Novocaine, The Elusive said
next youll be telling me krunk that all men are rapists and should be punished. way to take an opinion and put a terrorist face on it.

 

let me guess you think that the world should boycott indonesia too? because they shoot drug dealers?

 

how do you go from a woman dressing respectably to wearing a burka (which personally, i actually find the idea kind of attractive)? your turning his words back on him, typical feminist propaganda. 

Just the opposite. entrappedmind’s take is that all men are rapists (point of no return bullshit.) Boycott what you want; most real boycotts are financially motivated when you run the numbers. Not your place to dictate what is ‘respectable’ for another. Also, not a feminist. Just someone who values personal liberties. Enjoy dressing your wife (wives) in a drape.

Excellent counterpoint psyral

entrappedmind said
Whoooooooooooa there, nelly.

Krunk, Pigg, I think you guys are entirely misunderstanding me. Either that or I forgot a vital sentence or some shit.

Summarized, my point was basically that a woman who dresses “slutty” is more likely to attract the type of guy who won’t take no for an answer. In no way do I absolve the guy of blame, nor do I shift any blame to the woman – all I was saying is that, in some cases, the woman could have prevented it by not putting herself in that position in the first place. If a fan gets trampled to death at a concert, it’s not their fault, but they could have prevented it by not putting themself in that position. Same argument can be made for countless other examples.

As to my point about the animal brain taking over, yadda yadda, I think I allowed myself to go a bit off-tangent in that sentence. I maintain there’s some truth to it, but in no way do I intend to excuse the act of rape, for any reason, nor did I mean to invoke the “boys will be boys” defense. My apologies if I offended either of you, or anybody else.

All I was trying to get at was… Be responsible for your appearance, whether you’re a dude or a chick. Like it or not, how your portray yourself and how others perceive you will affect you – it’s your choices that determine whether it’s in a negative or positive manner. It’s not fair, but that’s society for you.

By saying be responsible for your appearance you ARE placing blame on the victim. “this wouldn’t have happened if…” assigns blame. Period. That’s what it does. If someone gets robbed, you don’t say, “well you were dressed nice. You wouldn’t have gotten robbed if you looked like a bum.”

RAPE / sexual assault, are crimes of convenience. They don’t happen because of how you’re dressed. They happen because someone knows they’ll get away with it. Women are raped every day while wearing unsexualized garments. The same happens with police who harass innocent people. It’s because they know they have power in the situation and they exploit it. It doesn’t matter what a person is wearing. 

If nothing else, “take responsibility for how you look” comes down to “make sure it happens to someone else” but in reality it is victim blaming nonsense that needs to stop. Period. 

Rape? No. “Sexual harassnent” in the form of flirting/sexual advances/cat calling etc. yes. If you walk out the house with your ass and titties hangin out and a nice sexy belly or thick thighs or what have you, you’re going to get attention from horny dudes. But definitely shouldn’t expect to be raped. It’s ignorant to not expect attention if you’re wearing attention grabbing attire though.

only read the first page or so & didn’t see anyone say it, so ill throw it outhere.

this is one of the dumbest fuckin threads ever. to be unable to differentiate between an image of klan members in the booklet of a concept album clearly stating the artists views on such activity from being a pro-racist/klan statement (assuming thats what this dude was getting at?) and be offended in anyway is one of the most sheltered/ignorant/simple examples of a thought process there is.

if you actually feel uncomfortable owning an album w/a picture of a klansmen in it, while the artist makes their views on such BLATANT im not sure if you can handle icp’s music…or violent videogames…or living in the real world in general.

ganjadude said

RobTidwell said
the fact that you think flirting and sexual harassment are the same is really creepy.

sadly in colleges today they are teaching the kids that they are pretty much the same.

And in the military. Ive been in less than 6 months and ive had probably 60 classes on it. It’s insane. And yes @robtidwell in today’s day and age people are so god damn sensitive, or maybe I’m too ugly to have my attention appreciated who knows but females will cry sexual harassment on you for telling them they look fine in them jeans.

I side with Krunk and Pigg on this, but I also understand Novo and Entrapped Mind’s points. Also, Krunk is putting words in their mouths.

If a girl dresses in very little clothing it doesn’t mean she’s a slut or that she’s asking for attention in any way. Maybe she’s trying to get a tan, maybe it’s really hot outside and she’s trying to cool off, I don’t know.

But, if a girl walks around in any pants that shows off her ass that says “Juicy” she’s asking for attention.

Like, I can’t expect to walk through a Panther meeting with a shirt that says, “I hate niggers” with out getting seriously hurt.

I can’t dress in a bunch of red and not expect to get fucked with in a crip neighborhood.

When you dress you dress in a way to express yourself. You sketch the outline of the portrait you want the world to paint of you. So expect to be judged by this because you know damn well you judge others too. I don’t agree with every stereotype that gets placed on a specific style, but there is a point where you are obviously dressing to convey a specific message.

It doesn’t place any blame on a rape victim and I don’t think people should be profiled by cops especially when, as Novo pointed out, the real criminals dress a specific way so they don’t even look like criminals.

Live long and hail Satan.

I don’t think krunk’s putting any words in my mouth, she makes some incredibly valid points actually. I’ve really never put my thoughts on the matter on paper and examined them myself, much less had them dissected by others. And you know what? She’s right. There is a disturbing correlation between my view and Sharia Law. I’ll have to take some time to look within and try to determine why it is that I feel that way.

Allow me to clarify an earlier point. I suppose I mis-spoke when I applied the “point of no return” thing so broadly. No, I don’t feel that most or all men are potential rapists. I certainly know that I’m not. Hopefully I’m clear on that one lol. The issue is that the men who are attracted to a woman who dresses a specific way are more likely to be of that “won’t take no for an answer” sort. I don’t know if that’s statistically factual or not, that’s just my opinion.

And yes, unfortunately, there is some victim blaming involved. No, I know that’s not right. No, I know that’s not acceptable. But to me, that’s the way it is. If we were referring to a woman who was followed home by some sicko after work, and he ambushed her and took advantage of her, there’s no way in hell I would assign any blame whatsoever to the woman. None. Zero.

In my opinion, there is a difference between a victim and an innocent victim.And I was about to go and describe examples of the differences between the two… Until I ran across this paper, which, upon surface examination, appears to support my stance quite well. Link: http://www.zurinstitute.com/vi…..mhood.html

Relevant quote:

4. Typology of Victims

The basic assumption of the legal system is that there is one party in a dispute who is guilty and 100% responsible for the crime, and another party who is totally innocent. While in some cases the responsibility is clear, in most cases the situation is more complex.

The following is an attempt, based partly on Mendelson’s (1974) original formulation, to classify victims according to their relative degree of responsibility and power to control or affect situations. These categories also judge the degree of guilt or responsibility, ranging from total innocence/no guilt, to 100% responsibility /total guilt.

4a. Non guilty- innocent victim:

This category includes victims who do not share the responsibility of the offence with the perpetrators. These are innocent victims whom we cannot expect to be able to avert the offence by anticipating it or by preventing it.

Examples:
• Children who are sexually or physically abused, or neglected.
• Rape or murder victims when the crime is unforeseen, unprovoked, and perpetrated by complete strangers.
• Severely mentally ill or disabled adults who get hurt or exploited.
• Those who suffer a crime while unconscious.
• Victims of random or rampage shooting.
• Victims of unexpected natural disasters: victims of earthquake in a non-earthquake zone.
• Victims of corporate greed, such as those perpetuated by corporations who sell genetically modified foods which cause cancer, or corrupt banking practices, which scheme people of their savings or homes.

4b. Victims With Minor Guilt:

his category includes victims who with some thought, planning, awareness, information, or consciousness could have expected danger and avoided or minimized the harm to themselves. They ‘could or should have known better.’

Examples:

• Adult victims of repeated domestic violence where shelters are available (after patterns are established and it is no longer unpredictable).
• Marital rape victims after the first few episodes (when the pattern has been established and it is no longer a surprise)
• Women who are raped after choosing to get drunk (the minor responsibility is for electing to be completely helpless and unconscious, at the full mercy of others, in a situation that has the potential to be dangerous).
• Adults who were victimized due to being in the wrong place and the wrong time, where with some awareness, preparation, and caution they could have prevented the assault.
• Jews who suffered during the Holocaust (are of course not responsible for the Nazi’s evils, but they could have resisted more, been less co-operative, and not gone like lambs to the slaughter. They could have read the situation better and left in time, as many of them (40%) did).

 

4c. Victims who share equal responsibility with the perpetrators:

This category includes victims who share equal responsibility with the offender for the harm inflicted on them. These are people who are conscious and aware of the situation and chose to be part of it. They are not caught by surprise, and common sense could have anticipated the damage that occurred.

Examples:
• A man who contracts a sexually transmitted disease from a prostitute.
• Victims who seek, challenge, tease, or entice the perpetrator.
• Willing participants in a Chicken Game, gun dual, or double suicide.
• Co-alcoholics, co-addicts after the initial phase of their relationship (after it has been clearly established that the partner is an addict).

4d. Victims who are slightly more guilty than the offender.

This category includes victims who are active participants in an interaction where they are likely to get hurt. While they seek the damaging contact, the offender can easily withdraw from the situation, unlike those in category #5, to follow. Unlike those in the previous category #3, the offender is less responsible for the damage than is the victim.

Examples:
• Drunk people who harass sober bystanders and get hurt.
• Cult members who chose to enter the cult as adults and then were brainwashed and harmed. (i.e., Jonestown, Waco).
• An abusive husband who is killed by his battered wife (he is primarily responsible but, as this paper states, the abuse must be viewed also as an interaction, and some responsibility shared between the couple).
• Citizens who collude by passivity in their country’s atrocious acts and get hurt by other countries armies (i.e. politically inactive German civilians who did not fight the Nazi regime and got killed by the allies army attacks)

4e. Victims who are exclusively responsible for their victimization:

This category includes victims who initiated the contact and committed an act that is likely to lead to injury. In these cases, the one who inflicts the damage is not guilty and acts in pure self-defense or as expected from his position. This category is reserved for legally and clinically sane adults.

Examples:
• Rapists who are killed by their complete stranger- victims in self-defense.
• Mercenaries who are wounded or killed.
• People who smoke and get lung cancer.
• Suicide by those who are not mentally ill. (Mentally healthy and competent individuals can choose to commit rationally planned suicide for which they bear the full responsibility)

The above categories represent an attempt to differentiate among many situations of victimhood. They comprise a controversial, inconclusive, and incomplete grid to determine guilt or responsibility. Demographic, cultural, and personal variables, while not accounted for in the above categories, are nevertheless crucial for the assessment of guilt and responsibility. When evaluating the degree of responsibility, the following parameters must be also included: ethnicity (minorities are more disposed to victimization than those in the majority), gender (women are more disposed to victimization than men), socio-economic status (poor vs. rich), physical attributes (less attractive, weak vs. more attractive, strong), mental status (mentally ill, dysfunctional vs. healthy, functional), familial background (abused, neglected vs. loved, nurtured), cultural values (cultures that promote violence vs. those that promote harmony).

There are some of those I find it hard to agree with, but as they’re written and explained, hold at least some validity.

Aaaand I just read that blurb to my wife and she said I have issues. Hmph.