Rape Threats and Free Speech

I don't agree with placing the blame for sexual assault (or any portion of the blame) on a woman because of her dress, or with the idea that a woman's dress might cause a man who would otherwise not commit a sexual assault to suddenly do so. I think it is societal. As anecdotal evidence, I think of a girlfriend I had for some time who was a DJ at a goth club. If you've ever been to such places, you know it is not at all unusual to see woman in sexy clothing or in not much of anything at all. At the same time, at least at this particular place, boundaries defining unwanted contact or attention were pretty well defined. Sure, they'd have the occasional problem, but it was pretty rare. You didn't see groping or even gawking and on the whole I think the women in that club felt like it was a safe place to dress as they wished, even though there were as many men as women present. I saw a lot more unwanted touching hitting a country bar after work with some co-workers, where the women were much more covered up. I won't extrapolate from those personal experiences to society at large, but I think it at least demonstrates that sexy dress or even semi-nudity can exist alongside males without inexorably leading the men down the path of sexual assault. Blaming the woman's dress is a cop out, and as a male I find the implication that men are such slaves to biology as to not be able to control themselves to be offensive.

Further, people sometimes act as though to exist in that environment you'd have to become somehow asexual, because otherwise men are going to be men. I reject that idea as well. In that particular club, of course I noticed the girls there, and of course I noticed if they were physically attractive. I didn't stare at them, which would have been disrespectful to both them and my girlfriend, and I certainly would never have thought their dress invited groping or some other touching. They were, on the whole, intelligent and pleasant people and deserved to be treated as such. It is absolutely possible to notice that someone is physically or sexually attractive and still act in a way that respects them as a person and keep your own dignity and theirs intact.

 

Once again you assert some supposed truth with no evidence to back it up. Some porn sure: Pedophile and sadism/masochism porn can't be healthy. But all porn? I don't think the scientific research backs that conclusion of yours up as stated.

I find your word choice very problematic. The only guilt I see belongs to the perpetrator.


You seem to have no concept of morality being in the eye of the beholder. You pick and choose, sexy clothes in a bar - immoral. A beautiful woman on the beach? Does the cut of the bikini matter? But most importantly, who made you arbitrator of the morality rules? Or in your case is it, absolute interpreter in chief of the Bible?

Always with the straw men.

No one here has said anything close to this.

 

Hate to break it to you, pal, but very few women fit this bill. That's why so many woman need to dress provocatively and wear makeup, to compensate for their average looks. Your argument does not apply in the general sense.

 

What bill? You don't think there are very many naturally beautiful women in the world? Maybe they just don't frequent places you go?

 

I will quote Dolf Zillman, from Indiana University:

That says it much better than I could. I just don't see how you can argue that pornography is positive. I guess if you're anti-God, anti-family and anti-morals then you must argue everything that is wholesome as rediculous. That is your right.

We will have to agree to disagree then.

I don't believe morality is in the eye of anyone but the God who created us and knows what's best for us. When you create your own set of morals you go against God and it leads to nothing but death and destruction. He has a perfect plan for us, and it has never helped mankind to veer from His design.

Yes, of course you use translation as an excuse to discount the Word of God. I won't get into that debate here but the scripture is complete and only needs translating when sinful people desire to twist it to say what they want. The Bible is, and always has been complete and perfectly understandable for anybody.

The issue is that Ginger, you are so set against anything that is right or moral because it comes from God, that you have no choice but to argue from the side of the most immoral and vile things. Even now, you have associated me with my Christian beliefs so you automatically have to counterpoint everything I say. Not sure how that must be for you.

 

Maybe the numer of women who are actually beautiful compared to the number of women who think they're beautiful is shockingly disproportional???

 

Hence the reason behind the creation of beer?

 

Are you incapable of inserting a link?

OTOH, a link in this case wouldn't provide much. Argument from authority is rarely an impressive argument.

A review of the research on whether or not porn has any harmful effects on anyone returns extensively complex and varied results. The only overgeneralized claim one can make about porn is the claim people regularly make false claims about the impact of porn.

Ad hominem straw men don't make very convincing arguments.

That's already a given.

So it's the latter then, you believe you are the absolute arbitrator of what the Bible says.

Yikes!

You dismiss anyone who disagrees with you with this ad hominem straw. This exchange is going no where useful.

 

Porn helps release pent up sexual frustration and/or aggression. I think if more people watched porn, this world would be a better place.

I don't think it's the same thing. I think "fuck you" has lost its literal meaning for most people and is used casually all the time. For me, threatening rape is like saying "I'm going to kill you." Such threats should be taken seriously.

 

It's possible. Rare maybe, but possible.

I was just trying to make it clear that I was ending that sidetracked exchange before a mod feels the need to close the thread.


As for the passed out girl/woman thing, most people don't pass out from drinking, even people who are fairly drunk. Not saying it never happens, but drugs are more commonly involved, especially Rohypnol which is apparently easy to obtain. When I hear/read a female is completely unconscious and alcohol is blamed, I think date rape drugs are often involved. And that changes the circumstances, IMO.

I think there is a difference between doing something stupid, making a stupid mistake and "guilt" as has been applied to some of these mistakes. I broke my toe a week ago. My house is overly cluttered and I stupidly smashed my toe on a chair leg. Who would say I was "guilty"? Stupid, sure, at fault, yep. But 'guilt' implies I deserved it and I'm sorry, but I did not 'deserve' to break my toe.

Then there's the other aspect, why can't a female enjoy flirting, sex and beer without being accused of deserving to be raped or being accused of being immoral? If it was so dangerous and men so awful, I would have been raped many times. But I wasn't, because it's normal moral behavior, especially for young people, to enjoy sex even casual sex.

The rape culture is something else and shouldn't be conflated with the 'free love' culture, something that is not the same thing.

 

I'm not seeing how that's at all relevant to the discussion.

On the other hand, I'm going down the rabbit-hole of the not-relevant anyway. The idea of:

1) Person A wants X from Person B
2) Person B allows Person A to know that they have X
3) Person A attacks Person B for X
4) (The conclusion I object to): Person B is partially responsible for that attack

strikes me as so illogical that I failed to restrain myself from following it to debunk it. It's as illogical when X is sex as it was when X was food or a car or a diamond watch.

But that's not what we're talking about here. This isn't about A wants X, A attacks B for X. This is about A hates B, A attacks and humiliates B. It's about control, humiliation, domination. X is irrelevant; X is the weapon, not the goal. If we wanted to blame women, we could blame them for the times when they're strong, confident, and independent - that's what terrifies the men who do this.

But, no, I won't be blaming women for that, I'll be cheering for that. The solution is not to train women to be modest, quiet, to hide in the corner, to be deferential and obedient, to live in fear and be grateful for scraps of safety. The solution is to form a society where committing this crime is the end of the criminal's life as he knows it, to give it consequences, to make it a crime that is reliably punished. Any crime for which the enforcement includes a character attack on the victim and an incredibly low likelihood of conviction is a crime that will thrive and grow.

 

Well...or they don't want attention from a particular man. They get to choose.

 

I'm afraid that's not the case.

The problem is that we're not supposed to be sexual frustrated in the first place.

Think about it like this: Every time you see a scantily-clad women on TV or a sexually suggestive piece if media, it's like you are getting a small dose of an addicting drug. The more you get, the more you want until those 'teases' aren't enough and you crave more.

So you either virtually release your pent-up lust by watching porn, or in extreme cases you act it out on real people, whether its 'hooking up' with random people or something worse.

The bottom line is your premise is flawed. Porn is like a methadone clinic for the addiction to our sexually charged culture.

 

Why not? We're like any other animal when it comes to wanting sex.

I like to think of it in terms of food. When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm satisfied, I stop eating. And I only eat again when I become hungry again. It's much the same way with sex for me (and I imagine for quite a lot of people).

 

What you believe may reveal something about you, JJ, but you cannot claim it applies to anyone else without some evidence. You can't just make stuff up and declare it so. Well you can, but no one has any reason to think it's more than just made up.

 

Ginger, I don't think you understand the point of a discussion forum. We discuss topics and different people share different viewpoints. It sounds like you don't want me to share my opinion unless I back it up with some sort of link to some study that *you* approve of.

You need to get off your high horse and understand that there are different viewpoints other than your own and that not everything is a debate.

You've already been chewed out for badgering me regarding my opinions, perhaps it's time to turn over a new leaf and start respecting beliefs other than your own and realize that people can disagree with you and that's okay and you don't need to berate them. Just a thought.

[MENTION=5272]thirdwind[/MENTION] - I respect your beliefs, but I personally don't believe we are animals and that sex is such a deeper, more complicated thing than just eating a good hamburger.

You are making an unspoken commitment to someone. An emotional bond that should never be broken. The fact that we put the label of 'animal instincts' on something so precious and so beautiful is a tragedy.

 

I can agree with that. Food was just the first example I could think of. My point was that after I've "had my fill," I don't feel the urge to want more.

Yes, sex can be beautiful and an emotional bond, but not all people see it like that. And that to me is perfectly fine. It just depends on your beliefs.

 

I agree and I think victim blaming, which clearly differs when it comes to sexual assault as ChickenFreak pointed out earlier, is evidence of the rape culture problem.

In what post did you read that the default position was male=rapist? I don't see the post, though I will look more closely since you pointed it out.

In case there is any confusion re my own position, I think the rape culture is a localized phenomena, contained within certain groups and not something the whole society suffers from.

 

I don't suppose you recognize the irony in in this comment?

I look for evidence, you make stuff up. Are both positions not discussion?

 

Normally, when someone prefaces their statements with 'I think', 'I believe' or 'In my opinion', they are putting forth a self report that is usually unassailable because others have no basis for questioning them.

I could quite myself and bold all the times I said these phrases, but I'm on my iPhone and it would be cumbersome.

That being said, let me ask you a question.

What would an appropriate, respectful response to an opinion look like?

I would assume it would start with something complimentary such as 'I can see where you're coming from' or 'I respect your point of view'.

Would you generally agree with that?

Next I would ask that you review your posts and the posts of others and see if it passes the test of respectful dialogue. Do you give people respect when you disagree or do you belittle them with harsh words and firm rhetoric?

Just think about it.

 

I don't believe this is accurate. If you believe, as I do, that the way women dress throughout society is one part of an over-sexualization of our culture that leads to sexual deviancy. This is perfectly plausible.

It doesn't mean that there is a direct responsibility of any single woman being raped, but a cultural responsibility of all women that dress innapropriately.

Again, you can separate the man from the woman in a rape. The man is directly responsible for his actions and society is responsible for contributing to his inclinations.

On the flip side, a woman is not directly responsible and only culturally responsible if she contributes to the culture of sex.

 

You conflate claims of fact with claims of opinion and don't seem to understand the difference. That's what I think.

 

Erm... Are you able to see the inconsistency between the above and the following, from you, from earlier in the thread?

I suppose that your argument may be that it's OK for you to make such prideful, contempt-dripping remarks, because you are Right, and the rest of us are Wrong. But you may be able to understand that the rest of us don't really see things that way?

 

This was merely a personal observation that I feel that Ginger has personal contempt for me as a person which leads her to automatically seek to refute everything I say. I admit my frustrations but as I said, Ginger has been reprimanded in the past for such actions, and has not apparently learned from her mistakes.

[MENTION=53143]GingerCoffee[/MENTION] - If you don't know the difference between opinion and fact, then I'm afraid the fault is yours.

This link should be of some help:

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/education/reading_genie/Fact-opinion.html

Cheers.