Why is telling girls to be careful rape apologistic

[Waldo]

Yeah, I get what you mean. I don't know how often it's a factor, but yes, in theory.

 

Sure.

 

Just for clarity, I'm thinking of situations where it's dark, you're alone, etc. I'm very much on the same page as you re: clothing making little to no difference to your chances of being attacked, but if you are, you're probably going to run faster in trainers than heels (just as an example).

[Andbreathe]

Another one would be Sophie Lancaster who was attacked for being a 'goth' and died. If she had been dressed 'normally', would she have been attacked?

 

So, if Sophie Lancaster hadn't dressed as a goth she'd still be alive? Thousands of people are murdered with thousand of differing scenarios as for the reasons of assault...non of them define blame...or even responsibility.

 

Maybe the advice we should give is for ALL women, and MEN when leaving their front doors is to wear donkey jackets and Nora Batty socks...thatll stop rape in its tracks over night...yeah right!!

 

No - I’m saying that if a woman walks through a bar full of drunken men with little clothes on - she is more likely to get unwanted attention.

 

No one can deny that - it’s not right - but it’s true.

 

What if the men are not drunk? Instead of concentrating on the woman and what she is or isnt wearing, why not concentrate on the amount of alcohol men drink in order for them to become sexual predators? Which is what you're now implying.How many women get drunk and sexually assault men?..probably less than your "woman walks through bar" scenario.

 

When you drink, do you become a sexual nuisance to women?

 

Btw..How many women do you know that walk through bars full of drunken men scantily clad...alone??

[Guest makapaka]

So, if Sophie Lancaster hadn't dressed as a goth she'd still be alive? Thousands of people are murdered with thousand of differing scenarios as for the reasons of assault...non of them define blame...or even responsibility.

 

Maybe the advice we should give is for ALL women, and MEN when leaving their front doors is to wear donkey jackets and Nora Batty socks...thatll stop rape in its tracks over night...yeah right!!

 

 

 

What if the men are not drunk? Instead of concentrating on the woman and what she is or isnt wearing, why not concentrate on the amount of alcohol men drink in order for them to become sexual predators? Which is what you're now implying.How many women get drunk and sexually assault men?..probably less than your "woman walks through bar" scenario.

 

When you drink, do you become a sexual nuisance to women?

 

Btw..How many women do you know that walk through bars full of drunken men scantily clad...alone??

 

I’m not implying anything, or defending men’s actions, it’s just true - there’s no point denying it.

[Andbreathe]

I’m not implying anything, or defending men’s actions, it’s just true - there’s no point denying it.

 

Women can’t defend themselves from the dangers of an opportunist rapist as rapists by definition are exactly that....if women could they’d have to take on board every differing type of scenario and accept the inevitable outcome..

No one has denied assaults happen, and it would be impossible to know where, how and when it would happen without becoming paranoid and heavily restricted movement wise.

 

You seem to express what seems like a “devils advocate “ stance but at the same time put forward extreme scenarios “naked woman walks through bar full of drunken predators” All you’re doing is excusing it with “hey it happens!!” and I’ll show you with my extreme scenarios.

There are thousands of ways a person can protect themselves from harm..shall we all take those precautions on board?? Or should we as a collective concentrate on the perp and their action? As possible victims we are not mind readers..one can never know when a perp will strike as they have no rules other than their victims are male, female or animal.

Yes, we all know the bleeding obvious but your stance is how much effort youre putting into it with “Sophie Lancaster may be alive if she hadn’t dressed in a certain way”. Can’t you get it into your head? If a person can kill because of the way someone dresses no one is safe..so if it wasn’t her it would likely be someone else.

 

Question: How many people do you know that’s been murdered or raped and what was the defining reason of those rapes and murders? Clothing?

[Guest makapaka]

Women can’t defend themselves from the dangers of an opportunist rapist as rapists by definition are exactly that....if women could they’d have to take on board every differing type of scenario and accept the inevitable outcome..

No one has denied assaults happen, and it would be impossible to know where, how and when it would happen without becoming paranoid and heavily restricted movement wise.

 

You seem to express what seems like a “devils advocate “ stance but at the same time put forward extreme scenarios “naked woman walks through bar full of drunken predators” All you’re doing is excusing it with “hey it happens!!” and I’ll show you with my extreme scenarios.

There are thousands of ways a person can protect themselves from harm..shall we all take those precautions on board?? Or should we as a collective concentrate on the perp and their action? As possible victims we are not mind readers..one can never know when a perp will strike as they have no rules other than their victims are male, female or animal.

Yes, we all know the bleeding obvious but your stance is how much effort youre putting into it with “Sophie Lancaster may be alive if she hadn’t dressed in a certain way”. Can’t you get it into your head? If a person can kill because of the way someone dresses no one is safe..so if it wasn’t her it would likely be someone else.

 

Question: How many people do you know that’s been murdered or raped and what was the defining reason of those rapes and murders? Clothing?

 

You’re just making up my arguments - I haven’t said any of the things you have stated above - nor have i excused anything - why are you making things up?

 

It’s probably better if you read what I’ve posted rather than inventing my point of view.

 

As I have said above - a women walking through a bar with little clothes on is more likely to get unwanted attention than a woman who isn’t. That’s true - you see it played out in bars and pubs all the time. No point in denying it.

[Halibut]

You’re just making up my arguments - I haven’t said any of the things you have stated above - nor have i excused anything - why are you making things up?

 

It’s probably better if you read what I’ve posted rather than inventing my point of view.

 

As I have said above - a women walking through a bar with little clothes on is more likely to get unwanted attention than a woman who isn’t. That’s true - you see it played out in bars and pubs all the time. No point in denying it.

 

Yes - and men are squarely to blame.

[Guest makapaka]

Yes - and men are squarely to blame.

 

I never said otherwise.

 

The fact remains though.

[RootsBooster]

It's quite simple isn't it.

The victim is the one who is assaulted. They didn't do the assaulting.

To put the onus on the victim to have avoided being assaulted (by following advice) means that when they fail to follow the advice, what follows is clearly their fault.

I hope you can see the circular reasoning you are using here:

Campaigns put the blame on victims because the put the blame (onus) on victims.

Do this thing or you might be assaulted.

*gets assaulted

You didn't do the thing, why didn't you do the thing? You could have avoided being assaulted.

That would be more obvious of course, but the implicit blame is there if they didn't follow the advice they were given.

 

Your interpretation is a massive assumption based on a false premise though.

[Guest makapaka]

I hope you can see the circular reasoning you are using here:

Campaigns put the blame on victims because the put the blame (onus) on victims.

 

 

Your interpretation is a massive assumption based on a false premise though.

 

Of course it is - because it assumes the victim is automatically blamed if advice isn't taken - which isn't correct.

 

They could be, but they're not automatically, therefore to say offering advice is victim blaming is wrong - it assumes you will blame the victim if they don't take the advice.

[leviathan13]

So, if Sophie Lancaster hadn't dressed as a goth she'd still be alive? Thousands of people are murdered with thousand of differing scenarios as for the reasons of assault...non of them define blame...or even responsibility.

 

Maybe the advice we should give is for ALL women, and MEN when leaving their front doors is to wear donkey jackets and Nora Batty socks...thatll stop rape in its tracks over night...yeah right!!

 

 

I think that is a safe assumption to make. Had she been wearing 'normal' clothing/make-up/hairstyle, she probably would not have been attacked. It's not right that it happened, but I feel that it is probably the biggest factor in why it happened.

 

Having been part of the metal scene for 20+ years, I'm more than aware that we dress in a certain way and, in many cases, it is to provoke attention. It's a great feeling walking down the street and seeing someone wearing the shirt of a band you like. However, I am also aware that if I were to go in to various establishments of a Saturday evening wearing an obscure metal shirt, I would attract attention, largely negative, I would think. So, I either refrain from going in those places, or dress appropriately if I do.