LonelyPilgrim wrote:The double standard on rape pisses me off: if I, as a man, were to go into a shady part of town and be mugged, almost everyone would lay the blame on the mugger, despite the fact that it may have been unwise of me to be in that part of town. On the other hand, it's all too common for a woman in a shady part of town to get raped, and for a great many people to say, "Well, she should have known better than to be there, so it's at least partly her fault." The fact that, yes, it may have been unwise for her to be there does not make it her fault.
RedCelt69 wrote:You say that it is unwise to have placed yourself in a shady part of town. What else is that lack of wisdom if it isn't a proportion of the blame for creating the circumstances by which you were mugged/raped? You chose to put yourself there, therefore (surely) the blame for what happened must be shared: in (a large part) with the offender, but also (to a smaller part) yourself. Doing something unwise, but denying any blame whatsoever is a strange thing to do.
wild_quinine wrote:Here's a thought experiment: you're drunk, you're alone, and you've got a pocket full of fifties. There's a dark alleyway in front of you, which is by some distance the quickest way home. You walk down the dark alley. Halfway along, a rooftile dislodges from an adjacent building, and neatly brains you.
Are you to blame?
G13 wrote: For some people, they're also reclaiming the word slut (trying to remove the stigmatisation of the word)
macgamer wrote:As for female appearence and rape. I'd say men are more visually stimulated than women, so women should take that into account. The women should ask themselves, given that men are so visually stimulated, should I dress in a manner that it likely to attract attention that I do not want? However, this should have no bearing in the judgement of a man in the case of rape. Men should exercise self-control and keep custody of their eyes. However as RedCelt noted, rapists seem to exhibit a psychological pathology that is not primarily driven by lust.
macgamer wrote:However, this [women's appearence] should have no bearing in the judgement of a man in the case of rape.
G13 wrote:However, the response to this situation is not to spread the message in said society that women should not go out alone after dark, but to change the societal situation so that it is safe to do so. Demanding that a group changes its behaviour in response to violence victimises them further and allows the violence to continue relatively unchallenged.
jollytiddlywink wrote:I am surprised to see that macgamer has recognised an incidence of gender discrimination (but not one concerning the lack of female priests), although he doesn't realise the half of it.
jollytiddlywink wrote:Not only does society apply a double standard in that men are allowed to be promiscuous but women are not, but there is also, it seems, a double standard of what constitutes promiscuity in each gender, in that men can sleep with more partners than a woman can before the 'promiscuous' label is applied. Lastly, women are doubly caught between being 'a slut' and being 'frigid', when no such label is applied to a man who rejects sexual advances or otherwise does not pursue sexual activity.
macgamer wrote:I scarcely know where to begin. Surely you won't react badly if I note that catholic priests are visually stimulated, so choir-boys should take that into account. They should ask themselves, given that priests are so visually stimulated, should they dress in a manner likely to attract attention that they do not want? This is, after all, your argument, word for word.
jollytiddlywink wrote:If you have ever worn a suit, you, macgamer, have been guilty of just the same visual provocation you are accusing women of. You have purposefully, wantonly, worn clothes which accentuate the sexual characteristics of men, namely, broad shoulders and a narrow waist and an inverted triangular shape of the torso. Would you have borne responsibility if you had been raped while wearing a suit?
jollytiddlywink wrote:Ultimately, what actually matters is that rape is not a crime of lust at all, so much so that in the US and Canada, there are legal restrictions in rape trials on cross-examining the victim on what they were doing or wearing at the time of the alleged rape, because it is recognised as being irrelevant. Rape is a crime of power and violence. To say anything else, especially to blatantly say that women ought just to dress more conservatively (in burqas, perhaps?), is to blame the victim. It is reprehensible.
jollytiddlywink wrote:Surprise, surprise. Everyone's favourite dark-age thinker, Aquinas, argued that masturbation was much worse than rape, because rape was a procreative act, and presumably therefore makes god smile.
It seems that reading Aquinas will rot your conscience as well as your brains.
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests