Female Condom Unveiled For World Cup
- Thread starter Angela 0077
- Start date
Phone sex has nothing to do with rape. Phone sex is consensual. If it 'entices the wrong person to rape a woman' he would be just as likely be 'enticed to rape' by knowing the old lady down the street is alone in her house.
Actually, the only one that suggested "men are pigs" was you:
You seem to think that it's intrinsic in men's nature to harass and molest women dressed in anything fancier than a burlap sack. I disagree wholeheartedly. I can keep my dick, my hands and my comments under control at any time, and so most men. The ones that can't or won't deserve to be chastised for that without any excuse.
I think that's the part that pisses me off the most in this thread. The notion that men are simply incapable of controlling themselves, compelled to attempt coitus with every female member of the species they encounter--and the more skin she shows, the more he reverts to his animal nature and runs the risk of raping her.
The assumptions buried in this are offensive:
1. Men have no self-control.
2. Men are incapable of thinking about women in anything other than a sexual context.
3. The natural sexual inclination of all men is to commit rape.
It's just as sexist and disgusting as the notions that women should stay at home, shouldn't be trusted to move about in public by themselves, shouldn't be permitted to have careers, and shouldn't be permitted to dress however they like.
Whatever a woman might be wearing, it doesn't excuse men acting like sleazebags. You see a woman you don't know walking down the street, I don't care how hot she is or how she's dressed--you make lewd comments at her, you're a piece of shit and should be ashamed of yourself.
Of course, I wouldn't object to walking up and trying to strike up an actual conversation.
But acting like a sex-crazed idiot? Grow up.I can't believe we still have people who will make excuses for men's bad behavior, like we're simply incapable of helping ourselves.
And, bottom line, it has nothing to do with being sexual, or even horny. I am highly sexual. I am far from indifferent to the female form. For fuck's sake, I'm Italian. Flirting is like breathing to me. I have made bold propositions to women that would have made Casanova blush, and I was never met with anything else than a appreciative agreement or a polite refusal. And no one ever called me a pig. Why? Because there is a solid, neon-bright line between flirting and harassment, and most women and most men understand it perfectly. And if you ever step unknowingly on the line, you apologize and you recede, not insist that it was the other's fault. The few ones that have troubles with this concept are the ones that are only interested in their own satisfaction, and not in their prospective partners.
How many times did I say "dress provactively" in this thread? You people have completely distorted what I said, and have once again put words in my mouth. The general attitude in here is that men misbehave and you can't deny that given how many of you are going on trying to say how men should behave better.
But you people prove time and again to use strawman attacks, cherry pick words and phrases out of context and generally lack comprehension of what is being said. I'm not the one saying most men are like that, I'm not the one saying women deserve to be raped, but you people are just trolling looking for something you've already decided I said even though I haven't.
Fucking stupid how you keep trying to twist my words. Now, you'll go on and take words out of context again, say that I am saying women get what's coming to them when I've been very clear that dressing to attract attention is probably going to draw attention.
God damn, I give up on you people.
But you people prove time and again to use strawman attacks, cherry pick words and phrases out of context and generally lack comprehension of what is being said. I'm not the one saying most men are like that, I'm not the one saying women deserve to be raped, but you people are just trolling looking for something you've already decided I said even though I haven't.
Fucking stupid how you keep trying to twist my words. Now, you'll go on and take words out of context again, say that I am saying women get what's coming to them when I've been very clear that dressing to attract attention is probably going to draw attention.
God damn, I give up on you people.
I think that they are only saying that some men (i.e. those that are rapists or sexually harrass women) are the ones that need to behave. Women should not have to change their legal behaviour because of the unlawful behaviour of such men. If a woman dresses to catch the attention of men it doesn't mean that all men should see her as 'fair game' or something worse.
Good grief, they just misunderstood what you said, if that is in fact what you meant. You could have just explained yourself better instead of going off the deep end about it.
Oh, no you see, I've explained myself 6 or 7 times in here already and it's been overlooked in favor of the kind of reaction that set me off. So I've quit even attempting to explain it since every time I make it clear they muddy it up to make their own arguement sound better rather than acknowledge everyone has a personal responsibility, including women.
A woman (nor a man) shouldn't have to change her lawful behaviour to ward off the possibility of unlawful behaviour from a men (or fro other women).
Absolutely true. Unfortunately however, that does not work in practice. Is it legal of me to walk down the streets in the middle of the night wearing gold chains and having shit loads of money pouring out of my pocket? Yeah. Is it smart? No. Why? Because I'll probably get jumped and have everything taken from me.
The best (not the only way) way to stop that possibility isn't to modify your behaviour but for consistent penalties to be given to offenders. Laws can, and often do modify behaviour, if they are applied wisely.
For example, my son was mugged last year. He was walking home from the pub at about 7pm. It was still daylight. He had talked to a group of men briefly at the pub. They saw him leave and left a few minutes after him. When they came across him walking up the street they stopped their car. One of them got out and asked my son for a smoke. My son rolled one for him and then the guy said he wanted the whole packet. My son said no. So this guy assaulted him and stole his wallet. Luckily neighbours saw what was happening and called the police and the police managed to capture the guy.
The guy got a 10 month sentence (three months of which was suspended).
Now if my son had left the pub drunk (he had only had 3 drinks), or if my son had been flashing around a wallet full of money (the thief only got $5 as my son went to the pub with only $20) or if he was walking home alone after dark than some people would said he was at partly at fault despite the fact that the assailant didn't need these things to happen for him to think he could attack my son. The only behaviour that should be criticised is that of the assailant - he looked for someone who was weaker than him and the reasons why that person was weaker didn't matter to the assailant.
For example, my son was mugged last year. He was walking home from the pub at about 7pm. It was still daylight. He had talked to a group of men briefly at the pub. They saw him leave and left a few minutes after him. When they came across him walking up the street they stopped their car. One of them got out and asked my son for a smoke. My son rolled one for him and then the guy said he wanted the whole packet. My son said no. So this guy assaulted him and stole his wallet. Luckily neighbours saw what was happening and called the police and the police managed to capture the guy.
The guy got a 10 month sentence (three months of which was suspended).
Now if my son had left the pub drunk (he had only had 3 drinks), or if my son had been flashing around a wallet full of money (the thief only got $5 as my son went to the pub with only $20) or if he was walking home alone after dark than some people would said he was at partly at fault despite the fact that the assailant didn't need these things to happen for him to think he could attack my son. The only behaviour that should be criticised is that of the assailant - he looked for someone who was weaker than him and the reasons why that person was weaker didn't matter to the assailant.
Last edited:
Agreed, but even with consistent penalties and strong laws, you won't catch me making myself a target. It shouldn't be that way but it is that way and will continue to be that way for a while.
^ The 'walking around with money/expensive shit' thing is quite a flawed analogy though. I mean, it works in so far as you can say that IF there are identifiable factors X which heighten chances of being a victim of crime Y, and one can avoid X then one should. Fair enough. That's just basic logic applicable to anything.
But as soon as you get into the particulars and continue to liken rape to mugging, it falls apart. Sex isn't a commodity, and rape isn't the theft of that commodity. The fact that we tend to go to mugging as the obvious analogy, where dressing a certain way is likened to flashing an expensive phone around (ie displaying one's assets) says something pretty fucked up about the way our culture teaches us to think about women's bodies.
The only thing rape is really like is rape, but if we're going to use analogies, non-sexual physical assault is a much better one than mugging or theft. And surely it's much simpler to see the comparison there - the one sure way not to get physically assaulted is never to be in the company of a violent asshole who decides to beat you up.
But as soon as you get into the particulars and continue to liken rape to mugging, it falls apart. Sex isn't a commodity, and rape isn't the theft of that commodity. The fact that we tend to go to mugging as the obvious analogy, where dressing a certain way is likened to flashing an expensive phone around (ie displaying one's assets) says something pretty fucked up about the way our culture teaches us to think about women's bodies.
The only thing rape is really like is rape, but if we're going to use analogies, non-sexual physical assault is a much better one than mugging or theft. And surely it's much simpler to see the comparison there - the one sure way not to get physically assaulted is never to be in the company of a violent asshole who decides to beat you up.
Er, it's a perfect analogy because it point's out that you can either create or fall into a situation where you are a target. Im not saying theft is like rape. I'm saying you shouldn't put yourself in a situation where you are a target.
For example, don't walk down the street in the middle of the night in a shitty neighborhood. Pretty common sense stuff that most people try to follow
It doesn't MATTER if it's fucked up. It's the reality of the situation. You don't have to like it but you do have to live in this world and that is the way it is. You can try changing that mind set, and who knows, you might be successful. Between now and then however you still have to deal with it.
Sure, absolutely, the analogy'll get you to "don't put yourself at risk". But no further.
It's really no more apt an analogy than 'Don't drive while on the phone, it increases your chances of crashing' or 'Don't refreeze defrosted food, because that can cause food poisoning'.
i.e. Don't do [identifiable contributing factor to X] if you don't want [X] to happen.
Where the analogy stops being helpful is in offering any insight into what those contributing factors might be, is my point.
It's really no more apt an analogy than 'Don't drive while on the phone, it increases your chances of crashing' or 'Don't refreeze defrosted food, because that can cause food poisoning'.
i.e. Don't do [identifiable contributing factor to X] if you don't want [X] to happen.
Where the analogy stops being helpful is in offering any insight into what those contributing factors might be, is my point.
The contributing factor is easy to see. You pointed it out yourself.
Yes, it's fucked up. But it's also true, people think that way.
Just having a packet of tobacco in his pocket lead to my son being mugged though it seems that he did mention to the men when he spoke to them in the pub that he was a pensioner. When he was on the ground he heard one of the men in the car tell the assailant to take my son's wallet 'because it is pension day".
Should my son have lessened his changes of being mugged by changing his behaviour by
1) Not going to the pub at all especially on a Wednesday (pension day). When my son was mugged it was actually his off-pension week. Though most people do get their pensions on Wednesday they don't get all get them on the same Wednesday.
2) Going to the pub but not speaking to anyone
3) Not 'flashing' around a packet of tobacco
Should my son have lessened his changes of being mugged by changing his behaviour by
1) Not going to the pub at all especially on a Wednesday (pension day). When my son was mugged it was actually his off-pension week. Though most people do get their pensions on Wednesday they don't get all get them on the same Wednesday.
2) Going to the pub but not speaking to anyone
3) Not 'flashing' around a packet of tobacco
Last edited:
Another example -
My aunt and uncle lived in one of Hobart larger public housing estates. Their house was broken into a couple of times and after the second robbery the police suggested to them that they should keep their front yard more unkempt and put cheaper looking curtains up so it didn't look like they were better off than the average poor person on this estate. By having a nice looking house they were told were making themselves a target.
My aunt and uncle lived in one of Hobart larger public housing estates. Their house was broken into a couple of times and after the second robbery the police suggested to them that they should keep their front yard more unkempt and put cheaper looking curtains up so it didn't look like they were better off than the average poor person on this estate. By having a nice looking house they were told were making themselves a target.
I vote for not going to the pub period. Personally, I dislike going to bars for exactly that reason. If I do go, I usually go in a group.
Sounds like the cop was telling the truth
It sucks, but it's reality. Every action you take comes with a certain amount of riskIm actually glad you brought up the house issue because it reminds me of something that most houses in New York City have
http://www.new-yorklocksmith.com/images/catalog/big/Large Custom Window Bars.jpg
Window bars. My house has them as well. They're inconvenient and they suck, but it's something people do to lessen the risk of theft