Originally Posted by Amaryll

Since we've touched on comparison using the topic of theft.

Hey guys. My neighbours in residence are rather trusting and often leave their door unlocked while we're all sitting around in the common room. One of them has a daaaamn sexy computer that he's shown off quite a few times. So I'm thinking, I'm going to go in one day while they're in the common room and take it, because the little ***** is just asking for it. Same on him for being trusting enough to leave his door unlocked for a while and for showing off his sexy, sexy laptop without considering that it may tempt people. It's not my fault he's made me want it so badly. It's his responsibility to be careful with his shit!

Not the point people are making. They're saying that in the situation you were the kind of person to steal computers, the person who leaves their door unlocked has a greater chance of being robbed than the person who doesn't. The point thats's being made was in counter to Amy's point that in no other crime are you expected to have some responsibility for taking precaution. The point is that yes..you are expected to take precaution in other crime's as well.
Like many have said, no one deserves to be raped (or in this case robbed). You might just want to take precautions, because if someone really wants to rape (or rob you)-provided this is one of those rare random type of rapes(as opposed to the ones where you know the person)-then there are a few precautions you can take (staying with friends etc.).

Originally Posted by Andrew A

... wat

I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance of that example.

It has been brought up that cases of rape may be treated differently compared to other crimes.

"However, the law can often discriminate against rape victims in a manner which would not be tolerated by victims of any other crime. In the following example, a holdup victim is asked questions similar in form to those usually asked a victim of rape."

Which part of this was not clear?

Originally Posted by crazyfree

Not the point people are making. They're saying that in the situation you were the kind of person to steal computers, the person who leaves their door unlocked has a greater chance of being robbed than the person who doesn't. The point thats's being made was in counter to Amy's point that in no other crime are you expected to have some responsibility for taking precaution. The point is that yes..you are expected to take precaution in other crime's as well.
Like many have said, no one deserves to be raped (or in this case robbed). You might just want to take precautions, because if someone really wants to rape (or rob you)-provided this is one of those rare random type of rapes(as opposed to the ones where you know the person)-then there are a few precautions you can take (staying with friends etc.).

I really think you should reread some of PHLN's posts. One example:

Originally Posted by PHLN

A more recent article is found in 2010 involving a male wrongly convicted of rape.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...12/2818094.htm

Not surprisingly the incident involved heavy alcohols. It does reinforce the fact that in 69% of the cases, the women was completely drunk and mislead the male victim 45% of the time. Or the fact that in 76% of the cases, it was deemed uncontrollable for the aggressor. He couldn't resist so to speak.

Originally Posted by Andrew A

... wat

I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance of that example.

Its a perfectly mirror of the issue of a woman 'advertising', 'putting herself out there', and 'asking for it'. Would you like a point by point comparison? The main point illuatrated here is that the counterargument is that a person should change their lifestyle because of the evils some men are capable of.

Originally Posted by amyf

No, the cop doesn't have a good point.
What’s wrong with suggesting that women take precautions to prevent being raped? is an article that might help explain this.

Just as a side note... I was reading through the link you posted and came across this comment, which I totally loved and thought I'd copy/paste here:

Perhaps as a precaution women should at all times wear a badge, or a T-shirt with a slogan on it, or even just get a tattoo on our foreheads saying: “I do not want to be raped.” All those altruistic sexual assaulters out there (“Your honour, I only did it because she wanted me to”) would find it so much less confusing to channel their inner desire to be helpful.
And *if* it doesn’t stop rape it would at least save time in court. Instead of all that searching through a victim’s sexual history, she could just point to her forehead.
But I suppose it could be argued that the victim’s clothing distracted the assaulter from the tattoo, so maybe to clarify things the tattoo needs to be more specific: “No matter what I’m wearing, I do not ever want to be raped.”
Or what if the victim got drunk and passed out – amend that tattoo to read: “No matter what I’m wearing/doing, I do not ever want to be raped.”
Or what if the victim had had sex with her assaulter in the past or she’s had sex with a lot of people – amend that to: “No matter what I’m wearing/doing/what my sexual history is/whether I’ve had sex with you before, I do not ever want to be raped.”
And it is true that occasionally men are raped too, so everyone should have the tattoo. Perhaps on our backs as well as our foreheads, just to cover all bases. It should be done at birth, sadly it’s never too early.
However by now everyone’s forehead and back is full of writing, you could even call it small print. And no-one ever reads the small print, right?
Hang on, I’ve got a better idea: as a precaution, why don’t we teach everyone to just ASSUME that no-one EVER wants to be raped? And even build that assumption into our legal system?
Genius.

I realize this is semi-off topic (I don't think anyone here is arguing that people want to be raped) but I just thought it was interesting.

Originally Posted by Amaryll

I really think you should reread some of PHLN's posts. One example:

I thought it was fairly clear he was trolling/playing devil's advocate. I was really referring to the actual counter-point posts. Beyond that, PHLN's is dealing with a different point, that which concerns the rapist's psyche.

Originally Posted by crazyfree

I thought it was fairly clear he was trolling/playing devil's advocate. I was really referring to the actual counter-point posts. Beyond that, PHLN's is dealing with a different point, that which concerns the rapist's psyche.

No. No, it wasn't clear, until that last post of his, which I saw only after my second-last post. And being closely acquainted with victims of rape, I was nothing short of furious at this shit.

Originally Posted by Amaryll

No. No, it wasn't clear, until that last post of his, which I saw only after my second-last post. And being closely acquainted with victims of rape, I was nothing short of furious at this shit.

That's fair enough. Maybe I spend to much time here, hence why I noticed that posts were of a differing style from him.

Originally Posted by alh24

Nah, she's responded to a lot of well-spoken arguments. Keep telling yourself that, though. By that logic, you didn't actually respond to my argument against yours, so I guess you think mine is valid too.

Odd.

For some reason my posts are delayed are something I did not see all the posts up until yours I didn't deliberately ignore it.


"At any rate, when did Amy say "f*** the fact that I have equal opportunity and basic needs that are available to me, the fact that women can't dress provocatively makes all of that useless!"
I wasn't saying that Amy said anything like that I think you missed my point.

starving children do not have their basic needs met so you can't say it is the same thing for them to complain. In my opinion if a person has all their basic needs met they must think really hard about the importance of their "issues". I'm not undermining sexual assault victims or victims of any crime.

My point was that having an organized slutwalk for women who don't feel like they should be responsible for reducing risk of being victimized by crime is ridiculous. For an issue that effects .072% of the population a year is fine to raise awareness for if it is important. If the walk was to help rape victims or help people to reduce these risks than that is a just cause. A walk so women should be able to dress slutty and not expect a higher chance of being victimized by sexual assault is the most b.s cause I've ever heard considering all the other issues in the world.

A walk advocating sexual assault (primarily) against women in the workplace I think would be the best cause a group could put together because as far as I'm concerned that is a huge cause for the pay gap and gender inequality in the workplace.

Originally Posted by julianface

For some reason my posts are delayed are something I did not see all the posts up until yours I didn't deliberately ignore it.


"At any rate, when did Amy say "f*** the fact that I have equal opportunity and basic needs that are available to me, the fact that women can't dress provocatively makes all of that useless!"
I wasn't saying that Amy said anything like that I think you missed my point.

starving children do not have their basic needs met so you can't say it is the same thing for them to complain. In my opinion if a person has all their basic needs met they must think really hard about the importance of their "issues". I'm not undermining sexual assault victims or victims of any crime.

My point was that having an organized slutwalk for women who don't feel like they should be responsible for reducing risk of being victimized by crime is ridiculous. For an issue that effects .072% of the population a year is fine to raise awareness for if it is important. If the walk was to help rape victims or help people to reduce these risks than that is a just cause. A walk so women should be able to dress slutty and not expect a higher chance of being victimized by sexual assault is the most b.s cause I've ever heard considering all the other issues in the world.

A walk advocating sexual assault (primarily) against women in the workplace I think would be the best cause a group could put together because as far as I'm concerned that is a huge cause for the pay gap and gender inequality in the workplace.

I actually see this as a huge support for womens rights in general; getting involved in this shows people how we treat women with respect, despite what they choose to wear. Is it a luxury to spend time bring attention to something that only affects "0.072% of the population a year"? Mayble. But womens rights effects 50% of the population, actually. Doing this sort of thing says "hey, we're equals, and we care what you're able to do", and this is tremendous in advancing rights in less fortunate places. Advancing rights such as these, in effect, helps bridge the inequality gap, and helps eliminate many societal issues.

tldr: slutwalk saves lives

Originally Posted by julianface

For some reason my posts are delayed are something I did not see all the posts up until yours I didn't deliberately ignore it.


"At any rate, when did Amy say "f*** the fact that I have equal opportunity and basic needs that are available to me, the fact that women can't dress provocatively makes all of that useless!"
I wasn't saying that Amy said anything like that I think you missed my point.

starving children do not have their basic needs met so you can't say it is the same thing for them to complain. In my opinion if a person has all their basic needs met they must think really hard about the importance of their "issues". I'm not undermining sexual assault victims or victims of any crime.

My point was that having an organized slutwalk for women who don't feel like they should be responsible for reducing risk of being victimized by crime is ridiculous. For an issue that effects .072% of the population a year is fine to raise awareness for if it is important. If the walk was to help rape victims or help people to reduce these risks than that is a just cause. A walk so women should be able to dress slutty and not expect a higher chance of being victimized by sexual assault is the most b.s cause I've ever heard considering all the other issues in the world.

A walk advocating sexual assault (primarily) against women in the workplace I think would be the best cause a group could put together because as far as I'm concerned that is a huge cause for the pay gap and gender inequality in the workplace.

Your elaboration makes more sense, although I still disagree with the basic gist of it. I don't think that the fact that there are other issues in the world has anything to do with it.

I can see where you're coming from, I just think there's a lot more to it than women wanting to dress provocatively, like Ryan said.

"sexual attacks have nothing to do with desire, but are about the abuse of power, sadism and mental illness. They have nothing to do with the looks of the victim, contrary to what Hollywood movies suggest, in which rape victims are always attractive and usually blond."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...t-a-compliment

Originally Posted by crazyfree

That's fair enough. Maybe I spend to much time here, hence why I noticed that posts were of a differing style from him.

This is a bit disturbing. No anonymous account for me then?

Originally Posted by PHLN

This is a bit disturbing. No anonymous account for me then?

Nah I can't tell your posting like that. I just noticed the posting was different from usual. As I think Cheri posted..you were sounding more like NowHere and less like Piggy fetishist.

Did I get locked out of this thread? I can't read anything past page 7...