What did she expect?Follow

If by "moot" you mean "disingenuous, intellectually dishonest and poorly supported", then I suppose you're right!

I'm sorry but I fail to see how "You should have been more careful" is anything but a value judgement on the victim after an attack.

A value judgement isn't the same as assigning fault. Surely you can't say that an attractive, scantily clad women walking about in a very seedy part of town alone at 2:00 AM shouldn't be more careful. That's not to say that whatever happens in this hypothetical situation is her fault, but to say that a person in this situation should perhaps be more careful wouldn't be an understatment.

It would be great to believe that people could just do as they please without having to worry about being assaulted in any fashion. Sadly, we live in a time and place where the reality is such that certain situations present a very real danger.

Ideally of course that would be the best answer, but with the number of degenerate pieces of **** that wander about and the fuc[b][/b]ked up US legal system that isn't likely to occur any time soon. Kind of a pain in the *** too, I've been dieing to wear this awesome new mini to the club downtown.

Mostly because it isn't always that black and white. Most times, they should, in fact, have been more careful. You're right, it doesn't absolve those responsible, but you can't always make that direct correlation between statements. I'm trying not to argue symantecs here and I suppose it all depends upon the meaning intended by a person saying the phrase in question. Increasing your level of carefulocityness is directly related to a decrease in risk, though one can never truly eliminate that risk. One has to find a balance between the two with regard to any specific situation.

I think adding the word "might" to both of your statements would make them more accurate.

There wasn't one. I never had one. My statement was that people assign victim blame in random assault cases, not just "vague rape" cases.

You're correct however when someone responds to such a case with "You should have been more careful", it -- to me -- carries an aura of blame. You may disagree and I suppose in that respect we part ways but I don't see that statement coming from a wellspring of logical statistics on carefulocity

Jacob and Phlare are on the case :)



Exactly my point. Mr.21 (or is it 22 now?) posts is blinded and slobbering in rabid rage of me holding the victim for "partial responsibility" over her rape ... No, I'm holding her partially responsible for putting herself in a position where she might, and might not get hurt/assaulted in anyway, IN THAT SETTING. Familiar with the phrase: "I don't want to give wrong signals" used often by women? Are they all dumb?

You're the one arguing symantecs here mate, you want to disregard human nature, and disregard the fact that the law is mostly aimed at punishing the culprit, rather than preventing it from happening, that mostly falls on the shoulders of the people.

Someone referred to "men rape" .... oh c'mon, men are no where at risk or threatened by rape, as women are.

Somehow it's more and more PC crap .... which might fend off people when the media ..etc is involved, but please don't count on it in a free cyberspace forum :)

Your arguement is basically : "She has the right to dress however she likes, she has the right to go wherever she wants, therefore, no matter how close to the abyss she walks, she can never be held responsible for her CARELESSNESS, in THAT SETTING"

Why? Because the law says so? The law is influenced by people, we all know that neither the law nor the people are perfect (or even close), so you should pay attention.

That arguement, when applied to a less (needlessly controversial) issue, fails immediately.

Someone who has groped a kid 30 years ago, and got punished for it, and who isn't classified as a "paedophile" by orientation, is rightfully and understandably refused from a job as a boyscout instructor.

But a woman dressed as a stripper, and acting like a nymphomaniac, and under the influence of narcotics/alcohol, is NOT to be called an idiot for walking into a joint filled with possible assaulters?

I liked the example of "Strippers are asking to be raped", well you know what? That's why there are BOUNCERS in a strip joint. Because there are at least a dozen of assault attempts made in every strip joint every night. So if you let that potential rape victim, walk in with a bouncer, only then would your arguement stand, because then she would have taken precautions.

Imagine a strip joint which chooses not to assign bouncers, because stripping is a "legal" job in that particular state, and therefore horny men should just practice self-restraint.....or else its THEIR FAULT!!! THOSE BASTARDS!!! Sure .... but do you see how idiotic your arguement is, yet?

Whether you back down or not is none of my concern, btw. I don't know you personally and I wouldn't care if you changed your mind or not.

Good points, finally the voice of reason prevails.

Echoing what Yanari said above. If a child gets raped, no one assumes, pauses, or even thinks to question what that child was wearing, what time of day it was, or the neighborhood they were frequenting. It is nothing but the purest misogyny that leads people to question women this way, and sadly, not only men do it.

I don't believe you.
*****.

I'll use this later to imply your consent.

So women get raped because they're not careful enough.

We got it the first 5 times you said it.

Which brings us back to the question of how cautious is cautious enough? And that leads directly to women in purdah, unable to leave the house without a male family member.

Blame the fu[i][/i]cking rapist. He is the criminal. Period.