• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rape and Clothing

Rape and clothing correlation

  • I suspect women are wearing revealing clothes in most rape cases

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I suspect that a man/woman will rape regardless of the victims clothing

    Votes: 24 26.4%

  • I think some women are inviting dangerous attention when wearing revealing attire

    Votes: 5 5.5%

  • I don't think clothes have anything to do with rape

    Votes: 52 57.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 10 11.0%
  • Total voters
    91
NoC_T said:
Since rape is about power and not sex, then of the millions (billions?) of rapes that must surely leave history awash with this particular atrocity, do you happen to know of one single case where sexual contact wasn't the mode of expression? Would it be reasonable to revise the existing laws to include a new definition of rape as being a power crime, rather than a sex crime? Shall we remove rapists from the sex offenders registers, in light of this new definition, since it's somehow inaccurate? We could reasonably choose to recognise no distinction between rape and, say, a verbal threat, since power and control are the qualifiers, right? Or blackmail, for example? A politician abusing his position to have a woman removed from her job just raped her, is that correct? He'll be charged with rape? I'll wait patiently for a single example of a case where rape occurred without sex.

Now, you might say it's both. That it's power by means of sex. Interestingly, even consensual sex can occur with power as the motive, as in certain forms of fetishism. But that’s consensual, so no harm no foul. But then the only difference between rape as some cruel and ruthless pursuit of power and regular sex is the element of consent itself, correct? By extension, if I punch a woman in the face without her consent, I just raped her. No sex was necessary. Christ, I could steal a Snickers bar and be guilty of rape. Let's be clear. There's no denying the sexual component of rape, but 'power' is merely (politically) interpretative beyond physical domination. No complex, degradative, diabolical mind game is necessary. While rape is destructive, there are numerous other avenues one might pursue to that end, and without any attendant jail sentence.

Also, does knowing the victim in advance make the crime any less opportunistic? Even a jewellery store smash n' grab, though planned, would entail the element of opportunism. Or a mugging. Whatever. Does intention necessarily constitute a lengthy period of premeditation? Because if there's no established temporal baseline, then a ten year campaign of threats that culminates in rape is no more indicative of planning than the ****bag who jumps women in car parks. That a victim might know her attacker in advance is no refutation of opportunism, that representing, literally, a moment of opportunity. A 'plan' can be formulated in seconds. All that’s required is a dark alley and a passer-by. I doubt very much if serial rapists who attack complete strangers would be accused of putting much thought into who their victims are. It's opportunism, not military logistics. How much planning does it take to rape someone, requiring only physical domination? If anything, doesn’t knowing the victim in advance make for far less planning than with a stranger?
Click to expand...

You're arguing against a 'point' that she didn't make.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Exactly.

So the argument is bull**** and it comes from people who find *certain clothes* to be insanely attractive - and for whatever reason - they assume everyone else is the same way.

It's a way of passing the stress and blame off on the victim as if she's done something stupid like on a 'dude - watch this' video that goes viral and ends up on Tosh2.0.

When people toss around that argument and they *believe it* - it tells a lot about them.
Click to expand...

If I was a juror and was presented with "how she was dressed" as evidence in a rape case, I think I would be mortified about it, and I would certainly not make my judgement based upon that piece of evidence.

I love Tosh! That show is hilarious!
 
ChrisL said:
If I was a juror and was presented with "how she was dressed" as evidence in a rape case, I think I would be mortified about it, and I would certainly not make my judgement based upon that piece of evidence.

I love Tosh! That show is hilarious!
Click to expand...

And what about the flip side - men in those damned plain white t's hmm and facial hair! Who's going to tell them to knock it off!
 
opendebate said:
that doesn't mean that it is sound or just.

how a group of jurors decide to interpret the behaviors of any party is rooted in the conventions of the time and does not serve to justify those decisions.
Click to expand...

take that up with the next prosecutor or defense attorney you meet with.

I am merely telling you how things work in court rooms. like it or not
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You're arguing against a 'point' that she didn't make.
Click to expand...
That's one hell of an informed response.

I'll await her own. I'm painfully aware of what the feminazi translation is.

Thanks anyway.
 
NoC_T said:
That's one hell of an informed response.

I'll await her own. I'm painfully aware of what the feminazi translation is.

Thanks anyway.
Click to expand...

Well I was actually thinking that maybe you quoted the wrong person.
 
TurtleDude said:
take that up with the next prosecutor or defense attorney you meet with.

I am merely telling you how things work in court rooms. like it or not
Click to expand...

This conversation is not about what happens in a court room.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Well I was actually thinking that maybe you quoted the wrong person.
Click to expand...
As you did, unless you're in the habit of quoting those who have no interest in your feedback.
 
pc_164c9c046c4796995dda7bf9d16467e4.jpg
 
ChrisL said:
That is not accurate because it's a matter of opinion, and is in no way an indicator of consent to sex. IMO, it is fine if a defense attorney wants to use her behavior as an indicator, such as she was sitting in his lap all night and kissing on him and things like that. But just because a woman is wearing a short skirt does NOT indicate anything to do with her consenting to sex or not.

On that note, we should be able to use in the case for the prosecution that "she was dressed conservatively" so obviously she did NOT want sex and he obviously must have raped her. What's good for the goose . . . .
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing the accuracy of the scene presented with the jury's interpretation of the scene. A court can control how accurately the scene is presented, but cannot do a thing about how individual jurist interpret it.

Um, "dressed conservatively", at least to me doesn't actually tell me how she was dressed. But "conservatively" or "slutty", the jury should be given the description. Hopefully more accurately than using those type of words.
 
NoC_T said:
As you did, unless you're in the habit of quoting those who have no interest in your feedback.
Click to expand...

Or you could clarify how your rambling points actually relate to her post - because they still don't match up. You're all in a tizzy, apparently over nothing. If you want to have a one-sided spazz attack rather than take a moment to clarify then by all means . . . go ahead.
 
ecofarm said:
Sorry, still can't read.
Click to expand...

apparently not - are you Gipper2? Incapable of responding to anything without turning it into some rambling bit of sexist bull****? Because he's on my ****list for being a perpetual douche.
 
opendebate said:
This conversation is not about what happens in a court room.
Click to expand...

It is a necessary part of this conversation. how a woman acts before a "date rape" is an important issue in determining who told the truth as to whether consent or buyer's remorse is in play
 
Serenity said:
pc_164c9c046c4796995dda7bf9d16467e4.jpg
Click to expand...

:shrug:

It's not too far from the truth.

"There's a beast in every man..."

Most of us can keep things more or less together, but there are many who cannot. Those men are not going to be going anywhere any time soon.

Women need to be wary of them for exactly that reason.

Frankly, I don't really understand why it is so offensive to suggest that women not behave like irresponsible flakes anyway.
 
DVSentinel said:
I think you are confusing the accuracy of the scene presented with the jury's interpretation of the scene. A court can control how accurately the scene is presented, but cannot do a thing about how individual jurist interpret it.

Um, "dressed conservatively", at least to me doesn't actually tell me how she was dressed. But "conservatively" or "slutty", the jury should be given the description. Hopefully more accurately than using those type of words.
Click to expand...

it's irrelevant and has no place in the discussion.
 
DVSentinel said:
I think you are confusing the accuracy of the scene presented with the jury's interpretation of the scene. A court can control how accurately the scene is presented, but cannot do a thing about how individual jurist interpret it.

Um, "dressed conservatively", at least to me doesn't actually tell me how she was dressed. But "conservatively" or "slutty", the jury should be given the description. Hopefully more accurately than using those type of words.
Click to expand...

I'm not confusing anything. It is wrong of the jury to judge a person based upon their clothing.

Good Lord! I'm sure you can figure out (for the purposes of THIS discussion) what "conservative" versus "slutty" dressing means. :roll:
 
TurtleDude said:
It is a necessary part of this conversation. how a woman acts before a "date rape" is an important issue in determining who told the truth as to whether consent or buyer's remorse is in play
Click to expand...

You know - how about we bring up this point: How did the guy ACT before he committed to date rape?

I mean - if people want women to be aware and on their guard and forever looking out for their self maybe we should debate the behaviors from the perpetrator leading *up to* the crime. Maybe that'll actually get us somewhere.

As it stands: if she shows any bit of interest (or doesn't) then the guy, what, has "permission" to rape?
What if he's all nice and sweet and then rapes - does that somehow diminish his crime or make it okay?
 
Gathomas88 said:
:shrug:

It's not too far from the truth.

"There's a beast in every man..."

Most of us can keep things more or less together, but there are many who cannot. Those men are not going to be going anywhere any time soon.

Women need to be wary of them for exactly that reason.

Frankly, I don't really understand why it is so offensive to suggest that women not behave like fools anyway.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that men shouldn't drink to much or wear snug pants? If you give in to the idea that men can't control themselves you condone their loss of control.
 
TurtleDude said:
It is a necessary part of this conversation. how a woman acts before a "date rape" is an important issue in determining who told the truth as to whether consent or buyer's remorse is in play
Click to expand...

How she acts? Fine. How she was dressed? Bad way to determine "consent."
 
opendebate said:
Does this mean that men shouldn't drink to much or wear snug pants? If you give in to the idea that men can't control themselves you condone their loss of control.
Click to expand...

Because some men behave like morons, women should too? That doesn't strike me as being as especially compelling argument. :shrug:

Ideally, no one would indulge in this kind of behavior.

Frankly, men pay the price for bad behavior in a lot of ways too. It simply happens to be the case that we're a bit less vulnerable than women are.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You know - how about we bring up this point: How did the guy ACT before he committed to date rape?

I mean - if people want women to be aware and on their guard and forever looking out for their self maybe we should debate the behaviors from the perpetrator leading *up to* the crime. Maybe that'll actually get us somewhere.
Click to expand...

that's a good point but the focus in this thread has been on a woman's dress and rape and one poster was correct in noting "rape" can mean several different things

1) forcing someone with threats of violence to engage in unwanted sex

2) drugging someone so they no longer are able to resist sex or to say no

3) and to some people-rape involves convincing a woman to have sex even if she initially didn't want to

its the third category where the dress of the victim may be relevant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom