WHAT GROUP ANNOYS YOU THE MOST ?

[9th Engineer]

I think that the two sides are only a step or two away from reconcilitation here, SG's last post was very similar to what MN has been saying. If we say that the Aston Martin is being equated with a hot womans body, then what's being said that it's not having the car, it's leaving it unlocked on the street that's the stupid part. In the same way, it's not "Very attractive women shouldn't let others know they are attractive", it's "very attractive women shouldn't make themselves beacons of opportunity for criminals". I think this works best when you assume that the context of stupid dress is also linked to other vulnerabilities such as location and company.

[Elspode]

Overtly sexual behavior is *still* not an invitation to rape, up to and including pulling down your pants. Further, I'd say that, even if you've started the copulatory act, and she says, "No, stop"...you still have to stop.

Call me foolish.

As a Buddhist, you never "ask" to be raped. Others are always in control of their behavior and they choose to rape you... it is always 100% their fault. It does not go beyond that. No consent or "no", at any time, is rape... end of story.
No one can make you do anything, unless they physically overpower your or threaten you, or another, with violence and/or death.
Every action is a choice, regardless of how it feels... this includes addictions and compulsions like rape.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

No consent or "no", at any time, is rape... end of story.

but you're missing the vital action of the sperm. If a man is stimulated enough, so the theory goes, he is just not responsible for what ensues. She, indeed, asked for it. She, harlot, MADE him think of sex, specfically sex with HER wanton self and therefore gets what she deserves.

[9th Engineer]

Wasn't that already covered?

EDIT: Damn, Bri beat me to the puch, aimed at Els and rkzen

Thinking and acting on it are two different things... sarcasm aside.
I'm, pretty-much, always thinking of sex.

[Happy Monkey]

For example, women in Iraq are asking for it if they don't start wearing burquas now that the Sharia folks are in charge.

I don't think so.

I have never before heard "asking for it" used in a way that doesn't confer some or all culpability on the person "asking". If you don't intend to place culpability on them, don't use that phrase. A person strapping a rocket engine on their Vespa is asking for a Darwin Award. There is no form of clothing that is asking for a rape.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Wasn't that already covered?

EDIT: Damn, Bri beat me to the puch, aimed at Els and rkzen

whatever I can do to forward your hateful agenda pleases me because it pleases YOU.

Howzat for femininity? No doubt, you approve and endorse.

Spare me your protestations.

Though... your school girl scenario did "make me".... um... let's talk of something else.
(good married man... good married man!)

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Noodle

Not sure if you saw nothing of worth in my post, and not sure if I want to keep on with this, but to clarify my position:

- "You have an Aston Martin? You're just asking to have it stolen"
- "You leave your Aston Martin unlocked? You're just asking to have it stolen"

I don't believe dress puts women at risk, but behaviour (rightly or wrongly) can.

- "She dressed like a whore, she was asking to be raped"
- "She walked home drunk late at night, she was asking to be raped"

In both cases the language is harsher than I would choose, but only the second statement of each pair describes irresponsible behaviour.

No, no, your post was valuable. I was still in arguing mode and haven't gotten to it yet. I'm still busy backing up my claim that conservatives have a longer row to hoe in the Cellar than libs. ( and )

Originally Posted by Brianna

The fact that you can't "control Brianna" should not concern you in the least. I, myself, have no such designs on you.

I don't want to control you at all. When I say, "I can't control Brianna" it's a simple statement of fact. I'm pointing out that if Brianna is around, and knowing that, if I say certain things, no matter how entitled I am to say them, I am "asking for" a certain response. In other words, the probability that I am going to get attacked is far greater than if I didn't exercise my right.

In a perfect world, you can walk around nude without anyone ever saying something mean, targeting you for assault, or judging your morality. That's because in a perfect world, you're not walking around nude in order to get a response. But this is an imperfect world. There are mean people and predators. When you walk around nude in this world, it titillates, enrages, arouses, sickens, or amuses. But it does not go unnoticed. That's why it's done in the first place.


This is my umpteenth rewording of the same thing (dressing to get sexual attention gets both wanted and unwanted sexual attention), and all anyone will hear is "Noodle thinks rape is justified." I am ready to scream.

I don't think that.
If you dress provocatively and you are surprised by occasional unwarranted attention, you are an idiot.
It is not right... just the way it is.
If you are black or speak with a German dialect and surprised by the occasional racist remark... same goes.

This is why I don't leave my son alone at Disney World (yes, kids get snatched there)... it is not right, but a fact and one we have to live with.

[9th Engineer]

No what I meant Bri was that my post was aimed at the two before yours, but you posted first. It wasn't a comment of any sort on the content of your post

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Brianna

noodle, I like and respect you. I feel you give a valuable Christian insight into sticky matters. I love Jesus. I try to follow Jesus (coz, of all the gods, he was the coolest and least vengeful--his father, not so much) --I pick at you because I am horribly self-centered and believe I can expand your already stretched horizon.

Um..noodle, you see this half of the post? At all? If you do not wish to acknowledge certain sentiments, bully for you. I still think they are valid. I'm definitely NOT at war with BornAgains--I was, briefly, one myself.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I think that the two sides are only a step or two away from reconcilitation here...

[Elspode]

Okay. As I now understand it, we all think rape is bad, and we think that it is not possible for a woman to provoke rape, *but*, if she happens to dress or behave in a sexual manner, then it is reasonable to assume that someone somewhere might take that as an invitation, and a rape might be committed.

So...what about the 75 year old lady in her apartment, minding her own business, in her pincurls and bathrobe. How is it reasonable to predict the possibility of *her* attack? 'Cause those happen, too.