Cyclone Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Absolute rubbish! By that argument no-one should ever be given advice or information about how to reduce their risks - climbing the Eiffel Tower? Well no-one advise them to wear a safety harness! Having a baby? Well no-one advise them to take folic acid, stop smoking or watch your alcohol intake! After all we aren't giving them advice so they can help themselves mitigate any possible problems or dangers but so we can blame them if things do go wrong And if they then go ahead, climb the Eiffel tower without taking folic acid and have a baby without a safety harness, and it all goes wrong, they'll then be expected to take part of the blame won't they? Don't we blame people who drink excessively for the state of their liver? You've proven the point perfectly. You give that advice with the best of intentions, if people don't follow it then we apportion some share of the blame to them. Of course for all those things you mentioned above there are quantifiable, medical or physical risks associated with the behaviour and you're suggesting either mitigation or moderation to reduce the chance of those risks becoming manifest. There is no quantifiable risk to exposing some skin (well there is, but it's more to do with skin cancer than being attacked). There is no blame to be attached to a skimpily dressed girl who is attacked, the blame lies entirely with the attacker, there is blame to be attached to someone free climbing the Eiffel tower who falls. There would be no blame to be attached to the free climber if however he was pushed, even though the advice about a harness might still have saved him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Finally admit what? That you think men can be provoked into violence by the clothing that a women wears is undeniable. That it actually happens is unproven. Proof or no proof. Do you honestly think it has never happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 And if they then go ahead, climb the Eiffel tower without taking folic acid and have a baby without a safety harness, and it all goes wrong, they'll then be expected to take part of the blame won't they? Ermmmm no not at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Dressing provocatively? What you are talking about is a woman dressing in a manner that provokes a man to sexually assault her. Provocation is a legal defense which describes a response to another's conduct sufficient to justify an acquittal or mitigated sentence. No matter how you play with words, when you say "dressing provocatively" you are talking about apportioning blame. Again I will ask, can you provide an example of what you class as dressing provocatively? On a scale of burqa to nakedness, where do yo draw the line, and why is your line more credible than that of the Taliban? Where have I set myself up to set any limit? You may be taking this as a strict legal definition and apportioning blame I do not. It's really beyond me why a simple, sensible piece of safety advice has been blown up out of all proportion. Do you want women to be safe or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Proof or no proof. Do you honestly think it has never happened? So you want me to make a judgement based on the lack of evidence? I try not to do such things. The point is that people should be allowed to wear what they want, and society should not give violent people excuses for their actions. I think the subject is a lot more complicated and counter intuitive than Mr Beavis and Mr Butthead could ever imagine. Even if it could be shown that for an individual in a population, wearing skimpy clothing slightly increased the risk of sexual assault compared to the rest of the population (and I don't think it is true), public pressure to conform to certain dress codes to mitigate such risk would ultimately increase the risk for the population as a whole. The reason why I dragged this thread back to life is that yesterday and this morning I saw loads of women dressed in a manner that many might consider to be 'sluttish', whilst the reality is that it was a manner appropriate for the hot weather. If society is going to apportion blame on women for their assaults based on what they wear, then where is the line to be drawn, who decides it, and does it change based on the climate or how large a woman's cleavage is? The whole concept is ridiculous, women should wear what they want, and any man assaulting a women is 100% to blame, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 So you want me to make a judgement based on the lack of evidence? I'm asking you what you think. Not difficult really. You don't need evidence in order to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Where have I set myself up to set any limit? You may be taking this as a strict legal definition and apportioning blame I do not. It's really beyond me why a simple, sensible piece of safety advice has been blown up out of all proportion. Do you want women to be safe or not? Well it's you that's making the claim, what women wear can provoke an assault. So you should be able to describe, or google an image of, an outfit worn by a woman which is "safe", and then another one slightly more revealing which is unsafe. Basically describe where you think a line can be drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I'm asking you what you think. Not difficult really. You don't need evidence in order to think. Which I did, 4th paragraph. Cheers for the insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 So you want me to make a judgement based on the lack of evidence? I try not to do such things. OK some evidence - I have worn a kilt to a nightclub and during the night got any number of women without any introduction or request putting their hands up it to see if I was wearing it "Scottish fashion". This would obviously never have happened if I hadn't been wearing a kilt so clothing obviously does alter the way you are perceived and responded to. Do you presume that men are much more civilised than women and a woman wearing a pelmet masquerading as a skirt might not be on the receiving end of similar behaviour. The point is that people should be allowed to wear what they want, and society should not give violent people excuses for their actions. 1. Realistically people can't wear what they want - how many six year old girls (or boys for that matter) would you be happy to see walking around in stockings, suspenders and peep hole bra's? Some clothing is just not appropriate in certain cases and situations. 2. No-one is giving violent people excuses for their actions - for the Nth time it's about mitigating risk not apportioning blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Which I did, 4th paragraph. Cheers for the insult. What insult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.