SlutWalks

[cappuccina]

I think I'm in the minority on this thread....other than Limehouse, is anyone else here a parent???

What I said earlier has a lot of basis in fact and common sense, and the other extremely important thing here, and I will not be popular with some of you for saying this, but frankly I do not care, is that we need to work with our children/young people at an early age to show them how NOT to be victims or victimized, whether sexually or otherwise....this means assertiveness training, putting children in physical fitness activities, etc.

Both of my children are well-mannered, kind and non violent. However, I can tell you that if someone has ever wanted to victimize them, they, meaning my children, have not allowed it. Now, I am not talking about situations where someone comes up on the street and puts a gun to your head. However, statistics also show that people, especially women, who go where they are going with a certain air of confidence, are far less likely to be victimized....whether that means your purse being taken or sexual assault.

When society and the media promotes looking like a "crack waif" as the ideal image for young girls, it is PROMOTING VICTIMIZATION. Fact.



They should be promoting images/women who are psychologically strong, such as:



See the difference? Both sets of women retain their femininity, and are not wearing burqu'as. However the women in the top image exude "victim", while the women in the bottom image exude "resilience"...

[Limehouse]

O.k let me restate my original statement.......Women dressing sluttily ,by their dress and presumabley slutty actions increase their risk of suffering some kind of sexual assault........now by all means argue that, not argue things I havent said,or drift off into sub topics like paedophilia(of which I made no mention) whether or not the authors of said references were descended directly from heaven,or a whole host of other nonsensical topics.

Even if that statement was true IT IS STILL THE RAPISTS FAULT!

If men can't control themselves just because a woman is showing a bit of leg then MEN SHOULD BE ORDERED OFF THE STREETS.

Let's see how a bit of curtailment of men's freedom goes down!

[TomTomKent]

Oh dear,
1.We are all driven, Paedophiles cannot alter the facrt they are paedophiles.They have to accept the responsibilty for their actions nonetheless.Its not a choice to become/not become a paedophile. Im stating the obvious,but as for as youre concerned,it seems one has to do just that....all the time.Perhaps you might take your own advice and follow that logic?
2.It means nothing of the sort ,necessarilly.As I stated earlier the quotes quoted were primarily to show that your voice/opinion wasnt the only voice/opinion on the planet. 3.As far as rape was concerned,I believed the slutty proffessional dressers indicated the subject was adult rape,not child rape or paedophilia,an issue you keep returning to time and time again, why?that part is getting a little creepy to be honest. Your facts dont prove anything one way or the other,why pretend they do.. 4.attributing the tendency towards abberrant behaviour to genes etc doesnt excuse the crime,it merely shows that forces other than conscious behaviour are at work.
5. "little things please little minds" Yes Im quite certain that you are eminently qualified to talk of such things.
6."Really? I think weve done a good job so far".....Well you would say (and think) that wouldnt you?

O.k let me restate my original statement.......Women dressing sluttily ,by their dress and presumabley slutty actions increase their risk of suffering some kind of sexual assault........now by all means argue that, not argue things I havent said,or drift off into sub topics like paedophilia(of which I made no mention) whether or not the authors of said references were descended directly from heaven,or a whole host of other nonsensical topics.

1. They may not be able to alter the fact they are attracted to a child. But they can avoid the act of statutary rape. Unless of course this strays into the realm of compulsive disorders in which case they can not be held legally responisble due to diminished responsibility.

However, the majority of sex offenders, 75% do not suffer mental heal issues. So we can assume they are perfectly capable of choosing not to rape anybody and can indeed choose not to "be" a rapist. Your comparrison is based upon flaed logic and assumption.

2.You also made it clear that the quotes were a view you supported. (But feel free to swig some of your own medicine and heed your own advice: Your views are not the only ones, so do not get so petty when others disagree with you.

3. The protests were about "rape". Sex with out consent. Statutory rape falls under that band, and frankly, you have let to prove any link between the dress of the victim and any form of assualt.

4. A genetic dispossition would not be a factor "other than the concious behaviour", it would be an attributing factor to concious behaviour. Sexual assualt, except in very rare cases is a concious act. It is something the attacker knows they are doing and could choose to stop.

5. Every time you make remarks like that in fact...

6.Yes. She would.

O.k let me restate my original statement.......Women dressing sluttily ,by their dress and presumabley slutty actions increase their risk of suffering some kind of sexual assault

Why? There is no evidence clothing is in any way a factor. Nor is there evidence correlating behaviour to clothes. But feel free to actually support that opinion with evidence at any point. Or stop moaning about the evidence that disproves it. Your choice.

[Limehouse]

I think I'm in the minority on this thread....other than Limehouse, is anyone else here a parent???

What I said earlier has a lot of basis in fact and common sense, and the other extremely important thing here, and I will not be popular with some of you for saying this, but frankly I do not care, is that we need to work with our children/young people at an early age to show them how NOT to be victims or victimized, whether sexually or otherwise....this means assertiveness training, putting children in physical fitness activities, etc.

Both of my children are well-mannered, kind and non violent. However, I can tell you that if someone has ever wanted to victimize them, they, meaning my children, have not allowed it. Now, I am not talking about situations where someone comes up on the street and puts a gun to your head. However, statistics also show that people, especially women, who go where they are going with a certain air of confidence, are far less likely to be victimized....whether that means your purse being taken or sexual assault.

When society and the media promotes looking like a "crack waif" as the ideal image for young girls, it is PROMOTING VICTIMIZATION. Fact.



They should be promoting images/women who are psychologically strong, such as:

[IMG]www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID39795/images/swilliams.jpg[IMG]

See the difference? Both sets of women retain their femininity, and are not wearing burqu'as. However the women in the top image exude "victim", while the swomen in the bottom image exude "resilience"...

Caps - I think we should be working with boys and well as girls so that the guys learn what behaviour is acceptable around girls and women regardless of what they are wearing.

However - I think you have a point when it comes to how girls are taught to project themselves. The sexualisation of girls at a young age has been encouraged by the pop industry in that it has promoted certain clothing as being 'necessary' in order for girls to be 'accepted' and 'loved'.

Girls should be taught to dress for themselves - not just for approval from boys and men - and they should have the social skills to project themselves as people rather than objects. We need to work with boys and girls to achieve this.

[Bob Hinton]

Oh really...

I do wish LTT you would read what has been written instead of what he thinks - or hopes has been written.

Babybird wrote the following:

ALL - i repeat ALL - rape victims are blameless! The one to blame is the perpetrator, the rapist, not the victim.

There is no room for manoeuvre here, what she is saying is quite clear – although I fully expect her to come back and say ‘That wasn’t what I meant’.
So let us be quite clear what she is saying “All – I repeat ALL- rape victims are blameless.

So let us see if that statement is in fact correct – or as I have said ‘tripe’.

A man sits alone in a bar. He is joined by a young lady and they start talking. During the course of the conversation the girl proclaims her age as being 18. There is nothing in her behaviour or demeanour to make the man think otherwise. Things progress and they go to bed together.

Afterwards the man is arrested for Statutory rape because the girl is in fact only 17 years and eleven months and therefore a minor. The man admits he had sex with the lady and is duly convicted of rape. He is then a rapist and the woman is the victim. Now do you honestly expect us to believe that in these circumstances the woman is blameless? That someone who deliberately lied is blameless and someone who made an honest mistake is an evil rapist? As I said – utter tripe!

[TomTomKent]

That last statement implies I raped someone. Remove it and apologise immediately or I will hit you with a lawsuit so fast your head will spin.

Certainly. And feel free to remove all the posts where you personally insult me as well Bob.

I am sorry if you felt that was a genuine accusation, allow me to rephrase:

At what point do you consider the clothing of a victim to be a mitigating factor of any kind where the rapist is no longer the sole person responsible for their action?

[babybird67]

Oh dear,
1.We are all driven, Paedophiles cannot alter the facrt they are paedophiles.They have to accept the responsibilty for their actions nonetheless.Its not a choice to become/not become a paedophile. Im stating the obvious,but as for as youre concerned,it seems one has to do just that....all the time.Perhaps you might take your own advice and follow that logic?

You're the one condoning gene-based arguments Glyn. I am just drawing the natural (pun intended) conclusions from them.

2.It means nothing of the sort ,necessarilly.As I stated earlier the quotes quoted were primarily to show that your voice/opinion wasnt the only voice/opinion on the planet.

It's quite difficult typing answers to your very ill-typed contributions but I will struggle along. You are still confusing opinion with facts, Glyn. Statistics are facts and show that there is no co-relation between the way a woman dresses and whether she will be the victim of rape, whatever your OPINION says to the contrary.

3.As far as rape was concerned,I believed the slutty proffessional dressers indicated the subject was adult rape,not child rape or paedophilia,an issue you keep returning to time and time again, why?that part is getting a little creepy to be honest.

Probably because FACTUALLY 60% of rape victims are children, Glyn. That's the majority, in case your maths turns out to be as bad as your command of the English language. You cannot exclude the majority of victims from a discussion about rape because you think it's creepy to point out they are victims. What is creepy is the number of men (and to a lesser extent women) who are so sexually deviant as to find children sexually attractive. You might like to brush it under the carpet because it makes you uncomfortable, but they are worth more than that.

Your facts dont prove anything one way or the other,why pretend they do..

Um, yes Glyn they do. They prove that dress is not correlated to one's likelihood of being raped. That's why all the rape advice I have come across doesn't advise women to go out dressed in Tudor armour. It makes no difference, as has been pointed out to you many times already.

4.attributing the tendency towards abberrant behaviour to genes etc doesnt excuse the crime,it merely shows that forces other than conscious behaviour are at work.

At work yes. Responsible? No. We are all a mixture of our genes and our upbringing. We all make conscious choices. Rape research shows that most rapes are the result of planning and manipulation, not the sudden neanderthal urge you seem happy to attribute them to. Rapists make choices. To violate another human being. That should not be attributed to genes, but to their behaviour, which they freely choose.

O.k let me restate my original statement.......Women dressing sluttily ,by their dress and presumabley slutty actions increase their risk of suffering some kind of sexual assault

NO THEY DON'T. FACT. It's your failure to grasp the fact that this is a provable false statement which shows just how limited your intellectual grasp of the issue is.

[Limehouse]

Babybird and Errata

Thank you for sharing those extremely painful experiences. Perhaps it will help some of the posters to understand better. You are both very brave.

[babybird67]

I do wish LTT you would read what has been written instead of what he thinks - or hopes has been written.

Babybird wrote the following:

ALL - i repeat ALL - rape victims are blameless! The one to blame is the perpetrator, the rapist, not the victim.

There is no room for manoeuvre here, what she is saying is quite clear – although I fully expect her to come back and say ‘That wasn’t what I meant’.
So let us be quite clear what she is saying “All – I repeat ALL- rape victims are blameless.

So let us see if that statement is in fact correct – or as I have said ‘tripe’.

A man sits alone in a bar. He is joined by a young lady and they start talking. During the course of the conversation the girl proclaims her age as being 18. There is nothing in her behaviour or demeanour to make the man think otherwise. Things progress and they go to bed together.

Afterwards the man is arrested for Statutory rape because the girl is in fact only 17 years and eleven months and therefore a minor. The man admits he had sex with the lady and is duly convicted of rape. He is then a rapist and the woman is the victim. Now do you honestly expect us to believe that in these circumstances the woman is blameless? That someone who deliberately lied is blameless and someone who made an honest mistake is an evil rapist? As I said – utter tripe!

Oh Bob you are such a twister of words. She went to bed with the man consensually. Therefore she was not raped in the terms we are discussing here. Statutory rape is something completely different from rape and you know that very well.

The issue is consent. And you know it. Not legal definitions based on whether someone can legally give that consent or not.

[TomTomKent]

Oh Bob you are such a twister of words. She went to bed with the man consensually. Therefore she was not raped in the terms we are discussing here. Statutory rape is something completely different from rape and you know that very well.

The issue is consent. And you know it. Not legal definitions based on whether someone can legally give that consent or not.

And depending when and where the crime took place there would be issues over who the "victim" was, or indeed if the Young Man Defence would preven charges being made.

[cappuccina]

In the pics I posted, both sets of women are feminine. Both sets of women are wearing expensive fashionable clothing. Both sets of women are wearing makeup and jewelry. What are the differences you see between the two pictures?

Yes, of rourse boys should be taught not tovictimize, JUST AS GIRLS SHOULD AS WELL. FEMALES VICTIMIZE ONE ANOTHER ALL THE TIME; IT JUST TAKES LESS PHYSICAL FORMS USUALLY...

Limehouse, I agree with you!

[Ally]

Afterwards the man is arrested for Statutory rape because the girl is in fact only 17 years and eleven months and therefore a minor. The man admits he had sex with the lady and is duly convicted of rape. He is then a rapist and the woman is the victim. Now do you honestly expect us to believe that in these circumstances the woman is blameless? That someone who deliberately lied is blameless and someone who made an honest mistake is an evil rapist? As I said – utter tripe!

Attempting to equate statutory rape with forcible rape is a red herring. That is not what is being discussed here and you know it.


As for the issue of women being taught to project something other than victimhood, I quite agree. Criminals of all type look for someone who is an "easy mark" which has nothing to do with wardrobe. A scantily clad woman walking down the street, scanning left and right and behind her, head up, stride purposeful and alert is less likely to be accosted than the woman who is covered up, head down, staring at her shoes as she scurries along the street completely oblivious to her surrounding. The latter screams opportunity where the former alert woman does not.

I went clubbing in the Florida heat wearing full on slut attire because if you think I was going dancing on a hot July night with the humidity at 98 percent in full jeans and a shirt you have another think coming. I wore the bare minimum I could get away with and never, not once did I ever have any sort of problem. And I clubbed in all the parts of town there were under the sun and moon, bad areas and good. I remained alert and focused and my attitude screamed touch me and I'll beat you bloody. I never had a problem.

The one and only time any guy ever attempted starting something physically forcible with me, I was wearing jeans and an oxford -style long-sleeve shirt.

Wardrobe has fukk all to do with it.

[Bob Hinton]

Excellent points by Limehouse.

[cappuccina]

...Ally....no one of either gender who was in their right mind would go anywhere near you...LOLOLOL

You don't quite understand my point in posting the two pics though...

[Bob Hinton]

Attempting to equate statutory rape with forcible rape is a red herring. That is not what is being discussed here and you know it.

.

Again I do wish someone would read what has been written. Baby bird stated quite plainly ALL - I REPEAT ALL- rape victims.

This means all victims of rape whether it be statutory rape or violent rape. She did not say 'some victims of rape' she said 'all'.