[–][deleted]211 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]3893liebt351223 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]3893liebt35128 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Thank you. Though credit should go to the author of the book, I really enjoyed (This may be the wrong word to use, but I can't think of another one atm) the fact that the sexual abuse victim was portrayed as a male, and the assaulter as a female. I think (hope) that it opened up peoples minds to the idea that sexual assault can happen to and from anyone of any gender, and that any child even mentioning that something inappropriate has gone on should be taken extremely seriously. Child molestation/rape is not a something that we as a society should take lightly, regardless of gender, age, or race. I have heard far too many claims of a parent sexually abusing a child, and the other parent sticking up for the abuser, saying that there's no way s/he could ever do that.

Sorry for the wall. I get a little fired up when children, or anyone really, are taken advantage of, especially when it comes to sexual, physical, or emotional abuse.

[–]jonnytechno4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]3893liebt35121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jonnytechno0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jerzeem0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]3893liebt35120 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MeowYouveDoneIt7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Honztastic5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YFNN2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HARD_FUCKING_REALITY-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HARD_FUCKING_REALITY2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]King_Turnip79 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PieMasterBob-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ENTP72 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]42 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip34 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]41 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blinderzoff35 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkgatherer13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StandsInRefuse12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not ridiculous. You're just making it ridiculous. Here I'll give you one. I was walking down the street at night talking on my cell phone and got sucker-punched from behind by a mugger.

The funny thing is, I was a Marine (I ended up beating up the 2 muggers handily, of course). I can't even tell you how many times I had been taught about personal awareness, not to walk around yapping on the phone. It's as simple as looking like you're aware of your surroundings and would-be criminals will be deterred just by that.

Here, I'll give you another one. Years ago I walked into a bathroom in an Eastern European country and set my sunglasses down on the counter to wash my face. When I looked up, my sunglasses were gone. I had been warned by my grandmother, who lived there, not to let any of my valuables out of my sight, but I did.

I learned my lessons, in fact I even taught personal safety classes to other Marines. I could sit here and talk to you all day about safety precautions that you yourself can take to prevent yourself from becoming a target. The way we know about them is not by making them up, but by learning hard lessons from past mistakes. And I'm pretty sure that if you bother to think about it, you'll come up with a million safety tips yourself. I don't know why feminists are so resistant to that.

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bombtrack4110 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men aren't punished for not following crime prevention tips, or punished for crimes that are commit against them.

This is not true, either. Men are punished for failing to toe the religious ideological line in several middle eastern societies, just as harshly as women. It's the ideology which dictates what is considered a sin, but the result is the same. They're responsible for their wives' behavior. They're property of the church or state (often both,) especially if they're poor. They're incredibly disposable, more so than in western culture. They're even more required to be 'supermen' than western men are... their perceived masculinity hinging on a narrow set of characteristics. Homosexual men in the U.S. get harassed. When homosexual men in the U.S. are violently victimized by individuals who disapprove of their existence, the law comes down on the perpetrators. In the U.S., we even have laws which label crimes targeting them because of their sexuality as being worse than crimes targeting people for other reasons.

What do you think happens to men in Iran if their communities discover that they are gay? Do you think any of these men feel comfortable reporting to the police if they've been raped? What do you think would happen to a man who stated that he did not want a sexual encounter with a woman? This is a nation where not only are men punished for being crime victims, quite often, the perpetrator is the state, or at least its representatives.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/08/iran-officials-blamed-victim-for-his-own-alleged-rape.html
With the exception of a single cleric of his faith, authorities treated this man exactly as you are talking about, humiliating and demeaning him for talking about his victimization.

This is an ongoing problem with feminist advocacy - they come up with these constructed ideas of how society is, pretend that these things only happen to women, and cite that as reason to vilify and denigrate male society rather than addressing the base of the issues they claim to want to fix. This is why these issues still exist - not because there is a culture that treats women as responsible and men as entitled, but because there is a culture that is more interested in focusing on a battle between the sexes than on focusing on the specific areas of dysfunction within the smaller segments of the population which commit and/or experience crime.

If we cannot take a whole-issue approach to understanding and addressing criminal behavior and its effects on society, there will never be improvement in the environment that is currently being discussed. Treating issues of dysfunctional human behavior by addressing only a small portion of the factors involved is like taking chemotherapy and radiation for lung cancer, but continuing to smoke.

[–]bombtrack4110 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The middle east has some extremely fucked up laws regarding the rights of women. I don't think anyone on here would argue against that. Women desperately need a voice in those countries and reforms need to be made starting with separating Islam from the legal system.

What I don't understand is why western feminists don't spend more energy raising money and awareness to stop countries and cultures from forcing girls and women to wear burqa/niqab/hijab and spend more time fighting for the rights of women who are actually desperately in need of help. They could even focus their energies here in the west campaigning against western Muslim men forcing their wives and daughters to wear hijab/niqab. The majority of feminists will never do this because the oppressors in this case aren't white men. I don't necessarily think a law should be passed forbidding the wearing of those things in the west, but I do think serious social pressure should be used to try to stop girls and women fron being forced to wear them. Women should be able to wear whatever they want. I'm not a tradionalist at all and I don't want women in the kitchen or believe in Christian nonsense that says women should obey their husbands.

If I lived in Iran then I would undoubtedly consider myself a feminist, because the issues Iranian feminists are fighting for are actually important. Women deserve the right to be educated, vote, work, wear what they want, fuck who they want, and control their reproductive health. Those issues are critical, but western feminism spend most of their time raging against comedians who hurt their feelings and blaming decent men (especially straight white men) for every single petty problem they experience. I absolutely believe in and support equal rights for everyone, but I don't believe in special rights for only one gender.

The only important issue western feminists are fighting for in regards to women in the western world is maintaining reproductive freedom, and that's mainly only a real issue in America as most of the rest of the western world sees abortion as a completely decided issue. I even donate money to planned parenthood every year, because they helped me and my girlfriend get cheap oral contraceptives when we were teenagers. Planned parenthood is an important feminist cause, but they are the exception to what western feminists seem to spend their time fighting for/against.

[–]dungone0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jacketit0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The tips for stranger rape are given in response to the profiling of men and sheer hysteria, because men are confronted with societal attitudes such as Schrodinger's Rapist. Women may not actually be in mortal danger while walking down the street, but men are actually being taught to cross to the other side because they're told to view themselves as well as all other males as potential rapists.

It is certainly a fact that stranger rape is rare, which is why it's high time that society stops demonizing "strange men". This is the sort of thing where a woman starts off by creep-shaming some awkward looking semi-unattractive guy at the bar because she hates his guts and wants him to drop dead, but he turns around and tries to think of some genuinely helpful advice that may help give her some real ways of keeping herself safe.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

MRA's don't go around talking about how all women are going to get raped all the time, they try to counter that message. Many feminists do send that message, though, and it's completely out of control with some groups. Historically, it was a feminist who claimed that all sex is rape, and that all men benefit from rape, and that rape is a tool of oppression. The same exact feminist who started Take Back The Night. It's feminists who brandy about biased, evidence-free statistics, such as the 1 in 4 refrain. Male sexuality is being demonized left and right, and I assure you that it isn't MRA's who are doing that.

Schrodinger's rapist describes an extremely hateful female point of view. It excoriates men for being who they are; simply for existing. I doubt that all of the women who believe this stuff have PTSD. I think it's more like the old rich lady I overheard in the elevator at my office who was talking about how she doesn't go to the city because you never know what those black men in the parking lot would do to her.

The rape prevention tips, however, have a central underlying point, whether they're sensible or completely irrational. The point is, simply: take responsibility for your own safety before you collectively blame all men for the moral deficiencies of a few. Society isn't actually trying to oppress women by trying to get them raped, men don't actually benefit when women get hurt.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The prevalent views of all types of rape as a society-crippling epidemic are not purveyed by MRA's; nothing that MRA's say or do has in any way created or facilitated the constant vilification of men as potential rapists. Those views are promulgated by feminists themselves in conjunction with traditional conservatives.

I think that your arguments regarding the advice that MRA's give are just strawmen that ultimately miss the point. The point is, as I keep telling you, for women to take some personal responsibility for their own behaviors. It's not limited to stranger rape, but to all forms of sexual encounters, both consensual and not. When we get flooded with stories of girls getting deliriously drunk and flashing their hoo-hoos at crowds of drunk men before waking up in the morning with some ugly man they had never seen in their lives, the proper response is to teach women about personal responsibility and accountability, not to "teach men not to rape."

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

MRA's believe that the correct approach is to counter the rape hysteria that has been promulgated throughout the history of our culture, but especially since the 1970's and 80's by the feminist movement.

MRA's wouldn't care one iota about what women do to keep themselves safe if society wasn't being bombarded with messages that it's 100% men's fault that any kind of rape exists (and that the only kind that really exists is male on female), and that it's 100% men's responsibility to make sure that no woman anywhere, under any conditions, ever gets raped or so much as has sex that she might later come to regret for any reason.

It's simple, and I'll just speak for myself for a minute. If you come to me complaining that you're unhappy because bad thing X happened to you, and demand that I do something about it because I am a male and for no other reason, then I will turn around and tell you things A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H through Z that you could and should have done so that the next time around this bad thing X thing won't happen to you and you won't be asking me to fix everything for you.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

When one person violently attacks another, it is generally because the attacker wants something from the victim. Sometimes it's possessions. Sometimes it's sex. Sometimes it's vengeance, release of anger, or the attainment of capitulation on a dispute. Some people just get off on hurting others.

Nobody suggests that it's more ok (or less not ok) to attack people when they wear x. Some people suggest that wearing x can mark you as a target, but nobody suggests that makes the perpetrator less wrong or responsible. It is simply an acknowledgement that among our society there will be a small few who don't care what you teach to whom about any kind of violence, who are going to target somebody. If the clothing affects who those people target, it is not wrong to make note of and respond to that information.

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If I say a person doing x,y and z is asking for something, I am making it easier for someone to rationalize doing that thing to someone thats doing z,y and z and others to say, "well they deserved it, they were doing z,x,y.

Actually, this is victim blaming at its worst - the idea that taking a proactive approach to crime prevention equals a claim that victims are 'asking for it,' and translating that idea into an effect on the mentality of a perpetrator. If characteristics of the target do not affect perpetrator choice, that is an across-the-board reality, and it includes whether the target believes he or she can reduce the chance of being victimized by eschewing risky behavior. If society taking that proactive approach affects perpetrator choice by affecting perpetrator attitude, then so does failure on the part of the target to do so.

If the message is nobody ever asks for x,y z - then its more difficult to rationalize it, and it doesn't suggest to anyone that its more ok to do X to someone doing Y.

That hasn't prevented other forms of crime - for instance, child molestation, animal abuse, tax evasion, serial murder. Nobody accused BTK's victims of asking for it, yet he had no problem committing the crimes. Nobody suggests that a 4 year old is ever asking for it, yet those who victimize children continue to exist. Nobody suggests animals want to be beaten, neglected, or sexually abused by humans... yet these things happen. Where is the culture causing them?

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You misunderstand.

They are trying to kill off notions that people ask to be raped, because it allows some people to easier rationalize raping, and encourages others to victim blame.

Mra's seem to believe that the objective is to stop people being safe, the objective is actually something else altogether.

I have lived with being targeted for indoctrination with feminist ideology for around 3/4 of my life, between bits thrown at me during school, the assertions of my peers, social media, literature for women, law enforcement, medical advice (yep, even that) and political propaganda that permeates my greater living environment. The effort has been everything from delicately subtle to blatant and undeniable. The tenets and dogma of the feminist faith aren't something new, nor are they that hard to understand.

This is a group that has been attempting to gender-polarize partner and sexual violence for decades. It's not because they truly believe this shit. It's not because they're trying to kill of notions they really see playing out in society. It's not because they're fighting against misconceptions and trying to solve the issue. It's because if they can convince the general public that is what they're doing, the general public will afford them credibility in the analysis of human behavior, thereby enabling their advocacy related to law and policy. They're not doing this to address the issue of rape at all. They're doing this to boost their lobbying cred, and it has been working for decades because nobody is picking up on that.

If feminists truly cared about rape victims, how come there was no rush of feminist groups to stand up and protest on behalf of this one?

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, why are they not defending the woman whose experience is described in the link I provided in my previous comment? Certainly, if they're defending against "If X, then it's okay to rape," that case fits their cause. That is a blatant example of "If X, then it's okay to rape," where X equals "this is what she came her for," and the rape equals "I'm going to beat her down, strip her naked, drug her, strap her in place, and invade her body after being told no."

Tell me how feminist advocates have stood up to support specifically this woman by name and incident, on whose behalf they've to my knowledge only been deafeningly silent, and I'll buy your whole sales pitch on feminist rape culture advocacy. Show me NOW's initiative targeting this perpetrator's specific behavior, and I'll be perfectly happy to accept their genuineness on this topic. If you cannot give me evidence that they're not selectively applying their assertions, then you have nothing, because if they really mean what they claim, they wouldn't withhold support from women whose circumstances cannot be used to further their agenda.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is a response to feminist manipulative speech. The campaign is often presented using strawman positions with the express intent that opponents of the feminist movement will pick up the straw positions and defend them. This is why they make their arguments such that the impression given is that the objective is to teach women to make ourselves helpless. And I have had feminist advocates - active ones who run take back the night rallies and t-shirt campaigns, and counsel rape victims - actually try to enforce upon me, personally, a policy of acting as if I have no sense of danger, specifically in conjunction with the 'teach men not to rape' concept, using guilt tripping as a tool of emotional and mental manipulation. I was told by academic and professional feminist activists that in taking a proactive approach to my own safety, I was forcing other victims to take the blame for their rapes. So it is a position which is presented by some feminists. And it is a position which is insinuated for the purpose of getting MRAs and antifeminists to defend a position feminist can convince themselves and their supporters would be victim blaming.

The problem isn't the position that MRAs are taking on the issue. The problem is that we keep getting pulled into that discussion at all. I think it has gone from its original intent to more of a distraction technique now that MRAs have begun pointing out the prevalence of male victims and female perpetrators, and the issue of public dismissal of sexual assaults which don't fit the feminist advocacy formula. That and a demand for equal treatment between the sexes, toward both victims and perpetrators, really should be the focus of discussion in this sub. Those are issues which, by their very existence, contradict that campaign without necessitating any argument, or even mention of it. If we were to simply ignore that campaign, focus on those issues, and hammer them home, eventually the campaign would simply fail to carry any credibility due to its sexist nature (teaching only men not to rape only women kind of ignores 3/4 of the discussion) and will fall under the weight of a more productive approach to the overall topic of rape.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The impression that the agenda is to teach women to be unsafe is an mra misunderstanding that energy is wasted on. They are trying to kill off "women that x.y and z are asking for it", and protect people with PTSD from self blame injuries. So mra's are better off attacking positions that are not made of straw, such as the fact feminists themselves are by their own definitions promote "rape culture". Mra's have to get as far as knowing what their definitions of rape culture are though, to get as far as debunking non straw positions.

My thing is keep it simple and clean and not to get into "teach men not to rape instead - teach women not to get raped instead shouting matches and stick to feminist data is misleading the public, demonizing men, covering up domestic abuse, sex crimes and child abuse and being used to create oppressive legislation.

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics34 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roharareddit27 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HARD_FUCKING_REALITY3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Red_Canuck14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZimbaZumba11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MsManifesto10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know this isn't a popular argument - even on this sub-reddit but it's the 800 lb gorilla in the room that needs to be acknowledged.

Even with the acceptance of your 35 year old and 13 year old sources as evidence that this question is still asked in a modern rape case, it does not invalidate whether is should be asked.

Women sometimes use their clothing to sexualize themselves. So if the crime committed on a woman is sexual in nature then it is a relevant and appropriate to ask about the clothing she was wearing.

If a man is wearing clothing that sexualizes himself and is raped then it would be appropriate to ask the question of him as well.

There is no double standard. It's just that men don't typically wear clothing that sexualizes them and so the question isn't asked because the answer wouldn't further the defense's case.

To be even more blunt by analogy, if you were hit by a truck it is appropriate to ask you what you were doing in the middle of the street - and further what were you wearing (i.e. what reasonable precautions did you take so that you wouldn't get hit)!

To preempt your retort, Feminists use the term "Victim Blaming" to silence people from asking reasonable questions. This tactic is irrational and a plea to use our sympathy for the victim to cloud our reason.

Everyone has a right to not be victimized. However, with every right is a responsibility: in this case it is not to facilitate your own victimization with irresponsible behavior.

The pendulum has swung from 30-40 years ago where what a woman wore could provide justification for rape to today where you're demonized for having the audacity to suggest that there might be any sort of relationship. I suggest that if we're to honestly try to reduce the incidence of rape we'd need to acknowledge that this nouveau-taboo is counter productive.

[–]clairedrinkswater14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What a person, man or woman, was wearing is never a reason to rape them, assault them, or assume they are asking for "it". I could walk down main street butt-naked and no one would have the right to touch me without my consent. Questioning a victim's clothing choices in a court of law only casts blame on them. That is not irrational in the slightest, but what is irrational is telling someone that their choice of clothing is why they got raped. Rape by definition is unwanted and unasked for. A t-shirt cannot speak for you, it is an inanimate object.

Consider this: You are tailgating a football game while wearing your favorite team's football jersey. Someone runs at you and tackles you to the ground, slamming your head on the pavement and giving you a concussion. Is the concussion your fault because you were wearing a "tackle-provoking" jersey or is it their fault because they tackled you?

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What a person, man or woman, was wearing is never a reason to rape them, assault them, or assume they are asking for "it". I could walk down main street butt-naked and no one would have the right to touch me without my consent.

This is exactly the delusional garbage I'm talking about that results in people getting raped.

In reality, if you walk down the street butt-naked you will most likely get assaulted. If you don't think this is likely, you're delusional. What's worse is you won't ever actually do this yourself but your reckless rhetoric will convince some simpleton that they don't have to take personal responsibility for their own safety and they will get raped! This is why I find what you say so offensive. To further your ideology you say things that will get people hurt.

Of course people have the right not to be assaulted - no one disputes that. But we don't live in an idealized feminist fantasy where your rights protect you from reality or your stupidity.

A t-shirt cannot speak for you, it is an inanimate object.

A t-shirt maybe can't speak your intentions but not wearing any underwear and a skirt so short that your genitals occasionally shows may have something to say...call me crazy.

As for your example, American football tailgates aren't known for fan on fan violence so there is no reasonable expectation that you'd be in danger of being tackled. However in soccer where fan-on-fan violence is more common, if you were to wear a Manchester United jersey and walk down certain streets in Liverpool at certain times you'd be considered an idiot and not given much sympathy if you got your arse kicked.

[–]clairedrinkswater5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you're saying that people do not have the self control to not rape someone they see walking down the street while showing some skin? Do you really believe that men have so little self control that the sight of bare breasts will send them into an uncontrollable frenzy where they will rape anything that mores? That is the god damned most offensive thing I've ever heard. And you call feminism delusional. This is a mens right's thread and here you are spouting the most sexist shit AGAINST MEN. I really hope that you don't live by a beach because all of those innocent people minding their own business hanging out in their swimsuits will all get raped if you get a look at them, because according to you you would not be able to do anything but sexually assault them and then have the audacity to tell them it's their fault!

And the football story is a great analogy for the topic at hand. It is the exact same thing, except in one it's a short dress and one it's a sports jersey. Rape and being tackled so you sustain a concussion are both violent physical attacks. I really hope that for everyone in England's personal safety that if they saw a person wearing a Manchester shirt getting beaten for no reason they wouldn't just laugh and walk by.

[–]DerpaNerb7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]clairedrinkswater2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]clairedrinkswater2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because no one is saying that just a single piece of clothing can make up 100% consent.

As I said, this has nothing to do with forced sex. No one has ever said "Well, it's completely irrelevant whether he had a gun toy to your head and fucked you... you were wearing a short skirt".

The situations where clothing can have an effect (and this is all after the fact, before hand is a different reason I'll get too later) are situations where it's a "he said/she said". You have one guy saying that there was consent and that she was participating, and the other saying that she felt she had to do but didn't actually consent. In this case, how do you decide who was telling the truth? If the girl happened to be wearing (and this is an extreme example) say crotch-less panties... that probably serves as at least a small hint that might suggest she was actually looking to have sex that night.

As I said though, this is just a hint and what her mindset might have been. If anyone treats clothing as 100% of consent... then they are stupid.

[–]clairedrinkswater1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cookie0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not a question of fault, it's a question of proof. If the facts of the tackle and the lack of consent to it are uncontested, then obviously the tackler is guilty. Tackling me to the ground uninvited is a crime, clothes are irrelevant.

Usually, however, the facts are not uncontested in cases like this. If the jury are trying to decide whether my story of an unprovoked attack constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt, or whether the defendant's story of an unfortunate accident in a consensual fun tackle is sufficiently credible to cast sufficient doubt, then all facts which could go to the credibility of either story are relevant to making that decision. If there's no evidence of the moments involved in the tackle beyond what we each say, then yes, I'm more likely to see my attacker convicted if I were wearing a business suit, passing by on the way to another place, hated football and had never seen you before than if I were wearing football clothes, there for the game and had been seen shortly beforehand throwing a ball back and forth with the defendant. This is because of how credible it makes the defendant's claim that we were playing a game of fun tackling and had an accident. It is not because society is saying that if you wear football strip, like football and throw a ball back and forth that you've magically consented to being tackled even if you clearly said no to it.

[–]nini860 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]clairedrinkswater3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]clairedrinkswater2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Rape is one of those crimes where "without a shadow of a doubt" can be extremely hard to prove. Quite often evidence is only the statements of the two people involved but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Does that mean we should say Too Bad So Sad to all the victims out there?

Also, say if a woman goes out on a Friday night all dressed up in a way that you would consider to be "sending passive signals of general sexual interest" does that mean she wants to have sex with anyone and everyone she sees? Absolutely not! Women get dressed up for a multitude of reasons besides trying to get sexual attention, believe it or not. If you see a woman wearing a thong in public you have no right to assume she wants to have sex with you or anybody else for that matter. Clothing doesn't speak, clothing can't say yes to sex. The only invitation for sex is consent.

[–]typhonblue3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]clairedrinkswater1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]clairedrinkswater0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Parvan-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No one is saying, oh she wore slutty clothes she deserved it, or that the rapist shouldn't be punished. What they are saying though is that knowing that wearing certain clothing can increase your chances of getting raped that you need to do a risk analysis. For example, I know walking around Compton in gang colors is generally a bad idea and increases my chances of being the victim of a violent crime so i don't do it. If I did it doesn't mean I deserved what happened to me or that the perpetrators should not be punished.

Similarly when women wear revealing clothing then that does lead to an increased risk of sexual violence and they need to be cognizant of that fact. Especially in combination with other risk factors such as heavy drinking.

Men know rape is bad, the vast majority of men who walked in to a room with a half naked passed out drunk girl will not rape her. But getting drunk and passing out while hanging out of your clothes is a bad idea for woman because there are people out there who will take advantage of that situation and sexually assault her.

Personal story time, my ex met a guy who she thought was pretty cool. She hung out with him a couple of times, then one night wt over to his house specifically to drink and take valium. I told her before she went that she was being fucking stupid and was accused of being jealous and controlling. When I insisted that she take me with her she acused me of not trusting her and to either accept that she was the type of girl who did this shit or to pack my bags.

I knew she had no intentions of sleeping with the guy, she was completely oblivious to the fact that something could happen to her. This is the same girl who told me she wanted to hitchhike alone from Alaska to Los Angles. she :

went alone to the house of a man she had spent maybe a grand total of 5 hours with in the past 2 weeks.
Showed up in a miniskirt, tank top with no bra
Proceeded to drink and take approximately 90mg of valium.
Started to feel bad so she asked him if she could lay down in his bed.

Can you guess what ended up happening? If you guess he raped her then you are correct.

Did she deserve to be raped? NO

Was it her fault that she was raped? NO

Did he deserve to be punished? YES

Could she have taken personal steps to ensure her safety that would have lessened and/or eliminated her chance of being a victim of rape? YES

Was her lack of personal responsibility a contributing factor to her rape? YES

So let's review, no one in this thread has said that wearing a thong equals consent, no one has said, "man that chick in the miniskirt taking the shortcut down that alleyway deserved to be raped." You keep accusing people of saying that, but no one has. The only thing that was said was that women (men also) need to be aware of the risk factors for the choices they make because criminals will be criminals regardless of what you do, but you damn sure can lessen your chances of becoming the victim of one.

[–]clairedrinkswater1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I totally see what you are saying but I still have a hard time believing clothing has anything to do with it. A rapist is going to rape whether the girl is wearing a tank top or a sweat suit. I just don't like that women are told to dress a certain way or else risk violence. This is not to say that everyone shouldn't take safety precautions in their daily life, for example it's not a good idea to hitchhike. I don't like this way of thinking because despite the intentions of people who tell women to police themselves, they are adding to the culture of victim blaming and in the long run that has many negative effects. A woman who was raped while wearing a short dress who has been told repeatedly that short dresses can cause violence against her is more likely to feel guilt and blame herself and is less likely to get medical and legal help because of the fear that no one will believe her or they will say its her fault because of what she was wearing.

[–]Parvan-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree completely, I certainly don't think a woman's clothing causes rape and don't think a woman should be told that. But frequently when this topic is brought up with feminist the idea of teaching women basic safety precautions such as not drinking more than your limit, understanding the area you are in, keeping a buddy with you is shouted down as victim blaming when in fact it is basic safety precautions. Personally I feel rape isn't something avoided in most cases by wearing less revealing clothing, but I do know in certain situations drunk Mardi gras crowds, large celebrations, parties etc it definitely increases the chance of being the victim of other forms of sexual assault such as groping. In addition there are predators out there who are unable to control themselves, wearing very revealing clothing could very well be the thing that causes them to target you. Rape is a very complex crime and there is no one cause, and a females actions should never be considered when punishing a rapist. But when feminist decry any attention being brought to the victims behavior as victim blaming they aren't doing their best to protect women and instead are placing the safety of women in the hands of men.

From a men's rights perspective, suggestions for basic safety courses are frequently met with "No we need to teach men not to rape". That is incredibly offensive because most men would never rape a female. The ones that would aren't going to listen to it. Women know that sleeping with underage boys is wrong, but it seems like every other week you hear about a female teacher sleeping with her underage students. Should we launch a "teach women not to molest children campaign"? Of course not because these individuals knew it was wrong and did it anyway, they wouldn't have been stopped by a campaign, they are defective individuals. The same can be said of rapists.

[–]clairedrinkswater1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Believe me I totally agree about the buddy system being a great idea, especially at events where alcohol is involved. I am not saying at all that taking safety precautions is a bad idea, everybody should be aware of their surroundings and wary of things that give them an odd feeling in the pit of their stomach. I am not by any means saying that I think revealing clothing causes men to rape. That is a very negative stereotype. When it comes to people pointing out what a victim of sexual assault was wearing at the time it happened nothing positive is accomplished. I stand by this as victim blaming. I admit I have a very feminist bias in what I believe about situations like this, but I really can't see how it is not putting at least some of the blame on the victim. One of feminists main goals (at least as I understand it) of pointing out even the smallest instances of victim blaming is because we are trying to put a spotlight on the problem and try to change how many people feel about this. Take the Steubenville case, where tons of people took to twitter saying horrible things about the teen girl like "so you got drunk at a party and two people took advantage of you, that's not rape you're just a loose drunk slut" and "This bitch was clearly drunk and a slut. Own up to your mistakes, bitch". I know this isn't about her clothing but it is very similar. Yes she got drunk, yes it is not a good idea to drink to the point of blacking out. But this still doesn't make what happened her fault in any way. The people who's fault the rape was are her rapists. No one forced them to touch her, they made that decision on their own. It is not like if someone passes out drunk someone is going to automatically assault them, it takes intent and effort to assault another person. By people saying it was her fault because she was intoxicated takes the blame from the boys and puts it on her. Also when people say that boys need to be taught not to rape, that it in no way meant to imply that all men are rapists. We know most men are not rapists and we are glad for it. What is meant by we need to teach boys not to rape is that we need to raise children to respect others, learn boundaries, not feel entitlement to sex, and to understand what healthy consensual sexual activity looks like. Unfortunately the sad fact of the matter is that the majority of sexual violence is perpetrated by men against women, hence the phrase. It is not meant to offend but I totally see how people could take offense to it. And especially in the Steubenville case this is the perfect example of why we need to teach these lessons to young boys and girls. These boys did horrible things that night. From what they said about what happened they felt entitled to use her body as they pleased because she was drunk and the only remorse they showed after the trial was that they got caught. One boy was quoted as saying, "MY life is over" and "Those pictures never should have been taken, let alone passed around" (or something to that effect, I couldn't find the exact quote). Neither once apologized to raping another human being. All they cared about was that their lives were messed up. This shows a lack of empathy for other people.

I'm definitely rambling and don't know if any of this made sense at all but I am running out the door in 5 minutes and can't keep typing. I would definitely like to continue this discussion though.

[–]Vegemeister1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Consider the following hypothetical:

Alice and Bob are friends. One afternoon, Alice visits Bob at his apartment. Two days later, Alice calls the local PD and reports that she was raped by Bob during that visit. At the trial, Bob does not contest the fact that he had sex with Alice, but claims the encounter was consensual. It is also established that Alice does not usually go commando.

Now, compare these conditional probabilities:

P[ Alice intends to have sex | Alice is wearing underwear ]
P[ Alice intends to have sex | Alice is not wearing underwear ]

Clearly, whether or not Alice was wearing underwear is a relevant fact that could be used to reason about the likelihood that the encounter was consensual. That does not mean that blame should fall on Alice if she wasn't wearing underwear, nor does it mean Bob would be justified in raping Alice upon discovering that she wasn't wearing underwear.

In any just society, it is necessary to establish consent before having sex, and it is necessary to establish lack of consent before declaring someone a rapist. I am aware that there is an excluded middle in that statement, but if you waver on either end you will have either a lot of rapes or a lot of innocents thrown in prison. I, for one, prefer the occasional rapist going free and a few missed sexual encounters.

[–]clairedrinkswater1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First of all how and why would the court have established that Alice usually wears underwear but that certain day she did not.

Presumably, they asked Alice.

How would he know that commando was out of the norm for her? Lack of underwear could mean something as simple as Alice needed to do laundry.

All true. The DA would be perfectly justified in presenting that argument. Whether or not Alice was wearing underwear is not particularly strong evidence, but it is evidence.

But if in fact Alice purposely went commando with the intent on having sex with bob it still wouldn't matter if she ended up not wanting to have sex later that night and did not consent to sex.

Entirely true. In that case, Bob would be a rapist. He might also go free, if the prosecutor was unable to show that the encounter was most likely non-consensual using other evidence. That outcome would be unfortunate, but it would not be a failure of the court.

I cannot say it enough, clothing it absolutely no indicator of wanting to have sex.

"Let me slip into something more comfortable."

It is not a binary indicator, but it is an indicator.

[–]clairedrinkswater1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]clairedrinkswater1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Interestingly, that article mentions "physical injuries and signs of force", which are no more proof of Bob being a rapist than clothes are proof of Alice having consented. After all, many people like rough sex or even BDSM. Alice shouldn't have to dress like a nun, and Bob shouldn't have to film all his kinky sex.

The fact of the matter, however, is that the probability of observing these things is different in a consensual and a non-consensual encounter, and that they should thus be allowed to be presented in court. Remember, however, that it is possible to treat Alice sensitively as a victim even if there isn't sufficient evidence to throw Bob in the hoosegow for rape.

Consider, as another example, where Carol is accused of raping Derek under similar circumstances. It is established that the condom Derek was wearing when the sex occurred was purchased by Derek an carried in his pocket to Carol's apartment on the afternoon in question.

[–]clairedrinkswater1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well we've established that rape cases such as Bob/Alice and Carol/Derek are very hard to prove either way and there really isn't much a court can go on. While I definitely agree that people are innocent until proven guilty it is just extremely unfortunate that in rape cases such as this that most never make it to court. This is discouraging to victims who want to report a crime because they think that nothing will come of it and they don't want to suffer the insult and humiliation of having their clothing or the fact that they carry condoms on them used against them. If a person who has been raped believes that carrying condoms on them will discredit them and people will accuse them of lying about being raped then they are less likely to take their case to the police. Stuff like this is why rape is such an unreported crime.

To sum it up: I am not a lawyer and I am not a cop, but I do know that the legal system has a lot of work to do in the area of rape cases. If either of the hypothetical situations happened in real life I have no clue what would happen but if I had to guess the rapists in each case would go unpunished. Situations like this are why people need to be taught about what consent is and how to properly ask for and give it, and to respect other's bodies. The idea behind this is if children were taught about safe (consensual) sex from a young age rape would be reduced over time. I don't know if this answers whatever questions you were getting at but this is all I've got for now.

Also: I hope that hypothetical Bob is asking his sexual partners before hand if they are OK with him filming the encounter, because if not that opens another completely different can of worms.

[–]Vegemeister1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

While I definitely agree that people are innocent until proven guilty it is just extremely unfortunate that in rape cases such as this that most never make it to court.

I will disagree here. Court cases are very expensive and very stressful for all parties involved, and can do serious harm to the career of the accused, should she be innocent. I also do not believe the word of a single accuser alone can meet the standard of proof for a just court to put someone in prison. As such, conviction is unlikely and I suspect a failed prosecution would only compound the harm to the victim.

With that in mind, while a single, otherwise unsubstantiated accusation is insufficient to meet a just standard of proof, it is not without information content. I suggest, as part of a three-pronged approach including early-childhood sex education (as you described) and situational awareness (as is applicable to all blue-collar crime), that we should take multiple accusations into account, and focus on improving reporting rates. I believe the following to be reasonable assumptions:

If someone has accused you of raping them, you are unlikely to have sex with them again unless you are actually a rapist or incredibly stupid.
You are generally more likely to accuse someone of raping you if they actually did.
The probability of raped n+1 times by different people is strictly less than the probability of being raped n times.

In addition to the normal system which would prosecute rape if corroborating evidence exists and would prosecute false accusation if evidence of intentional falsehood exists, I propose we add the following. I use the previous scenario that Carol is accused of raping Derek, for the sake of brevity.

Facilitate reporting of rape with minimal stress and difficulty for all parties involved. Carol and Derek are interviewed in a friendly and stress-free manner to obtain their stories, and forensic evidence is collected in an attempt to determine what sexual contact actually occurred. If Carol maintains that she did not have any sexual contact with Derek, and the forensic examination agrees, add Derek to registry A, with the details of the incident. If the forensic examination disagrees, go to trial. If Carol does not contest that she had sexual contact with Derek, but maintains that it was consensual, add Carol to registry R and Derek to registry A, with the details of the incident.
Edit: Revision: add Derek to A and Carol to R under all circumstances, along with the details of the incident.
Clarification: These are secret registries.
Derek and Carol's identities are not disclosed to the general public, but Carol is told that Derek accused her of raping him, so that she may cease having sex with him (see assumtion 1). Severe penalties are imposed should Carol reveal Derek's identity, but she is permitted to reveal the fact that she has been accused, so long as she does not reveal details that would identify Derek. She is also permitted to disclose the full story to her immediate family and licensed therapists, psychologists, etc. The same penalties and stipulations apply for Derek revealing Carol's identity.
Should Carol be accused of raping anyone (appear on registry R) at least n times (I suggest n=2), the case goes to trial even if the only evidence is the accusation and other circumstantial evidence.
Edit: Revision: Relaxed physical evidence requirement for n=2
Should Derek make unsubstantiated accusations (appear on registry A) at least p times (I suggest p=3, or perhaps p=2 if no evidence of sexual contact exists), the possibility of intentional false accusation is thoroughly investigated.

I think such a system would facilitate the prosecution of cautious rapists and false accusers, while maintaining a reasonably just standard of proof on both sides. It would, of course, be most effective with a high reporting rate, which is why it would be critical to make the reporting process non-stressful and minimize the hassle to the accused on the n=1 accusation.

Situations like this are why people need to be taught about what consent is and how to properly ask for and give it, and to respect other's bodies. The idea behind this is if children were taught about safe (consensual) sex from a young age rape would be reduced over time.

Indeed. Unfortunately, sex education programs in the US are terrible.

Also: I hope that hypothetical Bob is asking his sexual partners before hand if they are OK with him filming the encounter, because if not that opens another completely different can of worms.

I very much hope you are not implying what it sounds like you could be implying. I am not filming kinky sexual encounters with anyone, candidly or otherwise.

It is my position that if you can ethically see something with your eyes or hear it with your ears, you can ethically film or record. I believe that you cannot ethically distribute such recordings without the consent of the people involved, unless doing so would substantially serve the public interest. I also believe that if you cannot ethically distribute a recording, you have a duty to secure that recording with the utmost care and competence.

This is fun, and I thank you for your time. It is unfortunate that our discussion is nested so deeply in a 3 day old thread.

[–]clairedrinkswater1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First off, in the case of Bob filming sexual encounters without the knowledge or consent of his partners, what do you mean "distribute"? Would you only consider it distribution if he posted it on the internet or sold it? Does showing his friends count? I would consider that a huge invasion of privacy. It's one thing to record people in a public place, barring public restrooms, changing rooms etc., because they don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But if Bob were to film sex between him and another person in either his home or their home, where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, I would consider that a huge invasion of privacy and should definitely be punishable by law. In fact, this is illegal in every state in the US. http://www.sexlaws.org/answer_board_question-secretly_videotaping_sex

Also, your four-point system for how to report a sexual assault is interesting but deeply flawed. It assumes that every sexual assault gets reported. It also assumes that every victim gets a rape kit done right after the rape. Neither of these things happen in many cases, often due to the things I mentioned in my last post. So if Carol had raped someone before Bob and that victim had not reported it she would not be on registry R and that would be of no help to Bob when he went to report his assault. This system would only work if rape was reported in every single case, and unfortunately that is far from the truth. So it is pretty shitty for a victim who goes to report but all they have is their testimony of what happened. I don't know what can be done to fix this since evidence cannot be created after the fact, for example a rape kit would be useless a week and seven showers after the assault. Encouraging reporting and encouraging victims to get rape kits done as soon as possible are really the only solutions that come to mind.

If someone has accused you of raping them, you are unlikely to have sex with them again unless you are actually a rapist or incredibly stupid.

This completely ignores the extremely complicated dynamics of abusive relationships.

Edit spelling

[–]Vegemeister1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Candid recording

Does showing his friends count?

Yes, showing his friends counts. I define Bob's obligation in such a way as to make his actions consequentially equivalent to those of a savant with a photographic memory.

But if Bob were to film sex between him and another person in either his home or their home, where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, I would consider that a huge invasion of privacy and should definitely be punishable by law.

Would you consider it a huge invasion of privacy if, rather than filming, Bob had a photographic memory? That is, he is sufficiently good at remembering things that he can produce (however laboriously) a flip-book animation of anything he sees.

In fact, this is illegal in every state in the US.

The law describes what you can get away with doing, not what you ought to be doing, and is shaped by precedent and humans who are swayed by ulterior motives and what they think is 'icky'. Therefore, I don't believe it holds much moral weight. That said, given dedication and a large budget, you could construct an arbitrarily convincing recording of a reenactment of events that actually happened. IANAL, but I do not think this would be illegal unless you used the faked recording for harassment or blackmail. Also, you could legally tell people about events that happened under circumstances where it would be illegal to film. It is the combination of these (which possibly constitutes use of the faked recording for harassment) that would invoke the wrath of the courts. I think, then, that the distribution is where the actual problem would arise in the eye of a just law, and that prohibition of creating a true recording is simply a convenient shortcut.

Sexual assault reduction

Reporting rate

It assumes that every sexual assault gets reported.

This system would only work if rape was reported in every single case, and unfortunately that is far from the truth.

Not every assault, just enough. Each assault reported increases the amount of information you have to detect rapists. That's why I said:

we should take multiple accusations into account, and focus on improving reporting rates.

and

It would, of course, be most effective with a high reporting rate

Prosecuting rapes, we can assume, follows the law of diminishing returns. Given finite resources for reducing the incidence and harm of sexual assault, it is obviously better to -- rather than trying to prosecute every single rape -- dedicate some of those resources to sex education, to defense and awareness training, to encouraging reporting, to victim counseling, etc.

Forensic evidence

It also assumes that every victim gets a rape kit done right after the rape.

for example a rape kit would be useless a week and seven showers after the assault.

You are correct. I revise my suggestion such that the accused is added to registry R whether or not it can be established that sexual contact occurred. As I recall, there's no "legitimate rape" biological response that can be used to forensically differentiate rape from rough sex. I also relax the physical evidence requirement for prosecution of the n=2 accusation. I still think a just court should have to actually establish that sexual contact occurred, though.

Abusive relationships

If someone has accused you of raping them, you are unlikely to have sex with them again unless you are actually a rapist or incredibly stupid.

This completely ignores the extremely complicated dynamics of abusive relationships.

I mainly included that in order to justify revealing the name of the accuser to the accused. You make a good point though. Perhaps it would be best to give no additional weight to subsequent accusations involving the same two parties. That would probably emerge from the accuser already appearing on registry A, anyhow. I do not mean to discount subsequent accusations entirely, but only to treat them as a continuation of the first incident, possibly with new evidence.

Another possibility would be restraining orders by default. I haven't thoroughly considered that idea, however, and it might be impractical.

Just law

So it is pretty shitty for a victim who goes to report but all they have is their testimony of what happened.

This is true. Alas, as I said a couple posts back, you really can't go around throwing people in prison and destroying their careers over evidence that flimsy. The best you can do is provide counseling for the victim and make use of the incident to add credence to future reports against the same person.

[–]StandsInRefuse-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MsManifesto6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's fallacious reasoning to conclude anything about a person's bodily desires from her or his clothing alone.

This is just silly. A person's clothing is not definitive of a person's desires but it is suggestive. The suggestion alone is enough to initiate a sexual interaction between two people. It's also a moot point, as a person who rapes doesn't care about their victim's desires.

...consent to one type of sexual act... but not to another

My criticism of this is not that it isn't morally true but that it is utopian. Holding on to this belief keeps theoretical victims safe but the expectation that all real sexual interactions are so cut and dry is unrealistic.

... rapist's selection of victim ... not correlated ... with what the victim was wearing

I'm suggesting a correlation between victimization and the victim's irresponsible behavior with regards to their own safety. Moreover, the moral argument that the victim is always faultless regardless of their behavior is dangerous in reality as it causes irresponsible behavior.

The victim's clothing choice is just one behavior to determine if there was a pattern of irresponsibility and as such is a valid question to ask.

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stopsayingfaggot2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CaptainVanderdecken9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vaselinepete9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ToffeeAppleCider6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Honztastic5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OThomson4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dascuff15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bladesire20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]texasjoe14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bladesire1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iquizzle1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dascuff16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Faryshta4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Faryshta2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Coinin1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Beiber_h0le694 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]misingnoglic3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]junkeee9993 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tamen_3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]noodleworm2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kyoujikishin2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fivefooteightgiant2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iamaom2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BalllsackTBaghard2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chucklebuck2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eulabeia1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wrez1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clevername30006 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clevername30001 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wrez-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clevername30003 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wrez-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Clevername30002 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wrez-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StarFscker1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fucking George Takei, man

Comments

Candid recording

Sexual assault reduction

Reporting rate

Forensic evidence

Abusive relationships

Just law

Title	Fucking George Takei, man
Author	yokiatsu
Upvotes	522
Comments	191
Date	March 22, 2013 7:38 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1atfyt/fucking-george-takei-man/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/fucking-george-takei-man.1608833 https://theredarchive.com/post/1608833