saying the same thing.
I'm done here. Please don't respond. Your accusations are simply appalling.
A lot of you talk about how everyone should have freedom of religion (Islam), freedom of speech, nationalized healthcare, etc. But a woman shouldn't feel free to wear what she wants to DECREASE her chances of being raped?????
This is absurd.
Rape is simply about power and control - nothing more.
The inmates I worked with told me things that would make them assault (or not assault) a particular woman. What she was wearing had no bearing. In fact one of the biggest things a woman (or a man) can do to diminish her chances of being assaulted is carry an umbrella.
That said, if a guy is out to gain his feeling for power and control, he'll get beyond it. If he wants it to happen, it will happen. Then he will look for his target, but once again, it will have nothing to do with what she is wearing.
Let's not go on preaching freedoms, but yet trying to insinuate that a female can diminish her chances of being raped, simply by wearing different clothing.
A woman walking in a bad area is just as likely to be attacked, regardless of clothing, as a man. Only with the man, they perpetrator will probably rob and beat the man without raping. Still just power and control.
Do you think women are taking too little responsibility to decrease their chances of being raped?
I was reading a news article and a police officer was reprimanded for advising women to dress less provocatively.
The second paragraph seems to be to indicate that rape is inevitable and that there nothing women can do to avoid it.
It makes no sense. No one deserves anything bad to happen but there's always ways to decrease one's risk. It seems that everytime we give advice to women regarding rape, people will always claim that "we're blaming the victim".
An inproperly parked car doesn't deserve to be scraped, but that doesn't mean that I have no responsibility in parking it properly. You can argue that a drunk, alone, and provocatively dressed women have the right to walk home at 12AM. But, would you want your daughter to do that? Wouldn't you tell her to be more sober and take the taxi home?
I had a crusty old supervisor who once told me that the company's receptionist was "just asking to be raped" because she occasionally showed cleavage and sometimes wore short skirts. I told him that he had a right to his opinion but it was right up there with one of the most idiotic opinions I'd ever heard. And seeing that I've been reading posts at the City-Data website for a year or so now, that's saying something.
People are not monks or nuns with chastity belts mostly. They react to their (some would say God given) urges. It's normal. It's OK.
Don't 'provoke' if you DO NOT want to be 'provked'
They are also in possession of the (some would say God-given) sense to control themselves and have compassion and respect for other human beings. We do not just live by acting on basic physical urges.
You can use that argument for just about anything. How is it different from:
People can do everything in their power to get a job, yet some people will still be unemployed. Let's stop wasting time writing resumes then.
Kids can do everything in their power to avoid being bullied, yet some still do. Let's stop teaching them social skills.
People can still do everything in their power to avoid getting hit by cars, yet some people will still get hit by drunk drivers. Let's stop using the sidewalk and start walking randomly.
What part of "decreasing" risk do you not understand? I never said that all risk will be elminated.
Of course there will be some who are simply unemployable, but that doesn't mean we don't attempt to help them become employable. (BTW, at 60 years old, I've never written a resume in my life - not all jobs require them.)
It's not the kids being bullied who need to stop the bullies. It's the kids who are doing the bullying who need to learn social skills so they might learn and understand why bullying is wrong.
Again, it's not those who are hit by a car who need to change their actions - it's those who drive the cars they are hit by who need to learn to properly handle the car. Who need to learn NOT to get behind the wheel when they've been drinking.
When it comes to rape, in most cases it makes no difference how the woman is dressed or where or when she might be walking. Rape is not about sexuality; it's about power and control. Do you really think someone who rapes a senior citizen in the middle of the morning as she steps out her front door to get the mail from her mailbox wearing a jogging suit is interested in her sexuality?
Are you talking about the 80 year-old grandmothers who get raped in their homes, or the teenage girls who are raped by the basketball coach? Are those the "they" of which you speak?
Honestly this notion that a woman bears any responsibility at all for the fact that some animal is unable to control his sexual aggression is entirely repugnant to me.
Sorry, but the responsibility for rape lies squarely on the shoulders of the perpetrator. Perpetuating any kind of myth that women were in any way culpable makes people complicit in my mind.
Stop perpetuating these myths.
Thank you! (I'd have rep'd you, but I just did for an earlier post.)
Good lord. Stop hijacking this thread with another topic! This thread is about taking responsibility for reducing risk of being a victim of a crime. Please read the OP more thoroughly in the future and resist knee-jerk, emotional reactions.
How did Zimbochick "hijack" the thread? Even the title makes this about rape!
No, but the women dressing all up for a night , behaving 'loose' at a bar, and then complaining. Why do it in the first place?
So you think women shouldn't dress up, shouldn't go out for a drink or two? Sorry, but staying home, dressed in a jogging suit and having a cup of tea with a friend (whether the friend is male or female) is no guarantee she won't be raped at some time in her life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh wait. I've said that about 4 times in this thread alone. 
(I'd have rep'd you, but I just did for an earlier post.)