• 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
because its common sense that clothes dont make a person a rapist, they are basically a non factor.

Normal adults are crazed animals that get rape inspirations simply by seeing steretypical sluttly clothes.

This is way there arent just people running around rapping eachother at beachs, pools and nude beaches lol

I'm of the idea that, okay maybe a guy finds a woman tempting in a certain outfit or whatever, but if he "takes" her against her will, he is a rapist, and HE is the one with the problem, not her. I understand that Gathomas is just trying to be helpful, but I don't think that women should have to alter THEIR behavior when they aren't the ones hurting anyone. It just doesn't seem right.
 
I'm of the idea that, okay maybe a guy finds a woman tempting in a certain outfit or whatever, but if he "takes" her against her will, he is a rapist, and HE is the one with the problem, not her. I understand that Gathomas is just trying to be helpful, but I don't think that women should have to alter THEIR behavior when they aren't the ones hurting anyone. It just doesn't seem right.

correct.
the guy was ALWAYS capable of rape and a rapist and he is the one with the SEVER mental problem

clothes will never MAKE a guy capable of rape or a rapist only mental problems do that

and no women should not have to alter thier behavior because of people with mental problems.

its so weird that anybody would want to partially defend this nutcases.

A woman could do drunk naked cartwheels in front of me and then pass out ass up right in front of me, it would NEVER motivate me to be a rapist because . . . . . . .im not mentally disturbed lol
 
AgentJ said:
correct.
the guy was ALWAYS capable of rape and a rapist and he is the one with the SEVER mental problem

clothes will never MAKE a guy capable of rape or a rapist only mental problems do that

and no women should not have to alter thier behavior because of people with mental problems.

its so weird that anybody would want to partially defend this nutcases.

A woman could do drunk naked cartwheels in front of me and then pass out ass up right in front of me, it would NEVER motivate me to be a rapist because . . . . . . .im not mentally disturbed lol

And how well does the "ignore bad people and hope they simply go away" strategy generally tend to work in reality, J? :roll:

All attitudes like your's accomplish is to put women too young and reckless to know any better at risk by giving them a false sense of security.

I'm of the idea that, okay maybe a guy finds a woman tempting in a certain outfit or whatever, but if he "takes" her against her will, he is a rapist, and HE is the one with the problem, not her. I understand that Gathomas is just trying to be helpful, but I don't think that women should have to alter THEIR behavior when they aren't the ones hurting anyone. It just doesn't seem right.

To be fair, people alter their behavior to mitigate risk all the time. It's not a matter of "should." It's a matter of personal safety.

For instance, it's generally advised that a person wash their hands before handling a large reptile. This is done in order to remove any residual smells which might lead the animal to mistake its handler's sensitive fingers for food. Would you ignore this advice simply because the reptile "should" know well enough not to bite?

Would you refuse to wear a seat belt on the grounds that other drivers "should" drive well enough not to cause accidents?

You can choose not to do either of these things, of course. However, that doesn't mean that it's ever going to be a good idea. The fact that a person will always be putting themselves at risk by failing to keep such measures in mind is undeniable.

The major problem here is that a lot of people want to buy into the fantastical notion that reckless and uninhibited behavior doesn't have consequences, just because they "feel" it shouldn't.

I'm sorry, but the reality of the situation here is that the idea is just that: fantasy. It always will be. :shrug:

If a woman wants to be safe, there are certain things she has to keep in mind. Encouraging women, and young and inexperienced women especially, to believe that men will behave themselves simply because they "should," and that no real effort is required on their own part, is dangerous.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, people alter their behavior to mitigate risk all the time. It's not a matter of "should." It's a matter of personal safety.

For instance, it's generally advised that a person wash their hands before handling a large reptile. This is done in order to remove any residual smells which might lead the animal to mistake its handler's sensitive fingers for food. Would you ignore this advice simply because the reptile "should" know well enough not to bite?

Would you refuse to wear a seat belt on the grounds that other drivers "should" drive well enough not to cause accidents?

You can choose not to do either of these things, of course. However, that doesn't mean that it's ever going to be a good idea. The fact that a person will always be putting themselves at risk by failing to keep such measures in mind is undeniable.

The major problem here is that a lot of people want to buy into the fantastical notion that reckless and uninhibited behavior doesn't have consequences, just because they "feel" it shouldn't.

I'm sorry, but the reality of the situation here is that the idea is just that: fantasy. It always will be. :shrug:

If a woman wants to be safe, there are certain things she has to keep in mind. Encouraging women, and young and inexperienced women especially, to believe that men will behave themselves simply because they "should," and that no real effort is required on their own part, is dangerous.

To be fair, I expect more from a human being than I do from a reptile. :roll:
 
1.)And how well does the "ignore bad people and hope they simply go away" strategy generally tend to work in reality, J? :roll:

2.)All attitudes like your's accomplish is to put women too young and reckless to know any better at risk by giving them a false sense of security.

why do you keep deleting the link when you quote me lol
probably because your failed arguments that are getting destroyed are getting worse

1.) who said i want to do this? oh thats right nobody lol another made up and failed strawman, please stay on topic and discuss things actually said


2.) see #1 lol the i want to creat victim card will never work to anybody educated, intelligent and honest, pleas stop lol

PLEASE PLEASE tell me how my attitude factually accomplishes this, i cant wait for this made up explanation, this is gonna be great! Hint: your post is going to fail big time
 
why do you keep deleting the link when you quote me lol
probably because your failed arguments that are getting destroyed are getting worse

1.) who said i want to do this? oh thats right nobody lol another made up and failed strawman, please stay on topic and discuss things actually said


2.) see #1 lol the i want to creat victim card will never work to anybody educated, intelligent and honest, pleas stop lol

PLEASE PLEASE tell me how my attitude factually accomplishes this, i cant wait for this made up explanation, this is gonna be great! Hint: your post is going to fail big time

1.) Because that's what you just flat out said. That women "shouldn't alter their behavior" to be more safe.

2.) You haz no FAAAACTTTZZZ LOL LOL

3.) Cheezburger?

4.) See #3 lol
 
1.) Because that's what you just flat out said. That women "shouldn't alter their behavior" to be more safe.

2.) You haz no FAAAACTTTZZZ LOL LOL

3.) Cheezburger?

1.) LMAO thank you for proving my point can you quote me saying the BS you just made up? lol i like the little ending you added in there "to be more safe" thank you for exposing your failed argument even further

so no, thats not what "i flat out said", its what you flat our made up. thanks for proving me right again

2.) translation you cant show how my attitude puts women at risk, thats what i thought, I KNEW you would dodge it and deflect because it proves your posts wrong, no surprise here

Facts win again

let us when you can quote me saying that BS you made up and you can show us how my attitude factually accomplishes the other BS you made up
 
1.) LMAO thank you for proving my point can you quote me saying the BS you just made up? lol i like the little ending you added in there "to be more safe" thank you for exposing your failed argument even further

so no, thats not what "i flat out said", its what you flat our made up. thanks for proving me right again

2.) translation you cant show how my attitude puts women at risk, thats what i thought, I KNEW you would dodge it and deflect because it proves your posts wrong, no surprise here

Facts win again

let us when you can quote me saying that BS you made up and you can show us how my attitude factually accomplishes the other BS you made up

Ummm...

Herro?

and no women should not have to alter thier behavior because of people with mental problems.

You lose, again.

FAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCTTTTTTTTZZZZZZZZZZZ

LOL

LOL

1. ) Testicles
2. ) See #1
 
Ummm...

Herro?



You lose, again.
another dodge lol

thank you for quoting me again and proving me right again LMAO where the part where i said "to be more safe"
Facts win again

let us when you can quote me saying that BS you made up and you can show us how my attitude factually accomplishes the other BS you made up
we are waiting

who wants to bet the request is dodged again?
 
another dodge lol

thank you for quoting me again and proving me right again LMAO where the part where i said "to be more safe"
Facts win again

let us when you can quote me saying that BS you made up and you can show us how my attitude factually accomplishes the other BS you made up
we are waiting

who wants to bet the request is dodged again?

"Thanks" for quoting you again and pointing out exactly where you said that, even in spite of the fact that women who behave irresponsibly can be objectively shown to be less safe, you basically said that they should do nothing whatsoever to correct that problem?

You're welcome, I guess. :lol:
 
1.)Thanks for quoting you again and pointing out exactly where you said that, even in spite of the fact that women who behave irresponsibly are objectively less safe, you basically said that they should do nothing whatsoever to correct that problem?

Umm... You're welcome, I guess. :lol:
BAM ANILED IT it was dodged again! lol wow you are exposing your faied arguent and made up lies pretty bad

yep and based on content you were factually wrong
also based on the parts you added you were factually wrong AGAIN lol thanks for proving this, now next time you wont make this mistake and make stuff up in your head and add it to my quote and change the content.

now i will ask you AGAIN

1.) let us when you can quote me saying that BS you made up
2.)let us know when you can show us how my attitude factually accomplishes the other BS you made up
we are waiting

odds on both these being dodged again?
 
1.) Because that's what you just flat out said. That women "shouldn't alter their behavior" to be more safe.

2.) You haz no FAAAACTTTZZZ LOL LOL

3.) Cheezburger?

4.) See #3 lol

You don't seem to understand that you are buying into and promoting a myth about rape. Your continued belief that this has some role has two negative outcomes.
1-it promotes the idea that the woman had some level of responsibility in her own rape
2-the belief in this myth allows it's use as a defense for a rapist to continue

Myth: Rape victims provoke the attach by wearing provocative clothing

- A Federal Commission on Crime of Violence Study found that only
4.4% of all reported rapes involved provocative behavior on the part
of the victim. In murder cases 22% involved such behavior (as simple
as a glance).


- Most convicted rapists do not remember what their victims were wearing.

Utah State University
http://www.usu.edu/saavi/pdf/myths_facts.pdf.

You are clinging to a myth. Dress does not play a role except in the continued abuse of the victim:

Lindsay Armstrong was raped in Ayrshire in September 2001. At the trial of her attacker, Lindsay was asked to hold up the pants she wore at the time of the attack. Although this was supposedly to allow the defence to argue that the pants had not been damaged, Lindsay was asked to tell the court what was written on them: the words “Little Devil”.

Putting Lindsay though this public humiliation served no purpose other than to allow the defence to try to smear her reputation – it allowed them to suggest that her pants and the motto they bore were enough to demonstrate that Lindsay was the “sort of girl” unlikely to refuse consent to sex and therefore unlikely to have been raped. Although the person who raped her was convicted, Lindsay Armstrong killed herself three weeks later.
 
Last edited:
You don't seem to understand that you are buying into and promoting a myth about rape.

Myth: Rape victims provoke the attach by wearing provocative clothing

- A Federal Commission on Crime of Violence Study found that only
4.4% of all reported rapes involved provocative behavior on the part
of the victim. In murder cases 22% involved such behavior (as simple
as a glance).


- Most convicted rapists do not remember what their victims were wearing.

Utah State University
http://www.usu.edu/saavi/pdf/myths_facts.pdf.

You are clinging to a myth. Dress does not play a role except in the continued abuse of the victim:

Lindsay Armstrong was raped in Ayrshire in September 2001. At the trial of her attacker, Lindsay was asked to hold up the pants she wore at the time of the attack. Although this was supposedly to allow the defence to argue that the pants had not been damaged, Lindsay was asked to tell the court what was written on them: the words “Little Devil”.

Putting Lindsay though this public humiliation served no purpose other than to allow the defence to try to smear her reputation – it allowed them to suggest that her pants and the motto they bore were enough to demonstrate that Lindsay was the “sort of girl” unlikely to refuse consent to sex and therefore unlikely to have been raped. Although the person who raped her was convicted, Lindsay Armstrong killed herself three weeks later.

How awful! You really have to be a special sort of scum to be a defense attorney IMO.
 
How awful! You really have to be a special sort of scum to be a defense attorney IMO.

Right?! But it happens all the time. Their obligation is to protect their client and they will use whatever is at their disposal to accomplish that. As long as people still buy into this ignorant myth it will be utilized by a defense attorney to get their client off the hook.
 
You don't seem to understand that you are buying into and promoting a myth about rape.

Myth: Rape victims provoke the attach by wearing provocative clothing

- A Federal Commission on Crime of Violence Study found that only
4.4% of all reported rapes involved provocative behavior on the part
of the victim. In murder cases 22% involved such behavior (as simple
as a glance).


- Most convicted rapists do not remember what their victims were wearing.

Utah State University
http://www.usu.edu/saavi/pdf/myths_facts.pdf.

You are clinging to a myth. Dress does not play a role except in the continued abuse of the victim:

Lindsay Armstrong was raped in Ayrshire in September 2001. At the trial of her attacker, Lindsay was asked to hold up the pants she wore at the time of the attack. Although this was supposedly to allow the defence to argue that the pants had not been damaged, Lindsay was asked to tell the court what was written on them: the words “Little Devil”.

Putting Lindsay though this public humiliation served no purpose other than to allow the defence to try to smear her reputation – it allowed them to suggest that her pants and the motto they bore were enough to demonstrate that Lindsay was the “sort of girl” unlikely to refuse consent to sex and therefore unlikely to have been raped. Although the person who raped her was convicted, Lindsay Armstrong killed herself three weeks later.

Going back to the very beginning of this discussion, we are discussing a particular kind of rape here, where the behavior of the victim certainly can play a role.

Trying to deny this fact is simply idiotic, and is only going to result in young women getting themselves in trouble.

Going to a frat party (or any establishment where large numbers of horny men and perception altering substances are present) in explicitly provocative clothing, drinking to excess, and behaving towards the men there in a sexually flirtatious manner if you're not actually planning to have sex with anyone (and sometimes, even if you are) is explicitly dangerous behavior. If it wasn't, date rape wouldn't be such a rampant problem on college campuses.

There is no way around this.
 
Umm... Right here?



I can keep going with this, J. It's up to you. :lol:

yes PLEASE keep going because each time it proves you made up two BS statments its AWESOME!

its really up to you, you can post something that shows integrity and admit you made a mistake and neither of those statments is true or continue to have your posts exposed by facts :shrug:

now here goes your tasks
A.)let us know when you can show us how my attitude factually accomplishes the other BS you made up
B.)let us when you can quote me saying that BS you made up
lets see what you do
 
Right?! But it happens all the time. Their obligation is to protect their client and they will use whatever is at their disposal to accomplish that. As long as people still buy into this ignorant myth it will be utilized by a defense attorney to get their client off the hook.

I'm surprised that people still think this way! It's so backwards IMO! The only one responsible for a rapist's behavior is the rapist himself. To suggest that an outfit or a body could work a man into such a sexual tizzy that he cannot control himself is just bogus to me. I think that a rapist picks a target, and that the clothing does really not factor into that decision, but (like I've said a million times now, I know - LOL) that it's more opportune and vulnerable targets.

I do think that Gathomas may have a point in very rare instances, but I don't think that dressing "conservatively" is really lowering your risks of being raped. It's pretty much a negligible factor as far as I'm concerned. f
 
1.)I'm surprised that people still think this way! It's so backwards IMO! The only one responsible for a rapist's behavior is the rapist himself.
2.) To suggest that an outfit or a body could work a man into such a sexual tizzy that he cannot control himself is just bogus to me. f

1.)and the truth will set you free
2.) not only is it bogus its asinine
 
Going back to the very beginning of this discussion, we are discussing a particular kind of rape here, where the behavior of the victim certainly can play a role.

Trying to deny this fact is simply idiotic, and is only going to result in young women getting themselves in trouble.

Going to a frat party (or any establishment where large numbers of horny men and perception altering substances are present) in explicitly provocative clothing, drinking to excess, and behaving towards the men there in a sexually flirtatious manner if you're not actually planning to have sex with anyone (and sometimes, even if you are) is explicitly dangerous behavior. If it wasn't, date rape wouldn't be such a rampant problem on college campuses.

There is no way around this.

Look I won't call you a misogynist if you stop calling me an idiot. Deal?

It is not a fact. It is your opinion. You cling to it because organically it makes sense in your brain. Factually however, it doesn't.

Date rape is rampant because men are let off the hook by being provided excuses like this, campuses don't take the claims seriously, the victim is blamed and shamed. Not because the woman dresses sexy or is flirtatious.
 
I'm surprised that people still think this way! It's so backwards IMO! The only one responsible for a rapist's behavior is the rapist himself. To suggest that an outfit or a body could work a man into such a sexual tizzy that he cannot control himself is just bogus to me. I think that a rapist picks a target, and that the clothing does really not factor into that decision, but (like I've said a million times now, I know - LOL) that it's more opportune and vulnerable targets.

I do think that Gathomas may have a point in very rare instances, but I don't think that dressing "conservatively" is really lowering your risks of being raped. It's pretty much a negligible factor as far as I'm concerned. f

Unfortunately people do still think this way as Gathomas has so painfully demonstrated for us here. It is backwards and rooted in the notion that women who like sex are bad girls and less likely to deny a sexual advance then one who does not advertise her sexuality. And besides, rape is not about out of control sexual desire it is an act of violence.

The problem with changing your dress so that you are not victimized is that any innocent gesture is often construed by the rapist as an invitation. A smile or a friendly comment, even a glance in their direction.
 
Back
Top Bottom