Rape: Do victims of rape share any responsibility?

Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you handle women at the swimming pool? I bet you would lose your mind at a nude beach, walking up to all the women telling them, "you look like you want some action baby"

I don't understand this attitude that if a woman shows a little flesh she deserves your rude comments.
To suggest that a woman expressing her sexuality by dressing provocatively is high risk behavior is asinine. No one is responsible for someone else's response to their sexuality. Now if a woman dresses provocatively, drinks a fifth of booze and hitch hikes to an adult book store she would be engaging in high risk behavior but even if she were she has a reasonable expectation not to have any act of violence committed against their person.

In other words a person has a responsibility to themselves not to engage in high risk behavior but even when they do they bear no responsibility for someone else committing an act of violence what so ever and that is what must be kept I'm mind about rape. Rape is not a sexual act. It is an impermissible act of violence.
 
No one is being a "rape apologist" that I have read.

Women who can't wrap their head around the struggle men have with "look at this sexual package, but don't get any ideas" seem to me to be the apologists. Apologists for their rubbing men's noses in it. Men are much more the sexual being than women are- that's just reality.

I have not said, nor would I say, that a woman deserves to be raped based on her behavior or dress. But it gets old hearing about how unfair it is that women can't wear sexually suggestive clothes without being seen as a sexual object.
what a crock of shit. All people are sexual beings with out exception. To objectify anyone for any reason, including sex, is just simply wrong.
 
what a crock of shit. All people are sexual beings with out exception. To objectify anyone for any reason, including sex, is just simply wrong.

OK, you tell what you thought the shirt said.

Serena+Williams+in+a+shirt+that+says+Are+you+Looking+at+My+Titles.jpg
 
what a crock of shit. All people are sexual beings with out exception. To objectify anyone for any reason, including sex, is just simply wrong.

Give me a break. The entire culture in America is wrapped around women being objectified. When a woman then chooses to dress in a sexually provocative way she's gonna get sexually charged interest. My point was/is that for her to be upset with that reaction is BS!
 
I have read through a spat of threads by posters here, I'll assume most of these were by guys, tit and ass pictures with all kinds of drooling "yeah I'd hit that shit". So spare me criticism of me spelling it out. Women dressing to be sexy gets guys, even on here, making sexual comments.
 
Let give you some help.
The "line in the sand", regarding rape, was drawn some time ago, on this forum, and now even DARING to suggest anything other then what will allow, will bring down their wrath and distain.
Honestly; it's apparent that certain individuals completely skipped over your "Devil's advocate" comment and just read what they wanted to and then passed judgment on you.

By the way; Dantes (Prak) is Darla's lap dog and he's going to snarl and anyone she sics him on.


Poor - poor, Rune.
Telling the truth about Darla has launched him on a groan fest. :D
 
Give me a break. The entire culture in America is wrapped around women being objectified. When a woman then chooses to dress in a sexually provocative way she's gonna get sexually charged interest. My point was/is that for her to be upset with that reaction is BS!

How many people have to tell you you are wrong before you will listen?
 
You are the biggest cunt on this forum, I reserve the use of that word for you. SD is a great poster and he doesn't deserve a bastard like you and that piece of filth that you think so much of, denigrating him. You are an odious fucker without any redeeming qualities.

As I said tommy, I would be quite disturbed if a rape apologist such as yourself thought anything else or anything less of me. Because no matter how "odious" you think I am it doesn't even come close to how inhuman I think you and those who make excuses rapists or blame women for their own rape! You can't defend yourself or your ignorant position, tommy, so you tell me how "odious" I am. I hope all rape apologists think so! And you don't reserve the "C" word for me; you use it every time you find yourself at a loss for words and are losing an argument.
 
I have read through a spat of threads by posters here, I'll assume most of these were by guys, tit and ass pictures with all kinds of drooling "yeah I'd hit that shit". So spare me criticism of me spelling it out. Women dressing to be sexy gets guys, even on here, making sexual comments.

Yes, how dare a woman dress to be sexy, sexiness is just not allowed. Men shall decide what women will wear and when they will be allowed to wear it and if the man gets too excited well he just couldn't control himself. And if he can't control himself it is the woman's fault because she dressed sexy just to get a man all hot and bothered. Never mind that she might like looking sexy and that she might like feeling good about herself. She has no rights that haven't first been given to her by a man. Remember what it was like to be young when your hormones were raging and you didn't care what it took to get some "sexy looking" women drunk or "talk" her into it or if nothing else worked just rape her because she dressed so damn sexy. And it wasn't your fault you couldn't control yourself, it was hers! She's a women after all and don't forget that creation myth, when things go wrong it's always a woman in cahoots with the devil that is at the root of it!
 
Give me a break. The entire culture in America is wrapped around women being objectified. When a woman then chooses to dress in a sexually provocative way she's gonna get sexually charged interest. My point was/is that for her to be upset with that reaction is BS!

The reason why they are getting so upset is because, whilst you made a perfectly valid point, they have taken that to mean that you endorse the victim being responsible for rape anyway. You've never said that and I've never said that but it doesn't matter regardless, the facts become superfluous when dealing with a feeding frenzy.
 
I said that I agree with several feminists on the subject including Camille Paglia, if you don't like that then tough. I don't like you saying that you wouldn't mind several thousand babies dying for your precious right to own rocket launchers. That is seriously fucked up shit as was changing your name to Adam Lanza, only someone seriously warped would do something like that.

http://gos.sbc.edu/p/paglia.html


Do you have any of your own thoughts tommy or are you always looking for someone as confused as this stupid person who you quoted is. Read it closely tommy, logically, the whole thing is rancid BS. She claims first that the last adversarial voice came from people like Lionel Trilling, and then claims that she knows "what real radicals look like--and they did not go on to graduate school." Here is a short snippet on Lionel Trilling from the wiki: "Lionel Trilling was born in Queens, New York, [in 1905]....In 1921, he graduated from DeWitt Clinton High School, and, at age sixteen, entered Columbia University....In 1925, he graduated from Columbia College, and, in 1926, earned a Master of Arts degree at the university. He then taught at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and at Hunter College.
In 1932, he returned to Columbia to pursue his doctoral degree in English literature and to teach literature. He earned his doctorate in 1938 with a dissertation about Matthew Arnold that he later published. He was promoted to assistant professor the following [year]—Columbia's first tenured Jewish professor in the English department; he was promoted to full professor in 1948."

So the person she claims was the last true oppositional voice went to graduate school where people from the opposition never go! And you want us to take her seriously even though she herself went to graduate school at Yale! Her own claim means that she can't be taken seriously because she went to graduate school! And she is mostly a rather confused and confusing writer like most of the people you quote and think you are cute and smart for doing so, but you're not tommy because you don't read the people you quote, you generally can't. And that is why you believe global warming is a hoax and the rising sea is a hoax and men aren't responsible for rape and women shouldn't dress all sexy because you and your two sons just can't control yourself when you see some part of a woman's body,

Nor should you have to, right tommy, that should be the woman's job to protect to from yourself. As far as Paglia goes this rant, and that's what it is, is illogical and nearly meaningless drivel! But it was written by a woman so that serves your purpose doesn't it tommy?
 
Do you have any of your own thoughts tommy or are you always looking for someone as confused as this stupid person who you quoted is. Read it closely tommy, logically, the whole thing is rancid BS. She claims first that the last adversarial voice came from people like Lionel Trilling, and then claims that she knows "what real radicals look like--and they did not go on to graduate school." Here is a short snippet on Lionel Trilling from the wiki: "Lionel Trilling was born in Queens, New York, [in 1905]....In 1921, he graduated from DeWitt Clinton High School, and, at age sixteen, entered Columbia University....In 1925, he graduated from Columbia College, and, in 1926, earned a Master of Arts degree at the university. He then taught at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and at Hunter College.
In 1932, he returned to Columbia to pursue his doctoral degree in English literature and to teach literature. He earned his doctorate in 1938 with a dissertation about Matthew Arnold that he later published. He was promoted to assistant professor the following [year]—Columbia's first tenured Jewish professor in the English department; he was promoted to full professor in 1948."

So the person she claims was the last true oppositional voice went to graduate school where people from the opposition never go! And you want us to take her seriously even though she herself went to graduate school at Yale! Her own claim means that she can't be taken seriously because she went to graduate school! And she is mostly a rather confused and confusing writer like most of the people you quote and think you are cute and smart for doing so, but you're not tommy because you don't read the people you quote, you generally can't. And that is why you believe global warming is a hoax and the rising sea is a hoax and men aren't responsible for rape and women shouldn't dress all sexy because you and your two sons just can't control yourself when you see some part of a woman's body,

Nor should you have to, right tommy, that should be the woman's job to protect to from yourself. As far as Paglia goes this rant, and that's what it is, is illogical and nearly meaningless drivel! But it was written by a woman so that serves your purpose doesn't it tommy?

I must say that you do perform your duties diligently as Darla's bagman. You must have been waiting a good while for me to logon but you were on the case within minutes. I would love to see you try to survive even two minutes against a class act like Paglia, she would chew you up and spit out the pieces. Anyway it getting on for 3:00am over there now so your patience was rewarded, you can go to bed now. As for my own thoughts, where do or Darla get yours? Straight out of the Andrea Dworkin 'all men are rapists' school of gender feminism. You whip up rape hysteria deliberately, it is just conventional Marxist agitprop to scare the masses into subjugation.
 
I must say that you do perform your duties diligently as Darla's bagman. You must have been waiting a good while for me to logon but you were on the case within minutes. I would love to see you try to survive even two minutes against a class act like Paglia, she would chew you up and spit out the pieces. Anyway it getting on for 3:00am over there now so your patience was rewarded, you can go to bed now. As for my own thoughts, where do or Darla get yours? Straight out of the Andrea Dworkin 'all men are rapists' school of gender feminism. You whip up rape hysteria deliberately, it is just conventional Marxist agitprop to scare the masses into subjugation.

Oh, I see! You betcha, tommy that's it alright! Marxist agitprop! Many people think that Marx wrote a book entitled Capital or in its German edition Das Kapital but they are wrong his real topic was rape adn his most famous book was simply called Rape. A lot of people don't know this; but tommy has done his research and he is absolutely correct.
 
Oh, I see! You betcha, tommy that's it alright! Marxist agitprop!

My but you are the tenacious one! Do you think that staying all night waiting for me will get you some smarty points? Don't worry I've found a man now to do some mansplaining on my behalf.

Feminist college “consent guide” advocates radically broad definition of rape, encouraging false accusations

Posted by: Jonathan Taylor (TCM) in Due Process, Rights & Protections September 28, 2013 3 Comments

The last time this site reported on a Feminist article on AlterNet Education it was by Dr. Nancy Cohen who complained that a school’s “no bellies, buns, or breasts” dress code promotes “rape culture.” Today we have a somewhat higher quality gem from Alternet Ed titled “Feminist Activists Launch A Consent Guide To Help Fight Rape Culture On College Campuses.” From the article:
.
A sexual assault prevention group is launching a college-themed guide for consensual sexual activity, hoping to inspire students to implement programs on their own campuses that will help encourage “the culture of consent.”
The online magazine includes profiles of college activists who are working to encourage healthy sexual relationships at their schools, quizzes to help readers assess how well their own university is handling these issues, information about federal laws that forbid gender discrimination in academic settings, and suggestions for campus events to spread the word about consent.
.

When a person’s understanding of the level of required consent is below the legal standard, acting upon it becomes an act of rape. When a person’s understanding of consent is above the legal standard and that person accuses someone of rape under those erroneous standards, it is a false accusation of rape. What this means is that any guide to consent needs to provide clear and consistent standards that are reflected in the law. Unfortunately, that is not what this guide does.

For example, on page 5 it says “Consent is a verbal agreement between two people about how and when they are comfortable having sex.” And on page 12: “Consent needs to be verbal because body language can be misinterpreted.” While body language can indeed be misinterpreted, the idea that consent needs to be verbal for it to be genuine is incorrect. According to this guide, a woman who wants to have sex can nod her head, she can wink, lick her lips, smile, grab a man’s penis and pull him toward her vagina, but if she doesn’t specifically say “yes,” he’s a rapist. This is incorrect.

Page 12: “Consent must be enthusiastic!” Wrong. Enthusiastic consent makes for better sex, but “enthusiasm” does not make or break consent. Remember that consent is an element of everything that we do. If you make a donation to a charity, does it have to be “enthusiastic” for it to be consensual? And when an administrator is hearing a case and determining whether it was rape or sex, how would (s)he really measure “enthusiasm” anyway?

Page 13: “No means no.” Question: if a man says “would you like to have sex” and a woman smiles and in a sarcastic and teasing tone says “no, that would be horrible!” while pulling the man’s penis into her, is it rape? Or think about it this way: if “no always means no” regardless of body language, location, context, tone, and so forth, does yes always mean yes regardless of those factors as well? If a man puts a gun to a woman’s head and says “will you have sex with me” and she says “yes,” is it consensual? Or is it not always that simple?

And let’s remember that while most Feminists agree that “no means no,” not all of them agree that yes means yes. Feminist professor Susan Estrich says in her landmark book Real Rape (page 318), “Many feminists would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing ‘yes’ as a sign of true consent is misguided.” Similarly, Feminist professor Carol Pateman of UCLA says in “Women and Consent,” published in Political Theory (vol. 8, p. 149): “Consent as ideology cannot be distinguished from habitual acquiescence, assent, silent dissent, submission, or even enforced submission. Unless refusal or consent or withdrawal of consent are real possibilities, we can no longer speak of ‘consent’ in any genuine sense.”

Coming back to the “consent guide”:

Page 21: “[Being] drunk does not equal consent.” Not necessarily. Being drunk to the point of incapacitation (being wasted) is nonconsent. Numerous colleges make this distinction. For example, Kennesaw State University’s student handbook (page 188) says that nonconsent is present when someone is “incapacitated by drugs, alcohol, or medication.” It does not reference the state of “being drunk,” let alone refer to it as a determinative factor.

The idea that drunk people are responsible for their actions is understood in virtually every act other and situation than women and sex. When people drive while drunk, they are arrested – regardless as to whether they were asked repeatedly (“coerced”) by their friends to drive them from Point A to Point B. When drunk people use drugs, they get busted. When drunk people beat their spouses, their children, or assault others, they are arrested. Being drunk does not mean you are not responsible for what you do. Unless – according to a Feminist – you are a woman in a place where you can substantially deprive a man of his liberty, or destroy his career or reputation by a mere accusation.

This guide also foments rape hysteria by radically overstating the degree of sexual assault on college campuses. For example, page 15 says ”nearly 1 out of 4 college-aged women are sexually assaulted or raped.” This isn’t anywhere near the truth. Simply compare the campus crime reports of any university you want and – even if you factor in underreporting – the numbers will be orders of magnitude below the 1 in 4 figure.
At my alma mater A&M-Commerce, a school with ~11,000 students, the crime reports document an average of one sexual assault accusation a year…if you round up. And that’s just an accusation. It’s not saying whether the accusation was true or false. But according to the 1 in 4 figure, there would be around one thousand rapes at A&M-Commerce every year. Yes, other universities have higher figures. But they also have much higher enrollments as well.

What’s the problem with radically overstating the prevalence of rape? It rationalizes indifference toward men and boys who are falsely accused of rape. Indeed, it sometimes rationalizes false rape accusations themselves.

TIME magazine reports of a college senior named Ginny who says “If a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape, she may have had reasons to. Maybe she wasn’t raped, but he clearly violated her in some way.” And in the same article assistant dean of students Catherine Comins says of male students who are falsely accused of rape, ”They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”

Similarly, Sophomore Emily Lloyd at Oberlin College says of male students who are falsely accused of rape “so many women get their lives totally ruined by being assaulted and not saying anything. So if one guy gets his life ruined, maybe it balances out.”

Can you imagine what would happen if students and administrators advocated that women deserve to be raped as some kind of “payback” for false rape accusations, or as a means to “walk a mile in men’s shoes”? It would be unthinkable. But under today’s climate of rape hysteria, these things are rationalized.

The problem with this guide? Any woman who believes it actually tells the truth about consent will be more likely to make a false accusation of rape. This is not a nuanced guide that provides a holistic interpretation of consent, weighed and balanced against a variety of factors. It is a political Feminist document, seeking to do little more than broaden the definition of a crime to snag as many men as possible – both innocent and guilty – in a web of destruction.

As is often the case when it comes to Feminism, those most in need of re-education are the re-educators themselves.

http://www.avoiceformalestudents.co...de-peddles-false-rape-apologia-rape-hysteria/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top