What did she expect?Follow

Ok .... enough of the PC nonsense.

Everyone has the right to choose a "playmate".

Nobody is "fully" blaming a woman for rape, "partially" here indicates putting yourself in a position where you're vulnerable.

Analogy:

You wear Armani leather pants, a Hugo Boss jacket, a thick gold necklace, and carry your Louis Vuitton wallet, which is distended with cash, and head for the cheaper parts of London, to have a good time.You get drunk, you hang out with the wrong crowd. You get mugged.

The mugger had no right to rob you, but you're partly to blame for your blatant display of wealth in a part of town like that, and for getting drunk on top of it. It was your RIGHT to wear or act any way you like, but you know human nature, people desire money, you went to an area where people desired easy money and had loose morals.

Another Analogy:

An American goes to Afghanistan's mountains, to climb.

End of Analogy.

Issue at hand:

A lady wears a microskirt, a low cut blouse which shows miles of cleavage, wears an intoxicating perfume, and hits the "cheaper" part of town to have fun, she shakes her *** all night, she gets drunk, she outrageously flirts with a number of guys. She gets raped.

The rapist had no right. He should get castrated.She had the right to dress however she liked. She had the right to drink. BUT she was in an area where (well most areas are like that) the men were probably sex-starved and drunk/high themselves .... What did she expect? To tease a ton of men and feel better about herself then go back home?

So cut the crap.

Most rape cases are pure and simple animosity. But in the setting above, yes she is partly to blame for her stupidity.

Some of you won't be able to handle the frankness of this post, and will flame me. Some will flame me to look "liberal" and "cool", some will flame me to be with the majority, and some will flame me for the heck of it. All coupled with a rate-down gallore ..... but still, you know it's true ;)

P.S: Whats that crap about "rape has nothing to do with sex" ?? I'm a doctor, I see rape cases, and in some instances I am "summoned" by the police to examine the rapist. Sure, sometimes it is someone with a criminal mind and a deep ulterior ....<insert Dr.Phil crap> .... But I've personally known someone who has raped a woman. Upon asking him why he did it, "Man ... i was sitting there, tired of getting teased, high and horny, and this girl struts around and basically dry-sexes every guy around, I thought that she was someone who was just looking for sex, it was all a blur" Sure, he is a criminal, a monster <insert more stuff like that> ..... but you get the point ..... or do you not?



Edited, Mon Nov 21 23:53:35 2005 by GregoryTheWatcher

Edited, Tue Nov 22 00:21:51 2005 by GregoryTheWatcher

The problem is that I disagree with your analogy. If 100% of the rapes involved were similar to the muggings, I'd agree with you. But they aren't.

Let's play "upside down world" for a second:

Let's pretend that someone has created a great stir about "aquaintance mugging". They show alarming statistics about the number of people who have money borrowed from them by friends and family which is never repaid. They show that quite often it occurs when they are maybe out on the town and after having a few drinks and get a bit loose with their money.

We might create a nationwide program to deal with "aquaintance mugging". We might have lectures at college campuses warning students about this danger and that they need to be careful about who they hang out with. We might conduct polls showing that 1 in 4 college students have been "aquaintance mugged". We might even declare an epidemic and demand action.

We could then use these statistics to push for new laws that expand the crime of mugging to include these horrible aquaintance muggings. After all, losing money is losing money, right?


And after we change those laws, and change people's opinions, and firmly include aquaintance mugging in the lexicon of bad crimes out there, your analogy would work just fine. Sure. Not all muggings are aquaintance muggings. And sometimes someone you know does beat you up or threaten you in order to get your cash. Just as that does happen with rape. So hey. It's still rape, er... mugging, right?


That's the problem with your analogy. What we're seeing is legal cases where the woman in your example, dressed scantily, willingly intoxicated, goes off with some guy and has sex with him. The next day she presses charges. After all, she didn't say she wanted to have sex, and she didn't plan to have sex with him until after she was intoxicated. He clearly took advantage of her intoxicated state to get sex from her, so that clearly is "rape", right?

Wouldn't you expect him to argue that she was "asking for it"? Why be surprised that this "excuse" is on the rise? It's on the rise, because the percentage of rape cases appearing in the courts relating to a vague question of consent rather then obvious physical assault is increasing as well. You'd expect the same if we added "aquaintance mugging" to the law as well, right? Why be surprised?

And I hope the same for you! May your day be full of painful bowel movements and bruises.

Hmmm....

First of all, I never said that this was a "is it his or her fault?" case. It is his fault all the way, but choosing to put yourself in a vulnerable position, knowingly, entitles some responsibility.

The problem with your arguement, is that you take the "Law" as your ultimate ground.

Well ... we are humans. Human nature can sometimes be a dark thing. You should take into account the fact that some people are just sinister and would take advantage of whatever they can get their hands on. NOT taking that into account, and sticking to the "I'm free to do this, he's not free to do that, it's entirely his fault" is burying your head in the sand.

Most women know this. They know that despite their right to dress/act as freely as their male counterparts, that Mankind is far less perfect than laws want us to be. Therefore they are careful not to put themselves in vulnerable positions.

Relying on some trendy theory about complete and full equality in everything, might be valid in theory, but we all know that it is nowhere near reality in real life.

Uh huh...

Amigoz....

In your fervent defense, you forgot a major point, that I highlighted earlier:

The actual crime of rape is all the rapist's responsibility. That much is agreed upon.

Nevertheless, putting yourself in a position where you'd have to be surrounded by Saints not to get groped and/or assaulted, is stupid, and ignorant of the nature of some people. It's HIS fault, but you should be aware of your surroundings and people's motives, to spare yourself grief and regret.

What we seem to be differing about is the definition of "partially responsible" .... I believe that in the rare setting i mentioned in my initial post, the victim is partially responsible for a "situation" that led to her vulnerability, and possible assault, but not responsible for the actual crime of rape. Clear?

Good question

I live in the Middle East.

First of all, as far as the culture goes, when you rape someone in the Middle East, you're not raping an independent ********** executive with a flat in NY and a Jaguar. In the Middle East you're raping somebody's sister, somebody's daughter, and that makes a HUGE difference. You know that if you get caught, you will get killed (literally).

Second of all, there is a slimmer chance of getting "aroused" or getting "complexed" by dominant women (like a mother) that would render you an emptionally dysfunctional man who needs overpowering a helpless ...etc.

Rape is a taboo everywhere, but even simple sex is a taboo in the Middle East, so you can imagine how big of a taboo is rape.

The usual verdict for rapists is death penalty.

As far as stats go, they show a minimal fraction of what it is in the West. And before some of you jump to theorize about how a woman in the Middle East would be less inclined to reveal such assault, because she is so oppressed and .... <insert media stereotypes> .... allow me to retort in advance:

It is in any muslim/arab woman's best interest to reveal and complain against such incident. Women in the Middle East, in most parts are expected to "virtuous" upon marriage, as in, virgins. Of course a considerable number engages in everything but actual coitus, but at the end of the day, if she loses her hymen to a rapist, it's a much better way to just let it known and let justice take its course, rather than hiding it and facing a scandal with her future husband that would tarnish her family's name.

I have seen a few (much fewer than the ones I've seen in the US) rape cases here, and the family is usually very supportive and understanding, regardless of religious attachments or education level.

In Saudi Arabia for example (about 25 million population), there have been about 732 assaults in 2004.

That's the spirit!

LMFAO is all I can say, Mr 233 posts, like post count means anything in this place. Let me explain something to you. Personal responsibility only starts with things you do to yourself, not places you go and atmospheres you frequent.

If I were to walk through the most crime ridden area in my country, was attacked, and subsequently robbed, I would have zero responsibility in the crime. That attacker would bear the full burden of the guilt, not I. The criminals attack others against their will. Partial responsibility in something like this is ludicrous.

Same goes with brutal and forceful rape. I don't care how a girl dresses or acts, if a man attacks her and forces his genetalia into her or onto her in some way, that is rape. By your ignorant and pathetic belief, all strippers are asking to be raped. Give me a break. No, I won't back down in this argument because i'm right. The rapist has control of his own body and just because he may be visually stimulated by another person, does not allow him to attack that other person, irregardless of the circumstances. There is absolutely no excuse.

And, by your logic, every cop and soldier that dies in their duty bears partial responsibility. Ok, on some fundamental level this is true, isn't it? They knew that they were going in to dangerous situations when they signed on. So, we should berate their deaths and injuries because they could have prevented it by not getting into the situation in the first place, right? They are partially responsible for their own deaths. So, if you are arguing semantics here, than I just HaVe to concede your point. On the other hand, if we are speaking of the real world, well, LMAO.

All of it, of course. Men are sluts who never turn down sex; everyone knows that.

He deserves it. For dressing so gay.