Gang rapist claims right to assault (Australia)

[Felix the Cat]

Gang rapist claims right to assault (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gang-rapist-claims-right-to-assault/2005/12/09/1134086806845.html)

THE eldest of four Pakistani gang rapist brothers has admitted lying at trial and apologised to his victims but said he thought he had a right to rape the "promiscuous" teenage girls.

MSK, 27, told the NSW Supreme Court yesterday that this was because the girls did not wear headscarves, were drinking alcohol and were unaccompanied when they went to his Ashfield home. MSK also blamed his intoxication, "cultural beliefs" and an undiagnosed mental disorder.

He and his brothers MAK, 25, MRK, 21, and MMK, 19 - who cannot be named for legal reasons - are serving between 10 and 22 years for raping two girls in 2002. All except MRK are yet to be sentenced for several other rapes.

Yesterday evidence was being heard on a sentence for MSK for the rapes of two more girls, TW, then 14, and CH, then 13. He admitted that some of the evidence he had given at an earlier trial was fabricated, particularly that he had had consensual sex with TW and that she had coaxed him.

"It was a pretty big untruth when you said that it was consensual sex, wasn't it?" asked the Crown prosecutor, Ken McKay.

"Yes," he replied.

You chose to lie about that, correct? - Yes.

During a long apology to TW, who was in court, he stopped mid-sentence to reprimand her.

"I wish to say this to [TW], that at the time when I commit these offences I come from such a background which led me to - don't shake your head, I'm telling you something - I say now that I hurt you and I'm extremely, extremely apologetic to you and I'm, I wish to say one thing more.

"I'm serving 22 years … I'm just requesting to you that you one day may come that you realise that the person who assaulted me is in prison … and I should forgive him. I'm asking for your forgiveness." He said it was only now, since he had gained a "better understanding of Australian culture", that he knew the rapes were wrong.

He arrived in Sydney for the ninth and final time four days before committing several rapes over six months. He had planned to study medicine.

He agreed he knew the girls did not want to have sex. "[TW] said no but I go ahead with it because I believe that at the time I commit these offences, I believe that she was promiscuous …" he said. "She don't know us, I don't know her, like she was not related to us and she was not wearing any purdah … like she was not … covered her face, she was not wearing any headscarf and she started drinking with us and she was singing.

"First off, I was actually, I was not taking my medication so I was under the influence of voices and secondly I believe at the time when I commit these offences that she had no right to say no."

Mr McKay said the voices excuse was a last-ditch strategy to avoid justice. "You wanted to hurt and terrorise these girls and you did that. You used acts of sexual intercourse on them."

The matter was adjourned until next Friday.

[Starr]

THE eldest of four Pakistani gang rapist brothers has admitted lying at trial and apologised to his victims but said he thought he had a right to rape the "promiscuous" teenage girls.

i wasn't aware that Mazdak was Pakistani.:confused:

[Niko Bellic]

"I'm serving 22 years … I'm just requesting to you that you one day may come that you realise that the person who assaulted me is in prison … and I should forgive him. I'm asking for your forgiveness." He said it was only now, since he had gained a "better understanding of Australian culture", that he knew the rapes were wrong.

Maybe his cellmate thought he was being promiscuous. Nothing like prison sex to convince a man that rape is wrong.:rofl:

[Alfred_Dunhill]

MSK, 27 . . . and his brothers MAK, 25, MRK, 21, and MMK, 19

Didn't Australia get the recall notice? These models are defective.

The ANGLO 2005 would suit Australia's needs much better, anyway.

[zenero]

I still insist to a war between India and Pakistan. I hope to god they'll nuke each other.

[Ixtab]

Women often (but not always) invite rape by their seductive clothing and slutty behaviour. This no more justifies rape than flaunting bundles of cash in a crime-ridden neighbourhood justifies mugging, but it's still an invitation. If I were a woman, and if I truly had no desire to be raped, or to have sex, and if I wanted to diminish as much as reasonable the likelihood of being raped, I would simply wear respectable clothing and behave respectably. I wouldn't flaunt my body around, releasing the animal passions of potential rapists.

[Starr]

You can dress however you want(though if you have any respect for yourself, you should keep it somewhat decent) and if you take the right precautions you most likely will not be raped. Who is more likely to get raped, a girl dressed like a hooker, but with a group of friends all hanging out together. Or a girl dressed nice and conservative who is drunk and alone at a party with a bunch of unknown guys? but everything being the same, the slutty looking girl at the same party with the girl dressed more respectably is probably more likely to be raped. More often than not, though, the girls who choose to dress like tramps are the same girls who choose to put themselves in a bad situation.

That being said, and again looking at the situation, it would be inviting trouble for a women, for example, to be dressed slutty while she is alone walking down the street at night.

It depends much more on the situation you are in and decisions you make in the situation rather than how you are dressed, alone.

And in this situation the guy is saying he thought the girls deserved to be raped because they were not dressed like muslims and were drinking. Which is completely retarded. The stupid decisions do come into play, though, just in the fact that these girls were hanging out with muds who come from a country where people hold such negative views of women.

[Atlas]

Women often (but not always) invite rape by their suductive clothing and slutty behaviour.

My thought exactly, girls that wear like whore deserve rape.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Zenero, Atlas: I'll only say this once. Crap like that would be unacceptable even in the lounge, it sure as hell has no place here. I don't care who started it, you guys should know better and know to act civilized.

I deleted the posts. See that it doesn't happen again. :nono:

[Ixtab]

Edit: Never mind, I thought you were talking about something else.

[Billy Score]

Women often (but not always) invite rape by their suductive clothing and slutty behaviour. This no more justifies rape than flaunting bundles of cash in a crime-ridden neighbourhood justifies mugging, but it's still an invitation. If I were a woman, and if I truly had no desire to be raped, or to have sex, and if I wanted to diminish as much as reasonable the likelihood of being raped, I would simply wear respectable clothing and behave respectably. I wouldn't flaunt my body around, releasing the animal passions of potential rapists.
despite our current personal conflict, i generally agree with this statement.

[jcs]

despite our current personal conflict...
If you take the high road, then point out that you're taking the high road, you're actually taking the low road. ;)

[Sinclair]

I doubt a "jump out of the bushes" rapist (Probably not that common...) is looking at what a woman's wearing. He'd probably be looking more at whether or not they looked confident, how large they were, etc. And of course, aren't most rape victims attacked by men they know? There emotional factors would play a role.

Rapists aren't just walking around completely normal until some woman in a miniskirt and tube top entices them into committing rape...

[Ixtab]

I doubt a "jump out of the bushes" rapist (Probably not that common...) is looking at what a woman's wearing.-The rapist first needs to be attracted to something before his animal passions can be released. I think it can be borne out by simple introspection that flirtatious women in seductive clothing (or in the nude) are far more likely to make a man desirous of sexual activity than women dressed respectably, or no women present at all. The only difference is that when a rapist is desirous of sex, he becomes a potential victimiser.

And of course, aren't most rape victims attacked by men they know?-Most certainly not. This idea is based on the same assumptions which created the Feminist "statistic" that 1/4 of all women in North America have been raped. It's partly based on a ridiculously extensive definition of the word "rape". And it includes "date rape".
-Always, by the way, be a little sceptical about rape statistics; Feminists are responsible for the vast majority of them.

[Sinclair]

-The rapist first needs to be attracted to something before his animal passions can be released. I think it can be borne out by simple introspection that flirtatious women in seductive clothing (or in the nude) are far more likely to make a man desirous of sexual activity than women dressed respectably, or no women present at all. The only difference is that when a rapist is desirous of sex, he becomes a potential victimiser.


Ix, guys can think about what women look like under their clothing...

[Ixtab]

Ix, guys can think about what women look like under their clothing...Obviously. It's self-obvious, however, that men tend to feel hornier when an attractive woman is standing semi-clad or in otherwise seductive clothing before them, than when they are simply imagining a woman in the nude. Half-exposed breasts are more likely to excite the animal passions than fully covered breasts. This is why sex is preferable to masturbation - maybe rapists and other sexual deviants are just unimaginative.
Women must like being ogled more than they fear being raped - or secretly wish to be raped.

[Helios Panoptes]

I support Jotunlock wholeheartedly on this one. If I recall, I articulated the same viewpoint in a topic approximately 1 month ago.

[Felix the Cat]

Folks are missing the cultural angle here, what is "provocative" in one culture is not necessarily so in another

[jcs]

I doubt a "jump out of the bushes" rapist (Probably not that common...) is looking at what a woman's wearing. He'd probably be looking more at whether or not they looked confident, how large they were, etc.
Importantly, rapists fall into to broad (arbitrary...) categories: the guys who go for smaller, easier victims (who usually dress more conservatively); and the guys who go for the more challenging, 'fiery' whore-type women.

Exploring the psychology:
Rapists who are themselves very insecure often want revenge and thus go for the whore-type women. The impulsive rapists, when seeing a woman half-naked, would probably also set such women as their primary targets.
Rapists who want to go for the easier target seem to choose the victim-type woman. Furthermore, it would seem that those rapists who simply like to control and possibly humiliate women go for this type, too.

We can't just lump all rapes in one category, rape, and attempt to draw conclusions therefrom. Most rape cases I've heard of involve some big black or mestizo guy and white victim-type women; dominance, ease, and (probably moreso) humiliation being the primary motivation. Impulsive rapists are the only ones going for sex and sex alone, probably because they either don't get enough or because they know of no other way to distract themselves from the boredom of modern-life. And then you have angry-nerd revenge-rapists.

[Ixtab]

Yes, you are probably right.

[The Retard]

Rapist are unable to get a sexually attractive women into bed by consensual sex.

[Helios Panoptes]

Rapist are unable to get a sexually attractive women into bed by consensual sex.

There are rapists who rape because they are too socially deficient to procure sex otherwise, but this is one type of rapist and can by no means be used to pigeonhole all of them. Ted Bundy was a rapist; he was attractive, educated, and charming.

[The Retard]

There are rapists who rape because they are too socially deficient to procure sex otherwise, but this is one type of rapist and can by no means be used to pigeonhole all of them. Ted Bundy was a rapist; he was attractive, educated, and charming.

Ted Bundy was a sociopath, so he was socially deficient.

[Helios Panoptes]

Let me go over the discussion because you seem unable to follow it.

Rapist are unable to get a sexually attractive women into bed by consensual sex.

There are rapists who rape because they are too socially deficient to procure sex otherwise, but this is one type of rapist and can by no means be used to pigeonhole all of them. Ted Bundy was a rapist; he was attractive, educated, and charming.

The key to understanding is revealed by the way I connected social deficiency to the inability to procure consensual sex. The ability to procure sex is a combination of physical traits and social charm. What I meant by social deficiency in this case is clearly a lack of social skills, which sociopathic persons are capable of possessing and Ted Bundy possessed. No other interpretation of my post makes the least bit of sense. Since I have joined this forum, no user has consistently misunderstood transparent posts more frequently than you. You are really beginning to get on my nerves. :mad:

[Alfred_Dunhill]

Since I have joined this forum, no user has consistently misunderstood transparent posts more frequently than you. You are really beginning to get on my nerves. :mad:

You must be patient with The Retard. He's a little bit special.:nono:

[The Retard]

Since I have joined this forum, no user has more consistently misunderstood transparent posts more frequently than you. You are really beginning to get on my nerves. :mad:

:rofl:

I think you just don't understand my sense of humor.

[Helios Panoptes]

:rofl:

I think you just don't understand my sense of humor.

I have noticed that you like to make facetious comments. However, I do not see anything remotely humorous about your response in this topic.

[Kodos]

i wasn't aware that Mazdak was Pakistani.:confused:

This is a case of real rape beyond a shadow of a doubt... even though she was intoxicated. Execution is in order.

[Sinclair]

Obviously. It's self-obvious, however, that men tend to feel hornier when an attractive woman is standing semi-clad or in otherwise seductive clothing before them, than when they are simply imagining a woman in the nude. Half-exposed breasts are more likely to excite the animal passions than fully covered breasts. This is why sex is preferable to masturbation - maybe rapists and other sexual deviants are just unimaginative.
Women must like being ogled more than they fear being raped - or secretly wish to be raped.

I must be wierd then: Scantily-clad women don't scream "HOT" to me. More like "She's impractical, stay away". And let's face it, fashions like exposed midriffs are really not as flattering as people seem to think.

And women who dress in a revealing fashion are often just going with the flow of clothing trends. I doubt that most ever sat down and thought "Hm, how will I dress" and figure out a cost-benefit analysis... More like they've been tricked by a combination of advertisers hawking clothing and this bizarre semi-post-feminist "Empower yourself through revealing clothing" thing that's going on.

[Sinclair]

And let's remember that what we're thinking of as "promiscuous" is probably different than this guy. For crying out loud, throughout religious-fundamentalist societies, definitions of "modest" clothing for women can be ridiculous. By a lot of fundie definitions, showing ankles, wrists, and hair is "slutty".

I personally think that women have been put in a dangerous position by a lot of feminist dogma, specifically the idea that rape is something that strikes equally, that rapists care more about the "power" aspect than the sex or any other consideration.

Now, I don't think that clothing is really much of a factor. Things like being in the wrong place, being somewhere alone, going to the places of guys you don't know, etc, are all more important factors. But this isn't a case of women "wanting" or "deserving" to be raped... If people were told, repeatedly, that muggers didn't care about how rich somebody looked, and didn't lurk in some places more than others, and cared more about "power" than about the money, then people would stride into the shitty areas of town flashing large amounts of money.

It's really more a result of general social trends than anything else, and a lot of it can be blamed on the rather odd turn that feminism has taken... Going out and getting drunk and messing around with guys you don't know is somehow "empowering", drinking like men (Who, it is scientifically impossible to dispute, are capable of tolerating alcohol more than women of similar size, body composition, and drinking experience, and men are generally larger) is "showing you're just as good at it as the boys", etc.

[Anarch]

Call me a savage, Stan, but I most certainly still advocate the physical-castration-without-anaesthetics method. In this case, immediately followed by an injection of pig's blood straight into the neck, which would bring on physical shock and death (Pakis, being Muslims, are not keen on pigs).

[jcs]

Call me a savage, Stan, but I most certainly still advocate the physical-castration-without-anaesthetics method. In this case, immediately followed by an injection of pig's blood straight into the neck, which would bring on physical shock and death (Pakis, being Muslims, are not keen on pigs).
Explain how such a practice wouldn't be motivated by vengeful 'ressentiment.'

[RikuDrak]

I do think the revealing clothing has a little bit to do with it.

Although I agree that the biggest factors was that the girl was drinking alone with a group of men she didn't know. She set herself up for it, and therefore gets no sympathy from me. When one doesn't care to take precautions why should you cry over the consequences? Apparently her parents did a crap job at raising her.
I think though, the clothing had a bit to do with it. She was the one trying to crack the door open, she should have expected someone to want to open it all the way.

Or perhaps my opinion of the fashions women and girls wear is showing through too much.
The only time I would ever dress revealing would be in the privacy of my own home with my boyfriend or if I were going to constantly be in the company of my boyfriend. Why would I want thousands of eyes on my nearly-nude skin?
I suppose it's different for people who need some sort of attention or need to hear men say "you're so beautiful" constantly.

[Sinclair]

It appears we've discovered a way to get Phorites to basically say "Meh" to a case of non-white-on-white crime: Make it a rape case.

Remember, at the end of the day, somebody has had to actually commit the rape. Why is it that on the Phora more is usually said against the victim than the rapist?

[Starr]

Women must like being ogled more than they fear being raped - or secretly wish to be raped.

How many women do you suppose think to themselves, "maybe I shouldn't wear this skirt, I could get raped?" I think the most someone may think about when they decide not to dress a certain way(slutty) is that they don't want to attract the wrong kind of attention(pervs bugging you all night,etc.) How long have women been given the idea now that how they dress has nothing to do with rape, whatsoever?(as I already indicated I disagree, but I do not think how one dresses is as important of a factor as some here have made it out to be)

Girls and women are going to dress in a way that they see getting all the attention from males. Especially if they feel some need(as most do) to be praised and reassured that they are pretty or desirable. What the most naive ones don't get, of course, is that a lot of males will say anything(especially to a girl dressed in a certain way)to get you in the sack.:nono:

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

Women often (but not always) invite rape by their seductive clothing and slutty behaviour. This no more justifies rape than flaunting bundles of cash in a crime-ridden neighbourhood justifies mugging, but it's still an invitation. If I were a woman, and if I truly had no desire to be raped, or to have sex, and if I wanted to diminish as much as reasonable the likelihood of being raped, I would simply wear respectable clothing and behave respectably. I wouldn't flaunt my body around, releasing the animal passions of potential rapists.

I do think the revealing clothing has a little bit to do with it.

Although I agree that the biggest factors was that the girl was drinking alone with a group of men she didn't know. She set herself up for it, and therefore gets no sympathy from me. When one doesn't care to take precautions why should you cry over the consequences? Apparently her parents did a crap job at raising her.
I think though, the clothing had a bit to do with it. She was the one trying to crack the door open, she should have expected someone to want to open it all the way.

Or perhaps my opinion of the fashions women and girls wear is showing through too much.
The only time I would ever dress revealing would be in the privacy of my own home with my boyfriend or if I were going to constantly be in the company of my boyfriend. Why would I want thousands of eyes on my nearly-nude skin?
I suppose it's different for people who need some sort of attention or need to hear men say "you're so beautiful" constantly.

I agree with the both of you 100%. But I also believe that this rapist should be tortured by having his snake chopped off with a rusty machete or be incarcerated (prison raped) for the rest of his pathetic life. I have no sympathy for sexual predators WHATSOEVER. And as for the women who provoke those sexual predators by wearing revealing outfits and putting themselves out there, it is a valuable lesson well taught to them and to the rest.

[Helios Panoptes]

I must be wierd then: Scantily-clad women don't scream "HOT" to me. More like "She's impractical, stay away". And let's face it, fashions like exposed midriffs are really not as flattering as people seem to think.

In that case, you are atypical and by no means should the way you react to that style of dress be projected onto men in general. I also am "weird" in this respect, but I am not stupid enough to believe that most are so. If you seriously believe that men looking for sex care about "practicality" you are out of touch. Even moreso if you believe rapists care about it. It is fact that whorish clothing attracts more attention from the opposite sex than conservative dress.

I personally think that women have been put in a dangerous position by a lot of feminist dogma

I agree, and the belief that underlies all of this dogma is the idea that "rape is not your fault."

[daisy]

women have been put in a dangerous position true___________

[Starr]

It is fact that whorish clothing attracts more attention from the opposite sex than conservative dress

Obviously. And the guy is going to assume they are an easy lay,etc. But i would think and hope it would somewhat depend on what the woman looks like. I have seen plenty of fat and disgusting women dressed like this, that go out of their way to get attention and often fail.

[jcs]

the belief that underlies all of this dogma is the idea that "rape is not your fault."
If I shit on my neighbor's lawn and he promptly shoots me in the face, the murder was 'his fault,' in that it was 'wrong' (illegal) and he committed it of his own volition, even though I instigated the event. Similarly, rape is the 'fault' of the rapist, not the victim, even if instigated.
(of course, were I to kill my neighbor's daughter, he'd be justified in killing me. Instigation, taken to an extreme, can be seen as the cause of compulsions, and thus the instigator is to blame rather than the instigated person)
The rapee's being-there is an insufficient cause for the rapist to rape; the rapee's clothing, or lack thereof, too, an insufficient cause for the rape. I'm not going to say that even some of the blame is placed on the victim--that is complete nonsense unless she was sexually antagonizing her attacker. And whore-ish clothing does not constitute sexual antagonism (though taunting, whore-ish behavior does). In most cases, "rape is not the victim's fault," and the attacker's inability to control his rape-compulsions is to blame.

[Starr]

and the attacker's inability to control his rape-compulsions is to blame.

It is almost as if some here believe that a male who sees a girl that is dressed "sexy" looses all ability to control himself and becomes like a wild animal in heat. "me see girl, me get pussy":222:

[jcs]

It is almost as if some here believe that a male who sees a girl that is dressed "sexy" looses all ability to control himself and becomes like a wild animal in heat.
Such images immediately make most men think of sex. The mind being nothing more than a battle-ground of souls, each using external stimuli as tools to gain power over the other souls, such a sexual impulse might be enough for the man with strongly carnal compulsions to destroy all decent souls within him--and rape. Most men are aware of this carnal soul and know what they would do if they lacked restraint, thus the characterization of impulse-driven rapists as 'wild animals in heat' comes from our own experiences, our own awareness.
All men are rapists; I question the manliness of the man who has not felt compelled, at some point, to obey his carnal impulses and take a woman. All men are rapists; some of us know restraint.

(similarly, we are all also murderers, greedy, ascetics, etc.; in the same sense, all women are whores, and also jealous bitches, as well as kind, motherly, etc.)

Edit:
Ix once said something that struck me at the time as ridiculous, but which I now consider extremely profound (if said in this sense): "I am a genius. As such, all personalities are contained within me."

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

If I shit on my neighbor's lawn and he promptly shoots me in the face, the murder was 'his fault,' in that it was 'wrong' (illegal) and he committed it of his own volition, even though I instigated the event. Similarly, rape is the 'fault' of the rapist, not the victim, even if instigated.
The rapee's being-there is an insufficient cause for the rapist to rape; the rapee's clothing, or lack thereof, too, an insufficient cause for the rape. I'm not going to say that even some of the blame is placed on the victim--that is complete nonsense unless she was sexually antagonizing her attacker. And whore-ish clothing does not constitute sexual antagonism (though taunting, whore-ish behavior does). In most cases, "rape is not the victim's fault," and the attacker's inability to control his rape-compulsions is to blame.

You're right, rape is not the victim's fault, not entirely at least. And sometimes it's not the victim's fault at all because a rapist could break in a home and rape a woman who is sleeping. But taking the typical places where rapes occur like going to clubs, bars, or going out at night alone, the woman nevertheless provokes the rapist to act upon his sexual desires because of what she wears and how she acts. Also, no woman should be walking by herself at night in a secluded area. She who does, increases her risk of getting attacked. So I would have to disagree with you on your generalization that in most rapes, it is not the victim's fault.

[jcs]

But taking the typical places where rapes occur like going to clubs, bars, or going out at night alone, the woman nevertheless provokes the rapist to act upon his sexual desires because of what she wears and how she acts. Also, no woman should be walking by herself at night in a secluded area. She who does, increases her risk of getting attacked. So I would have to disagree with you on your generalization that in most rapes, it is not the victim's fault.
Ignorance, though inexcusable, is not cause for blame. A victim deserves no blame unless one has volitionally provoked an attack, with sexual-antagonism in the case of a rape. If there was only ignorant provocation, as in the case of dumb teenage girls dressing like whores to get men's attention while not fully understanding the nature of this attention, there is absolutely no cause for condemnation. 'Fault,' as in tracing the rapist's compulsions to the various causes, might be the victim's to some degree in such a situation, but to this degree one can blame only ignorance, not the victim herself.

[Starr]

And it is not as if a woman is dressing in this way to antagonize a guy. She is doing it because she sees it on tv, in magazines,etc. And because she is expecting guys to respond to her in a certain way. In most cases it seems a girl goes out looking in whatever way she thinks looks good to attract a guy with the most important focus being on obtaining a relationship, the guy is going out with the most important focus being on obtaining :hump: , IMO anyway.

there is absolutely no cause for condemnation.

The condemnation could and should be used, though, so that others can possibly learn from the mistakes and bad decisions that were made that led to the rape.

[jcs]

The condemnation could and should be used, though, so that others can possibly learn from the mistakes and bad decisions that were made that led to the rape.
I am wholly opposed to such 'make an example of...' bullshit. Those willing to sacrifice all their own morality toward some quasi-Utilitarian end are themselves immoral and consequently know nothing about 'good,' much less 'greater good.'

[Sinclair]

Is provocation even an issue? Men aren't animals. It's rather odd that many on the side of "Well, she was dressing like a whore, she deserved it" seem to agree with many of the extreme man-hating feminists. Both seem to think that deep down, men, or at least some men, are hypersexual beasts with little self-control.

There is something WRONG with rapists. Whether they have ridiculously poor self-control (I mean, I don't fucking CARE if a woman is teasing a guy... Rape is hardly the sensible reaction), are predators (That's what's behind the whole "Her mouth says no but her eyes say yes"), are angry and violent drunks (In which case they shouldn't drink), are mentally ill (In which case they should be in an institution), etc.

And is putting one's self in a dangerous position really the same as actual fault? There's a difference between being foolish and being at fault... The vast majority of the responsibility, and all the guilt, should adhere to the rapist. If they hadn't committed the crime, then the woman could have been naked and holding aloft a sign that said "Rape Me", and nothing would have happened.

[Sinclair]

The condemnation could and should be used, though, so that others can possibly learn from the mistakes and bad decisions that were made that led to the rape.

Condemnation isn't the right way to go... A positive spin should be put on "Rape Prevention", rather than negative stigma on the rape victim. One reason for this being the more stigma on the victim, the less chance they'll come forward, and the less chance the rapist will be caught and convicted, and thus the more chance they'll strike again.

But it's not bad decisions and mistakes that lead to rape, it's the rapist that leads to rape. The bad decisions and mistakes put a woman in a situation where she's more likely to be raped, yes, but it's not the same thing.

[Starr]

LOL. I am not talking about puting the woman on display(so to speak) and condemning her as a "whore who was asking for it." I am talking about looking past the idea that there is nothing she could have done to make the rape less likely to occur. Women need to be more aware of things that they may do that can put them in danger of being raped, which they are never going to get from those "women's right" groups, who pretend to care about them so much.

Picking up on the word "condemnation" was not the best way to express what I was trying to say.:o

A positive spin should be put on "Rape Prevention", rather than negative stigma on the rape victim.

I agree, but even talking about rape prevention, in a real way, is pretty much taboo since it suggests there are certain things that can be done and things(possibly certain behaviors,etc) that should be avoided to make rape less likely to occur, which would lead to many screaming about "blaming the victim"

It's rather odd that many on the side of "Well, she was dressing like a whore, she deserved it" seem to agree with many of the extreme man-hating feminists. Both seem to think that deep down, men, or at least some men, are hypersexual beasts with little self-control.
:p
I was about to say the same thing.

[jcs]

Is provocation even an issue? Men aren't animals. It's rather odd that many on the side of "Well, she was dressing like a whore, she deserved it" seem to agree with many of the extreme man-hating feminists. Both seem to think that deep down, men, or at least some men, are hypersexual beasts with little self-control.

There is something WRONG with rapists. Whether they have ridiculously poor self-control (I mean, I don't fucking CARE if a woman is teasing a guy... Rape is hardly the sensible reaction), are predators (That's what's behind the whole "Her mouth says no but her eyes say yes"), are angry and violent drunks (In which case they shouldn't drink), are mentally ill (In which case they should be in an institution), etc.
I have never heard of a man, save when it comes to repressive priests and eunuchs, who did not have predatory tendencies. I have never heard of a human completely free from all things that could be dubbed 'mental illnesses.' There are different types of disorders, and different degrees of sanity for each disorder.
There is no safe human being; we're all maniacs held in check by silly compulsions toward decency and such, useful emotional restraints necessary to keep man functioning within society. That you say there is something 'wrong' with rapists implies that there is something non-wrong with non-rapists, which is silly.

[Helios Panoptes]

If I shit on my neighbor's lawn and he promptly shoots me in the face, the murder was 'his fault,' in that it was 'wrong' (illegal) and he committed it of his own volition, even though I instigated the event. Similarly, rape is the 'fault' of the rapist, not the victim, even if instigated.
(of course, were I to kill my neighbor's daughter, he'd be justified in killing me. Instigation, taken to an extreme, can be seen as the cause of compulsions, and thus the instigator is to blame rather than the instigated person)

Therein lies the problem; I haven't said that rape is justified by the victim's behavior. If you reread my post, you will see this. My argument is not de jure, but is de facto. My comment on the lie that "rape is not your fault," can be taken to mean "you are not responsible for your rape." However, this is not the case at all. Most rapes could be prevented by approprate behavior. It is not a question of the rapist being right and the victim wrong, but the victim playing a causative role in the occurrence that is rape. It is flippant to conflate moral justification with the above.


The rapee's being-there is an insufficient cause for the rapist to rape; the rapee's clothing, or lack thereof, too, an insufficient cause for the rape. I'm not going to say that even some of the blame is placed on the victim--that is complete nonsense unless she was sexually antagonizing her attacker. And whore-ish clothing does not constitute sexual antagonism (though taunting, whore-ish behavior does). In most cases, "rape is not the victim's fault," and the attacker's inability to control his rape-compulsions is to blame.

In most cases, rape is a convergence of irresponsible behavior on the part of women with males unable to control their behavior. There is very seldom rape without both. My argument has nothing to do with justification and everything to do with matters of plain fact.

[Sinclair]

I have never heard of a man, save when it comes to repressive priests and eunuchs, who did not have predatory tendencies. I have never heard of a human completely free from all things that could be dubbed 'mental illnesses.' There are different types of disorders, and different degrees of sanity for each disorder.
There is no safe human being; we're all maniacs held in check by silly compulsions toward decency and such, useful emotional restraints necessary to keep man functioning within society. That you say there is something 'wrong' with rapists implies that there is something non-wrong with non-rapists, which is silly.

Well, if right/wrong is considered to be in relation to the society, yes, there is something wrong with them. By "mental illnesses" I was referring to the conditions that would actually play a role in committing such acts.

Some people are safer than others, and there's something "wrong" with them because going along with the group's social mores is generally a good thing for people.

[Sinclair]

LOL. I am not talking about puting the woman on display(so to speak) and condemning her as a "whore who was asking for it." I am talking about looking past the idea that there is nothing she could have done to make the rape less likely to occur. Women need to be more aware of things that they may do that can put them in danger of being raped, which they are never going to get from those "women's right" groups, who pretend to care about them so much.

Picking up on the word "condemnation" was not the best way to express what I was trying to say.:o

I agree, but even talking about rape prevention, in a real way, is pretty much taboo since it suggests there are certain things that can be done and things(possibly certain behaviors,etc) that should be avoided to make rape less likely to occur.

Well, you did use the word "condemnation". But I get what you're saying.

Anyway, the harm is done by the bizarre offshoot of feminism which somehow paints irresponsible activities as being "empowering". "We can be just as sucessful and powerful as men" has been replaced with "We can be just as irresponsible and foolish as men". Probably because it's easier to go to a bar and do shots until you fall over than it is to become a lawyer or a doctor or whatever, and probably more fun. :p

The problem is that it's hard to balance rape prevention with trying to reduce the social stigma of rape. It's much nastier psychologically and socially than mugging, for instance. Somebody who gets their wallet stolen isn't "damaged goods".

The best way to "position" it would be as self-control, modesty, and ability to defend one's self being "empowering", which they definitely are.

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

Women who dress like sluts should be condemned period. The media is demoralizing society and degrading women. And women, especially young girls don't give a shit about it. Keep in mind that I am not blaming the victim of rape entirely but rather I am stating the obvious, (depending on the situation) women unknowingly provokes the rapist.

[Sinclair]

Two issues:

1. Guilt versus responsibility. Often confused, but different really. Responsibility is more "passive", guilt is more "active". If somebody does something wrong, they are guilty. If somebody doesn't do something reasonable to prevent something wrong from being done, they are responsible.

2. Self-control: This is a confusing concept. What is it being used to mean here? Guy is "teased" by woman, can't help but rape her? Or guy is not in control of his "animal" nature? Remember that in the animal world, most sex can be considered "rape" by human standards.

At times, rape has been considered permissable. Look at ancient Greece. All those nice shiny guys in the Iliad are rapists. Raping women of captured cities... Shit, that was fun. Guy's night out. Kill the men, rape the women, enslave the survivors, steal the stuff, etc. That now rape of women of a defeated settlement by soldiers is viewed as a bad thing might indicate that on a certain level, people have advanced.

[Helios Panoptes]

Or regressed... :p

[Sinclair]

Women who dress like sluts should be condemned period. The media is demoralizing society and degrading women. And women, especially young girls don't give a shit about it. Keep in mind that I am not blaming the victim of rape entirely but rather I am stating the obvious, (depending on the situation) women unknowingly provokes the rapist.

I sort of agree here. On the one hand, society IS to blame. Messages of self-control and modesty and doing the right thing have been largely abandoned. Shame and guilt are viewed as often being bad things, as opposed to being useful ways to know if you've done something wrong, and to avoid doing something wrong (If you feel guilty thinking about something, don't do it). It's not just girls and young women, either. It's just that they're more likely to be raped than males.

But "provoking" the rapist, if that is in fact the best term, is probably a secondary issue at most. Again, things like physical size and fitness, looking confident, being in a group, etc are probably more important when it comes to avoiding being a target.

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

On the one hand, society IS to blame. Messages of self-control and modesty and doing the right thing have been largely abandoned. Shame and guilt are viewed as often being bad things, as opposed to being useful ways to know if you've done something wrong, and to avoid doing something wrong (If you feel guilty thinking about something, don't do it).

Yes, the media (which is poison to society) is the root to these social issues.

But "provoking" the rapist, if that is in fact the best term, is probably a secondary issue at most. Again, things like physical size and fitness, looking confident, being in a group, etc are probably more important when it comes to avoiding being a target.

I have a scenario and then a follow-up question to that for you. A very confident and athletic girl, who just came out of a club wearing provocative revealing outfit, decides to walk home alone. There are NO people out at that time. She knows this. Moments later, she is raped. Do you think there was no "provocation" involved?

[Starr]

A very confident and athletic girl, who just came out of a club wearing provocative revealing outfit, decides to walk home alone. There are NO people out at that time. She knows this. Moments later, she is raped. Do you think there was no "provocation" involved?

She should know better and know this is not the safest decision, but what is she "provoking? A wild, hungry beast? A guy who would just grab a random woman off the street is probably going to grab any woman he may see alone. If I knew a guy like this was lurking, I wouldn't feel safe walking near him dressed as a nun.

[Scales]

My thought exactly, girls that wear like whore deserve rape.
That's an idiotic thing to say. A woman 'deserves' to be sexually assaulted because she looks sexually attractive? You won't get far justifying that one.

[Sinclair]

I have a scenario and then a follow-up question to that for you. A very confident and athletic girl, who just came out of a club wearing provocative revealing outfit, decides to walk home alone. There are NO people out at that time. She knows this. Moments later, she is raped. Do you think there was no "provocation" involved?

I don't call that provocation so much as being really, really dumb. "Provocation" implies something else... The girl in this scenario is being foolish. I'm a GUY and I wouldn't walk home alone at night unless I was in a good part of town (Here in Toronto, the biggest threat to me in the areas I would be alone at night is the asshole who parks a car with a boat-trailer hitch at eye level out in the driveway).

But the clothing was probably secondary to the being out alone at night, presumably not in the best part of town.

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

She should know better and know this is not the safest decision, but what is she "provoking? A wild, hungry beast? A guy who would just grab a random woman off the street is probably going to grab any woman he may see alone. If I knew a guy like this was lurking, I wouldn't feel safe walking near him dressed as a nun.

What do you mean "what is she provoking"? Provoking doesn't necessarily have to mean she is trying to incite something intentionally. I'm not saying she is doing it on purpose. She's just increasing the likelihood of being attacked. The woman knows that when she walks alone in a desolate area at night, it is not safe, but she continues to do so despite that knowledge that is unsafe to walk alone at night in such areas. This is awakening the wolf that lurks.

[Helios Panoptes]

Two issues:

1. Guilt versus responsibility. Often confused, but different really. Responsibility is more "passive", guilt is more "active". If somebody does something wrong, they are guilty. If somebody doesn't do something reasonable to prevent something wrong from being done, they are responsible.

I agree, in principle, and say that this confusion is a major part of the problem. In an attempt to absolve foolish victims of their guilt, it is also denied that their behavior is, in fact, foolish. This leads to the dangerous idea that the victim's choices do not contribute to her being raped.

The distinction is not active/passive, but moral judgment/empirical observation. You've turned being responsible for an occurrence into being passively guilty, but one would never say black ice is passively guilty of causing a car accident. It simply played a causative role, nothing else.

[Scales]

As an analogy, it would be absurd to say that owning a nice car is justification for its theft. Parking a nice car in a shitty neighbourhood is not justification for its theft either.

The owner is 'at fault' for increasing the risk of theft, but they're not 'to blame' for being a victim of the thief. The thief is still utterly responsible for the theft, totally at fault and completely guilty. He isn't in any way morally absolved by the fact that the owner brought the car into his 'territory'. The guilt isn't shared with the owner in that sense, it lies with the thief.

So the woman walking alone in the short skirt in a bad part of town raises her risk of victimhood, but can never be 'to blame' for the rape. Like the guy with the nice car, her awareness of the risk of becoming a victim is a matter of ignorance or recklessness -she's either either foolish or foolhardy, but certainly not guilty.

[sugartits]

What does revealing clothing have to do with being raped? There are a lot more women that dress in skimpy clothes than there are instances of rape. It has to do with opportunity and psychology. Rape is in the mind of the rapist, and has little to do with visual stimulation -It involves a woman being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong type of man, which has much to do with naivete and bad judgment and little to do with what she is wearing.

Rape is about power, not about sexuality. The sexual arousal of the rapist comes from the act of rape, not the appearance of the woman.

[Sinclair]

I agree, in principle, and say that this confusion is a major part of the problem. In an attempt to absolve foolish victims of their guilt, it is also denied that their behavior is, in fact, foolish. This leads to the dangerous idea that the victim's choices do not contribute to her being raped.

The distinction is not active/passive, but moral judgment/empirical observation. You've turned being responsible for an occurrence into being passively guilty, but one would never say black ice is passively guilty of causing a car accident. It simply played a causative role, nothing else.

I'm not sure if it can be extended to non-human factors... Black ice just IS. It doesn't get to choose whether or not to be there.