If a woman is raped, did she have it coming if she wore a miniskirt?

[Humanist_Activist]

It could be argued that she was provocative, after all.

I ask because apparently quite a few of you would answer yes to the question, when looking at how many responded to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x308664

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

2. He is serious, and don't call him Shirley.

It a question posed in response to this sub-thread and the many responses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x308664#308671

[Humanist_Activist]

9. Why shouldn't I be? n/t

[hlthe2b]

3. Any one that would think that to be the case...

ought to be the one required to don a burlap bag over their head for the indefinite future. :mad:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. NOBODY ever asks to be raped.

EVER

[Humanist_Activist]

8. Of course not, that should be the obvious answer...

but if someone dresses up as a mockery of a religious figure, are they asking for being assaulted?

[cleanhippie]

10. And NOBODY askes to get attack for marching in a parade, either.

[Deep13]

32. No one ever asks to be assaulted either. nt

[Firebrand Gary]

5. The sad thing is some make consider this as a real question.

[tularetom]

6. No she didn't and neither did the atheist who was attacked by a muslim

Anybody who thinks either of them "had it coming" is simply wrong.

[benld74]

7. If someone POSTS such a devisive question, are they thinking?!?!?

[Humanist_Activist]

11. When the question should be asked to reveal various other people's shortcomings, yes.

[cleanhippie]

12. They are thinking that there are people whi think like that, right here in DU.

And what do you know, they DO think like that!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x308664#308671

[Humanist_Activist]

15. I think a lot of people aren't RTFM at all...

and just responding to the subject line. But one thing I find disturbing is at least one poster on that thread "wouldn't shed a tear" if an atheist is killed in that situation.

Religious people simply don't value life like secular people do.

[Madam Mossfern]

13. Your comparison is absurd

Women don't wear miniskirts to mock rapists.
Sheesh!

[cleanhippie]

17. Uh, yes they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk



Its a very APT comparison, actually.

[Unvanguard]

31. That's not even remotely the point of SlutWalk, sorry.

:eyes:

[Humanist_Activist]

18. Who cares WHY someone dresses the way they do, are they asking to be harmed bodily because of it? n/

[Behind the Aegis]

23. You are correct. The comparison is absurd.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. How? The only thing that's different would be the nature of the assault...

are you saying that some people are asking to be physically assaulted, but only in specific ways?

[Behind the Aegis]

29. No, the difference is in intent.

Even if a woman dresses in a provocative manner, which is debatable in of itself, she is doing so to attract positive attention (usually) or provoke a positive response. This person was taking the meaning of "provocative" to provoke his anti-religious (Islam, in this case) views or a negative response. Either way, it doesn't justify this assault.

Are you suggesting a woman going out in a particular fashion is actually just doing so in order to ridicule others' beliefs?

[Humanist_Activist]

30. Actually yes, some women who were raised Muslim don't follow...

the dress codes as a form of rebellion and disrespect of the cultural and religious beliefs of their fellow Muslims. Many do it at great risk to them selves, risks they shouldn't have to take in the first place, and should be non-existent.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. Since you are changing the goalposts...

....why not just say, "Should Fred Phelps carrying a "Fags in Hell" sign at a gay man's funeral be attacked?" Of course, my answer would still be no. The analogy would also be much more apt.

[Humanist_Activist]

40. You do realize that the point in question are that neither intent nor the nature...

of the expression excuses violence against the person expressing it. There is no changing the goalposts, I answered a question, if you have difficulty understanding what is being argued, then perhaps you should stay out of the conversation.

[Behind the Aegis]

42. The "difficulty" here is yours, not mine.

Perhaps if all you want are "rah-rahs" then you should find a more suitable board in which you can make shitty comparisons and not have people express differing opinions and only have people stroking your ego.

[darkstar3]

25. No, the comparison is clearly apt. You're upset, like others, over a matter of degrees.

Rape is clearly a more heinous crime than the assault that took place in the linked thread, but the analogy is dead on: Time and time again, rape victims are accused of provoking their assailants simply by wearing the wrong clothing, just as the victim of this assault was. This is done in order to excuse, on some level, the actions of the assailant, just as was done in the linked thread.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. No, the comparison is flawed.

Furthermore, stick to your own narrative and stop trying to dictate how I feel. As I said to NMMNG, there is a difference in "being perceived as" provocative and "actually being" provocative. Even if he was being provocative, it doesn't justify the assault; nor should it.

[darkstar3]

36. And with your denial you admit provocation is the issue present in both cases,

showing the comparison as apt.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. Whatever helps you through the night.

The comparison is crap.


ETA: You do realize there is a difference between Murder 1 and negligent homicide, right? Both victims are dead. According to you, comparing both deaths would be "apt." :eyes:

[darkstar3]

38. I already granted that you were upset at a matter of degrees. Thank you for confirming it.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. Again, what ever helps you thru the nite.

What are the lottery numbers next week, Ms. Clio? Oh wait, you're "psychic abilities" suck as bad as her's do.

[darkstar3]

41. I never claimed psychic abilities, only the ability to read and see implications.

I also know that "thru" should only be used when preceded by "drive-", that "you're" and "your" are not interchangeable, and that "hers" never requires a possessive apostrophe.

My point? Language skills allow the reader to see that which is not written, yet present. For example, I can tell that your hasty post lacked an attempt to use spell-check, which tells me that there's a great possibility you were upset when you posted this, just as I said above.

[Behind the Aegis]

43. A grammar nazi? Who would have guessed?! LOL!

I guess when you have little to no substance, then rely on old hat tricks. Here's some more "insight" for you...sometimes posts are written hastily because the person is running to do something else and doesn't take the time to proof read the post as if it were a professional editorial, but rather nothing more than a post on a blog site.

Also, "thru" is a lazy way to spell "through", just as some people use "yr" or "ur" for "you are"/"your", again, not a professional news piece. I will say, tho (;)), your comments have verified many implications about yourself, especially this last "response." You have a pleasant today, and a happy tomorrow.

[darkstar3]

44. What you have are inferences, and my points, as well as the original analogy, stand.

[Behind the Aegis]

45. And what you did was implicate yourself. I was talking about you, not me.

Of course the points stand, IYO, which I find flawed. Your points, like the original analogy are both crap. It's true, they are both fruits, but apples aren't oranges, or visa versa.

[darkstar3]

46. Ha! In what, exactly?

[Behind the Aegis]

47. I think you know.

I have also decided not to use spell check or grammar check when responding to you. :P (I am just giving you a 'heads up'.) Now, I have other things in which to waste my time. Clearly we don't agree. None of you made a convincing argument, and you, well, you are just to intelligent to have the rabble correct you. Oh, and G-d! :)

[darkstar3]

48. So, nothing.

You might work on sticking that landing.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. Oh, that's right, if you don't see it, it doesn't exist.

:rofl:

Your (heehee) a pip!

TTFN.

Stay away from fruit salad, especially if you are allergic to either apples or oranges, you can't seem to tell them apart. :P

[darkstar3]

50. Actually it goes if you, the claimant, can't prove it then it isn't true.

But I know how much trouble that gives you.

I find it odd (for lack of a better word) that you attempt to mock me by using the word "fruit", given that it is most often a slang term for homosexual, and I recognize what your avatar symbolizes. :wtf:

[Behind the Aegis]

51. Actually, that isn't correct.* Sorry.

But it explains why you can't understand. As for "fruit," I am well aware that word can be used as a slang against gay men, but given I didn't know you were gay (or male), then it stands to reason I wasn't using in that way. Also, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the saying "comparing apples to oranges." It is that to which I refer. I am not surprised you have resorted to the "victim" card. Perhaps you are the one trying to utlize homophobic mocking with "odd (for lack of a better word)", when you are really trying to imply "queer." (See, anyone can stretch something into an offense.)

*Can you figure out why your staement is false crap? "Actually it goes if you, the claimant, can't prove it then it isn't true."

[darkstar3]

52. I simplified for the audience and the fact that we're in the frame of a debate.

I never claimed victimhood. I simply found the fact that someone with your avatar would use the slur, for any purpose, disconcerting.

Now how many posts will you continue to make here in order to claim the last word? I thought you had "other things" to do back when you wrote #47. We've already gone far past discussing the analogy in the OP, with your own words proving its aptness. I see nothing left to do here except to throw your sloppy volleys back at you, and I'm getting bored.

[Behind the Aegis]

53. You smiplified for yourself.

You did and are still playing the "victim" card.

"Now how many posts will you continue to make here in order to claim the last word?" (I thought you had "other things" to do back when you wrote #47." I did; I took care of them already.) LOL! :rofl: Yet, another stupid remark, like you last one that you didn't expalin, but I am guessing you now know why it was WRONG. ;) I guess you just don't like for people to stand up to you; not an usual quality for people you can dish it out, but can't take it (so you don't get overly confused, that isn't an anti-gay slur about sexual proclivities).

Now, you may have the last word, since that seems to be so important to you (or not (now that attention has been brought to your desire to get in one last personal insult or claim of victimization)). Proceed...


ETA: Just for shits and giggles, I "DU'ed" you in the LGBT forum: "Your search criteria return no matched results. Please try again."

[NMMNG]

26. It's not

LGBT people are often accused by the RRRW of provoking anti-gay attacks by "flaunting it". Conservative Christians claim women invite rape by dressing immodestly because they tempt men with their skimpy attire. The people defending the attack on these atheists are using the same sort of ploy. It's blaming the victim, plain and simple.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. It is. Sorry, we will have to disagree.

The protester clearly knew he was being provocative. It doesn't justify his being attacked in any way though. There is a difference in being "perceived as being" provocative and "actually being" provocative. If people are defending this attack, then IMO, they are wrong. Provocative or not, assaulting someone for it is illegal and wrong.

[Deep13]

33. Wait, what?

So mockery is a invitation to assault? Does that mean every time John Stewart goes on TV he is asking politicians to harm him physically?

[yurbud]

14. saying it was provocative does not excuse the rapist--it's two separate issues.

The later you stay at a bar and the drunker you get, the more likely you are to be murdered.

It is therefore stupid to do so, but that is not the same as saying you deserved to be killed.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. Interacting with other human beings is stupid because it increases the risk...

of being assaulted, raped, killed, etc. So we should all live on small islands isolated from each other.

The problem with your argument is that it judges the victim unfairly. The person who was robbed shouldn't have gone to the ATM in plain view, that person who got their TV stolen shouldn't have flaunted it through their living room window, that person who was murdered shouldn't have stayed late at the bar. Uhm, all of these are stupid, for the person making that type of argument.

[NMMNG]

16. Yes

If a man lusts and/or does something to a woman because her attire is skimpy, it's the woman's fault for dressing immodestly. Men have no self-control, so women have to be responsible for everything.

Likewise if a religious person goes berserk it's the fault of the atheist. Religious people can't control what they say and do in the name of their Deeply Held Religious Beliefs, so it's up to the atheist to always mind what s/he says, does and wears to ensure the religious person remains calm and under control.











(:sarcasm:, for those who can't figure it out)

[valerief]

19. Oh, for chrissakes. Why don't you stick with how many angels fit on the head of a pin

instead of this crap?

[Humanist_Activist]

20. What crap? Why are you so angry? n/t

[ChadwickHenryWard]

22. No.

I've never understood the idea that wearing revealing clothing makes a woman more likely to be the victim of rape. Most rapes are committed by men the victims knows already, not by some stranger on the street. Of those that are, how is a short skirt supposed to make a woman more likely to be a target of the crime? Things that might make a potential attacker more likely to strike would be whether the victim is visibly able to defend herself, whether she is alone, whether she is able in any way to call for help, or if anybody nearby could potentially witness and interfere with the attempted crime. I should think the last thing that enters into it is how the woman is dressed. What is the thinking here? That a law-abiding, mild-mannered man, who would otherwise never be inclined to commit such an act, is overcome by animal lust and simply cannot control himself? That's not very likely.

I simply cannot conceive how the wearing of a short skirt could cause or contribute to a woman being raped. And even if it did, how could it be construed as the woman's fault? If I have a gold watch, and I wear it, and somebody takes it, either a stranger or somebody I know and trust, it is not my fault just for wearing the watch. I have not violated the thief's right not to be tempted; he has violated my right to own things that are mine.

[Deep13]

34. Of course she did. Just like when I burn my neighbor's house down...

...for having a Republican lawn sign means they had it coming.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMMNG]

55. Already pulling the NTS?

No True Scotsman

Sorry, "True Christians" http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/dress.htm">constantly blame women's allegedly immodest dress for the vile behavior of men. After all, men are apparently incapable of controlling themselves even though God put them in charge of the entire world.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMMNG]

57. You fizzled out pretty quickly

You come out of the gate with so much bull then have nothing to back it up with. But it was amusing while it lasted. :rofl: