none of you should ever complain if you ever get beat up, nerds
Tu Stultus Es
Not a good comparison...a bear is a wild animal. We are human beings for goodness sake. (For some reason, I have the line from Planet of the Apes in my head now..."Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I don't think anybody feeding bears at Yellowstone was 'asking' to get mauled. This is common sense stuff. Violent crime is a reality that isn't going away any time soon.
Women shouldn't have to go through life as if we are in danger of being mauled by a bear. That's just silly.
...
You're splitting hairs that have already been split.Blue Herring wrote:
Fair enough.Jaekus wrote:
Roger Lesboules wrote:
Wait...a skirt that barely cover anything, and a top that make it so a nip slip is easy as pie is not asking for it?!?! Not that i complain, i like seeing those...but damn. Dont dress like someone who is beggin for sex if you dont want to get fucked?!?!
Somewhat stupid walk imo.
Still, his stance seems to be different than a majority of this thread, particularly the people you're debating.Jeekus wrote:
lowing wrote:
I would never use "they asked for it"
Part A
Part Blowing wrote:
Although to the letter of the law, these women are correct and I would never use "they asked for it", towards an acquittal,
the fact is, by drawing that sexual attention toward you, knowing how some men can not control themselves, you are in effect asking for it.
Well, I'd give an argument to rapists being like wild animals but, to be frank, I couldn't comprehend what allows them internally to go through with what they do.tuckergustav wrote:
Not a good comparison...a bear is a wild animal. We are human beings for goodness sake. (For some reason, I have the line from Planet of the Apes in my head now..."Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I don't think anybody feeding bears at Yellowstone was 'asking' to get mauled. This is common sense stuff. Violent crime is a reality that isn't going away any time soon.
Women shouldn't have to go through life as if we are in danger of being mauled by a bear. That's just silly.
Regardless of that, when ones talks about high risk situations, one really has no choice but to examine the threats as the result of some inevitable consequence, it's the only thing one can do to not be a victim*.
I could go further to explain this, but it would probably take too long.
*That's not to say that being a victim is someone's fault or anything, it's simply that looking at the possibility and perceiving oneself as a victim before the incident doesn't do anyone any good.
Right, well look up what "in effect" means.Jaekus wrote:
You're splitting hairs that have already been split.Blue Herring wrote:
Fair enough.Jaekus wrote:
Roger Lesboules wrote:
Wait...a skirt that barely cover anything, and a top that make it so a nip slip is easy as pie is not asking for it?!?! Not that i complain, i like seeing those...but damn. Dont dress like someone who is beggin for sex if you dont want to get fucked?!?!
Somewhat stupid walk imo.
Still, his stance seems to be different than a majority of this thread, particularly the people you're debating.Jeekus wrote:
lowing wrote:
I would never use "they asked for it"
Part APart Blowing wrote:
Although to the letter of the law, these women are correct and I would never use "they asked for it", towards an acquittal,the fact is, by drawing that sexual attention toward you, knowing how some men can not control themselves, you are in effect asking for it.
No, I think you're on the right track here. You mentioned "high risk situations". That's the premise of part of this discussion is it not? There have been examples of "if you were here at this place in this situation..." I think the fact remains that if a woman is targeted by a rapist and they are making some action to following through their sick intentions, what clothes they are garbed in tend not to matter nearly as much as the situation itself.Blue Herring wrote:
Well, I'd give an argument to rapists being like wild animals but, to be frank, I couldn't comprehend what allows them internally to go through with what they do.tuckergustav wrote:
Not a good comparison...a bear is a wild animal. We are human beings for goodness sake. (For some reason, I have the line from Planet of the Apes in my head now..."Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I don't think anybody feeding bears at Yellowstone was 'asking' to get mauled. This is common sense stuff. Violent crime is a reality that isn't going away any time soon.
Women shouldn't have to go through life as if we are in danger of being mauled by a bear. That's just silly.
Regardless of that, when ones talks about high risk situations, one really has no choice but to examine the threats as the result of some inevitable consequence, it's the only thing one can do to not be a victim*.
I could go further to explain this, but it would probably take too long.
*That's not to say that being a victim is someone's fault or anything, it's simply that looking at the possibility and perceiving oneself as a victim before the incident doesn't do anyone any good.
Sure.Blue Herring wrote:
Right, well look up what "in effect" means.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+effectin effect
Also found in: Medical, Legal, Acronyms, Idioms, Wikipedia 0.01 sec.
ef·fect (-fkt)
n.
1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action had no effect on the trade imbalance.
3. A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic effect.
4. Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing the jury.
5. The condition of being in full force or execution: a new regulation that goes into effect tomorrow.
6.
a. Something that produces a specific impression or supports a general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh atmosphere of the drama.
b. A particular impression: large windows that gave an effect of spaciousness.
c. Production of a desired impression: spent lavishly on dinner just for effect.
7. The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly worried, or words to that effect.
8. effects Movable belongings; goods.
tr.v. ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1.
Idiom:
in effect
In essence; to all purposes: testimony that in effect contradicted her earlier statement.
The last one:
"you are in effect asking for it" is saying "in essence, to all purposes, you are asking to be raped".Idiom:
in effect
In essence; to all purposes:
Very good. "In essence". and further, "in effect" implies an invetibility not necessarily derived from intent. In essence's definition will point you to this.Jaekus wrote:
Sure.Blue Herring wrote:
Right, well look up what "in effect" means.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+effectin effect
Also found in: Medical, Legal, Acronyms, Idioms, Wikipedia 0.01 sec.
ef·fect (-fkt)
n.
1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action had no effect on the trade imbalance.
3. A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic effect.
4. Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing the jury.
5. The condition of being in full force or execution: a new regulation that goes into effect tomorrow.
6.
a. Something that produces a specific impression or supports a general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh atmosphere of the drama.
b. A particular impression: large windows that gave an effect of spaciousness.
c. Production of a desired impression: spent lavishly on dinner just for effect.
7. The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly worried, or words to that effect.
8. effects Movable belongings; goods.
tr.v. ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1.
Idiom:
in effect
In essence; to all purposes: testimony that in effect contradicted her earlier statement.
The last one:"you are in effect asking for it" is saying "in essence, to all purposes, you are asking to be raped".Idiom:
in effect
In essence; to all purposes:
Depends what kind of rape. In the situation of a premeditated rape against a specific women, yes, the clothes most likely don't matter. In a predator situation, however, things are different.No, I think you're on the right track here. You mentioned "high risk situations". That's the premise of part of this discussion is it not? There have been examples of "if you were here at this place in this situation..." I think the fact remains that if a woman is targeted by a rapist and they are making some action to following through their sick intentions, what clothes they are garbed in tend not to matter nearly as much as the situation itself.
Troll? lolJaekus wrote:
Maybe you can stop trolling the forums and come up with a sensible post, thanks.lowing wrote:
Wonder if, if you truly believe your bullshit, that you will allow your daughter to dress like a slut and go to school or to parties, because she has the right to flaunt her tits and ass to all the guys, because nothing should happen and you would be totally shocked if something did.Jaekus wrote:
You are within your rights to leave a purse on your car seat, with the window down and doors unlocked. It is a crime to steal said purse. However that is a ridiculous anaolgy. A more accurate one to the thread topic would be to have a purse in a car on the dash board, doors locked and windows up but in plain sight. Breaking into the car and taking the purse is a crime too. Much like breaking into a woman who's on display is a crime.
As for the ski mask thing, that's utterly retarded, even for you.
Unwanted attention is a bit different from rape, buddy.
Maybe you would encourage your wife to go jogging in the park at night by herself, because doing so, isn't really inviting trouble after all.
I think I have a valid point. It is your contention that we all should be able to act anyway we want dress anyway we want and expect no side affects from that action or dress. Fact is, we are all treated and judged by how we act and dress. If you dress like a gangbanger, you will more than likely be treated like one. By doing so, do you honestly expect to be treated like a guy in a business suit?
That behavior is not just limited to women dressing like sluts therefore are treated like sluts. It is how we interact with each other. Does it mean you deserve to be raped, no, but knowing that it does happen, you gotta assume that by purposely fanning the flames, you CAN create an inferno.
If you wouldn't allow your daughter to go to a party or school dress like a slut, or you wouldn't allow your wife to go jogging in the park alone at night, then you KNOW there are consequences for such actions. So much for your, you should be able to dress any way you want or do anything you want approach.
Last edited by lowing (2011-05-13 01:57:56)
Wow we are arguing on the same side for a changelowing wrote:
Troll? lolJaekus wrote:
Maybe you can stop trolling the forums and come up with a sensible post, thanks.lowing wrote:
Wonder if, if you truly believe your bullshit, that you will allow your daughter to dress like a slut and go to school or to parties, because she has the right to flaunt her tits and ass to all the guys, because nothing should happen and you would be totally shocked if something did.
Maybe you would encourage your wife to go jogging in the park at night by herself, because doing so, isn't really inviting trouble after all.
I think I have a valid point. It is your contention that we all should be able to act anyway we want dress anyway we want and expect no side affects from that action or dress. Fact is, we are all treated and judged by how we act and dress. If you dress like a gangbanger, you will more than likely be treated like one. By doing so, do you honestly expect to be treated like a guy in a business suit?
That behavior is not just limited to women dressing like sluts therefore are treated like sluts. It is how we interact with each other. Does it mean you deserve to be raped, no, but knowing that it does happen, you gotta assume that by purposely fanning the flames, you CAN create an inferno.
Well if you want, since we agree, you could always join in Jaekus's posts and debate the definition of "is"Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Wow we are arguing on the same side for a changelowing wrote:
Troll? lolJaekus wrote:
Maybe you can stop trolling the forums and come up with a sensible post, thanks.
I think I have a valid point. It is your contention that we all should be able to act anyway we want dress anyway we want and expect no side affects from that action or dress. Fact is, we are all treated and judged by how we act and dress. If you dress like a gangbanger, you will more than likely be treated like one. By doing so, do you honestly expect to be treated like a guy in a business suit?
That behavior is not just limited to women dressing like sluts therefore are treated like sluts. It is how we interact with each other. Does it mean you deserve to be raped, no, but knowing that it does happen, you gotta assume that by purposely fanning the flames, you CAN create an inferno.
When I made my post in this thread I was writing with harassment in mind rather than rape, though I guess that can be related.
I'm not going to stop anyone of dressing how they want or disapprove of it, it's just not a good idea to walk around the shitty parts of town (as Dilbert put it) dressed like a hooker. It's not. I can't help that, it's just advice for your own safety if anything. Yes, it's a specific situation.
I'm not by any means saying 'she's asking for it'. That's bullshit.
I'm not going to stop anyone of dressing how they want or disapprove of it, it's just not a good idea to walk around the shitty parts of town (as Dilbert put it) dressed like a hooker. It's not. I can't help that, it's just advice for your own safety if anything. Yes, it's a specific situation.
I'm not by any means saying 'she's asking for it'. That's bullshit.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-05-13 02:12:40)
inane little opines
You glossed over "to all purposes", ie. doing something for the purpose of achieving an outcome.Blue Herring wrote:
Very good. "In essence". and further, "in effect" implies an invetibility not necessarily derived from intent. In essence's definition will point you to this.Jaekus wrote:
Sure.Blue Herring wrote:
Right, well look up what "in effect" means.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+effectin effect
Also found in: Medical, Legal, Acronyms, Idioms, Wikipedia 0.01 sec.
ef·fect (-fkt)
n.
1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action had no effect on the trade imbalance.
3. A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic effect.
4. Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing the jury.
5. The condition of being in full force or execution: a new regulation that goes into effect tomorrow.
6.
a. Something that produces a specific impression or supports a general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh atmosphere of the drama.
b. A particular impression: large windows that gave an effect of spaciousness.
c. Production of a desired impression: spent lavishly on dinner just for effect.
7. The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly worried, or words to that effect.
8. effects Movable belongings; goods.
tr.v. ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1.
Idiom:
in effect
In essence; to all purposes: testimony that in effect contradicted her earlier statement.
The last one:"you are in effect asking for it" is saying "in essence, to all purposes, you are asking to be raped".Idiom:
in effect
In essence; to all purposes:
But this isn't a debate about the english language.
Rape is about power. I don't know the mind of a rapist, I believe you do not either, but if it is about power I don't think a rapist is looking for the sluttiest or hottest woman to rape. He's looking for the most vulnerable, the best opportunity.Depends what kind of rape. In the situation of a premeditated rape against a specific women, yes, the clothes most likely don't matter. In a predator situation, however, things are different.No, I think you're on the right track here. You mentioned "high risk situations". That's the premise of part of this discussion is it not? There have been examples of "if you were here at this place in this situation..." I think the fact remains that if a woman is targeted by a rapist and they are making some action to following through their sick intentions, what clothes they are garbed in tend not to matter nearly as much as the situation itself.
No, my argument is that a blanket statement telling women not to dress like sluts to avoid being raped is ignorant and offensive.lowing wrote:
Troll? lolJaekus wrote:
Maybe you can stop trolling the forums and come up with a sensible post, thanks.lowing wrote:
Wonder if, if you truly believe your bullshit, that you will allow your daughter to dress like a slut and go to school or to parties, because she has the right to flaunt her tits and ass to all the guys, because nothing should happen and you would be totally shocked if something did.
Maybe you would encourage your wife to go jogging in the park at night by herself, because doing so, isn't really inviting trouble after all.
I think I have a valid point. It is your contention that we all should be able to act anyway we want dress anyway we want and expect no side affects from that action or dress. Fact is, we are all treated and judged by how we act and dress. If you dress like a gangbanger, you will more than likely be treated like one. By doing so, do you honestly expect to be treated like a guy in a business suit?
That behavior is not just limited to women dressing like sluts therefore are treated like sluts. It is how we interact with each other. Does it mean you deserve to be raped, no, but knowing that it does happen, you gotta assume that by purposely fanning the flames, you CAN create an inferno.
If you wouldn't allow your daughter to go to a party or school dress like a slut, or you wouldn't allow your wife to go jogging in the park alone at night, then you KNOW there are consequences for such actions. So much for your, you should be able to dress any way you want or do anything you want approach.
I am not talking about getting extra attention for dressing up sexy, that is an aside to the OT.
Rape is about power, not sex, re: my post above this.
I admit, I did not read every single post, but I do not recall reading where someone argued that women should be TOLD not to dress like a slut to avoid being raped. I recall the majority of the posts to be along the lines of, prepare for trouble if you taunt trouble.Jaekus wrote:
No, my argument is that a blanket statement telling women not to dress like sluts to avoid being raped is ignorant and offensive.lowing wrote:
Troll? lolJaekus wrote:
Maybe you can stop trolling the forums and come up with a sensible post, thanks.
I think I have a valid point. It is your contention that we all should be able to act anyway we want dress anyway we want and expect no side affects from that action or dress. Fact is, we are all treated and judged by how we act and dress. If you dress like a gangbanger, you will more than likely be treated like one. By doing so, do you honestly expect to be treated like a guy in a business suit?
That behavior is not just limited to women dressing like sluts therefore are treated like sluts. It is how we interact with each other. Does it mean you deserve to be raped, no, but knowing that it does happen, you gotta assume that by purposely fanning the flames, you CAN create an inferno.
If you wouldn't allow your daughter to go to a party or school dress like a slut, or you wouldn't allow your wife to go jogging in the park alone at night, then you KNOW there are consequences for such actions. So much for your, you should be able to dress any way you want or do anything you want approach.
I am not talking about getting extra attention for dressing up sexy, that is an aside to the OT.
Rape is about power, not sex, re: my post above this.
Well, it's about power and sex, or power in sex. I doubt a rapist would rape if it were just about power. There are plenty of other ways to obtain power over others without the stigma and consequence of rape.Jaekus wrote:
You glossed over "to all purposes", ie. doing something for the purpose of achieving an outcome.Blue Herring wrote:
Very good. "In essence". and further, "in effect" implies an invetibility not necessarily derived from intent. In essence's definition will point you to this.Jaekus wrote:
Sure.Blue Herring wrote:
Right, well look up what "in effect" means.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+effectin effect
Also found in: Medical, Legal, Acronyms, Idioms, Wikipedia 0.01 sec.
ef·fect (-fkt)
n.
1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action had no effect on the trade imbalance.
3. A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic effect.
4. Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing the jury.
5. The condition of being in full force or execution: a new regulation that goes into effect tomorrow.
6.
a. Something that produces a specific impression or supports a general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh atmosphere of the drama.
b. A particular impression: large windows that gave an effect of spaciousness.
c. Production of a desired impression: spent lavishly on dinner just for effect.
7. The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly worried, or words to that effect.
8. effects Movable belongings; goods.
tr.v. ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1.
Idiom:
in effect
In essence; to all purposes: testimony that in effect contradicted her earlier statement.
The last one:
"you are in effect asking for it" is saying "in essence, to all purposes, you are asking to be raped".
But this isn't a debate about the english language.Rape is about power. I don't know the mind of a rapist, I believe you do not either, but if it is about power I don't think a rapist is looking for the sluttiest or hottest woman to rape. He's looking for the most vulnerable, the best opportunity.Depends what kind of rape. In the situation of a premeditated rape against a specific women, yes, the clothes most likely don't matter. In a predator situation, however, things are different.No, I think you're on the right track here. You mentioned "high risk situations". That's the premise of part of this discussion is it not? There have been examples of "if you were here at this place in this situation..." I think the fact remains that if a woman is targeted by a rapist and they are making some action to following through their sick intentions, what clothes they are garbed in tend not to matter nearly as much as the situation itself.
Ok, fair call. I thought you had.lowing wrote:
I admit, I did not read every single post, but I do not recall reading where someone argued that women should be TOLD not to dress like a slut to avoid being raped. I recall the majority of the posts to be along the lines of, prepare for trouble if you taunt trouble.Jaekus wrote:
No, my argument is that a blanket statement telling women not to dress like sluts to avoid being raped is ignorant and offensive.lowing wrote:
Troll? lol
I think I have a valid point. It is your contention that we all should be able to act anyway we want dress anyway we want and expect no side affects from that action or dress. Fact is, we are all treated and judged by how we act and dress. If you dress like a gangbanger, you will more than likely be treated like one. By doing so, do you honestly expect to be treated like a guy in a business suit?
That behavior is not just limited to women dressing like sluts therefore are treated like sluts. It is how we interact with each other. Does it mean you deserve to be raped, no, but knowing that it does happen, you gotta assume that by purposely fanning the flames, you CAN create an inferno.
If you wouldn't allow your daughter to go to a party or school dress like a slut, or you wouldn't allow your wife to go jogging in the park alone at night, then you KNOW there are consequences for such actions. So much for your, you should be able to dress any way you want or do anything you want approach.
I am not talking about getting extra attention for dressing up sexy, that is an aside to the OT.
Rape is about power, not sex, re: my post above this.
Here's a link from a link in the OP.
And please, (not directed at anyone in particular, just a general request) can we not go into semantics of what being victimized means? I think the general consensus here is rape and sexual assault, something I think we can agree is what we are all addressing.A police officer who suggested women can avoid sexual assault by not dressing like “sluts” has apologized, saying he is “embarrassed” by the remark and that assaulted women are “not victims by choice.”
“I made a comment which was poorly thought out and did not reflect the commitment of the Toronto Police Service to the victims of sexual assaults,” Const. Michael Sanguinetti wrote on Thursday to Osgoode Hall Law School where he made the comment.
“Violent crimes such as sexual assaults can have a traumatizing effect on their victims. . . . My comment was hurtful in this respect.”
Alluding to the history of cooperation between York and police, Sanguinetti said “I hope my comment did not serve to undermine this. . . .
“I am embarrassed by the comment I made and it shall not be repeated. I apologize for any ill feelings my comment may have caused.”
Sanguinetti was out on patrol Thursday night and unavailable for comment.
The apology was attached to an email distributed to the “Osgoode community” by law school dean Lorne Sossin who said they’ve been told the officer “is being disciplined and will be provided with further professional training.”
On Jan. 24, Sanguinetti and another officer from 31 Division came to a York University safety forum at Osgoode.
Joey Hoffman, a residence fellow and member of the Osgoode student government, said only about 10 people attended but the room came to a stunned silence when the officer interrupted the more senior officer and made the reference to “sluts”.
“You know, I think we’re beating around the bush here,” the officer said, according to Hoffman. “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this, however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”
The senior officer was silent for a moment and then picked up the presentation.
“I don’t think he was sarcastic or malicious. I think he thought he was being helpful,” Hoffman said.
York has been the scene of violent sexual attacks and robberies over the years, and has recently completed a safety audit in response to those crimes.
The comment has fanned controversy in the blogosphere, at York and among victims’ advocates.
Jane Doe, who won a landmark case against Toronto police in 1998 when a judge ruled she was used as bait to capture a serial rapist, said that unfortunately this was not the comment of “one bad apple.”
“In 2007, I was paid by the Toronto Police Services Board to monitor their sexual assault training for two weeks and the course is riddled with sexist and racist myths and attitudes about rape. I produced an assessment for them and it quickly disappeared.”
Rosemary Gartner, a University of Toronto criminologist, said linking style of dress to sexual assault is “ridiculous.”
“If that were the case, there would be no rapes of women who wear veils and we know there are rapes in those countries,” she said.
Darshika Selvasivam, vice-president of the York Federation of Students, said she found the use of the word “extremely alarming.”
Linking provocative clothing to sexual assault “is a huge myth” and all it does is “blame the survivor of a sexual assault while taking the onus away from the perpetrator,” she said.
A university spokesperson also said the school was “surprised and shocked” by the comment, although it does have a good and collaborative relationship with police.
The student newspaper Excalibur reported on the comments and the controversy has “reinvigorated debate at Osgoode Hall,” Hoffman said.
“This line of thinking might have been acceptable early in the 20th century, but in 2011 it is so inappropriate,” he said, adding most students believe the comments were out of line.
Christine Hakim and Anastasia Mandziuk, co-chairs of the women’s caucus at Osgoode Hall Law School, which advocates for women’s issues, issued a statement strongly condemning police for the comment.
Toronto Police spokeswoman Meaghan Gray said cautioning women on their state of dress is not part of any police training.
“In fact, this is completely contradictory to what officers are taught,” she said. “They are taught that nothing a woman does contributes to a sexual assault.”
Yeah of course, but it's been noted that many/most rapists have power issues when it comes to women. It's not simply just possessing power, it's the type of power. Dominance over the fairer sex.Blue Herring wrote:
Well, it's about power and sex, or power in sex. I doubt a rapist would rape if it were just about power. There are plenty of other ways to obtain power over others without the stigma and consequence of rape.Jaekus wrote:
You glossed over "to all purposes", ie. doing something for the purpose of achieving an outcome.Blue Herring wrote:
Very good. "In essence". and further, "in effect" implies an invetibility not necessarily derived from intent. In essence's definition will point you to this.Jaekus wrote:
Sure.Blue Herring wrote:
Right, well look up what "in effect" means.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+effectin effect
Also found in: Medical, Legal, Acronyms, Idioms, Wikipedia 0.01 sec.
ef·fect (-fkt)
n.
1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action had no effect on the trade imbalance.
3. A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic effect.
4. Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing the jury.
5. The condition of being in full force or execution: a new regulation that goes into effect tomorrow.
6.
a. Something that produces a specific impression or supports a general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh atmosphere of the drama.
b. A particular impression: large windows that gave an effect of spaciousness.
c. Production of a desired impression: spent lavishly on dinner just for effect.
7. The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly worried, or words to that effect.
8. effects Movable belongings; goods.
tr.v. ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1.
Idiom:
in effect
In essence; to all purposes: testimony that in effect contradicted her earlier statement.
The last one:
"you are in effect asking for it" is saying "in essence, to all purposes, you are asking to be raped".
But this isn't a debate about the english language.Rape is about power. I don't know the mind of a rapist, I believe you do not either, but if it is about power I don't think a rapist is looking for the sluttiest or hottest woman to rape. He's looking for the most vulnerable, the best opportunity.
Depends what kind of rape. In the situation of a premeditated rape against a specific women, yes, the clothes most likely don't matter. In a predator situation, however, things are different.
Sorry, but you can't expect people to avoid semantics when the whole fucking argument is about semantics.
Also, that criminologist's logic doesn't follow. Just because some people are into grannies or target specific people they know doesn't mean that an enticing attire won't attract attention from a predator.
Also, that criminologist's logic doesn't follow. Just because some people are into grannies or target specific people they know doesn't mean that an enticing attire won't attract attention from a predator.
I think characterizing the cop's words as "she was 'asking for it'" is the problem here. I've tried to show that, in the context of crime prevention discussion, his words are no different than the words used to to prevent burglary or any other violent crime. He's not saying that a girl "dressed like a slut" is "asking for it," but that she's putting herself in a position where she's more likely to have problems than she would otherwise. Just as she would if she were to go strolling through a bad neighborhood by herself at 3am, regardless of what she was wearing. Both contribute--more so than other choices they could make--to becoming victims of crime. Neither mean the victim is "asking" for the crime to happen to them. Just like leaving your doors unlocked contribute more to you being burglarized than locking them would. Just like leaving valuables in plain sight in your car contributes more to getting your car broken into more than hiding them away would.Jaekus wrote:
I can understand these scenarios but they have their own contexts that deviate from the issue.FEOS wrote:
I don't think anyone's arguing that it's a valid defense.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
So while I can understand the argument comes from the same vein as "don't walk on MLK Avenue at 2AM alone if you don't wanna get mugged," it shouldn't be a valid defense whatsoever.Of course it is. But nobody would say anything about a cop telling a roomful of people not to leave their doors unlocked.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Burglarizing a home that's unlocked is still burglary.
The issue here isn't a woman dressing like a hooker and walking around drunk in a dark alley in the shittest part of town, yet that's what people are moving this discussion towards.
The issue here is that women should be free to wear what they want, and use their common sense. Putting context upon it in this regard is just stupid. If a woman is wearing fishnets, high heels, low cut dress and make up to make her look hot, and she goes to a classy cocktail lounge with her friends then is she somehow "asking for it", as has been suggested? What about the same woman, in track pants and trainers and an old t-shirt walking through the ghetto by herself at 3am? Which is more at risk? What about the same woman wearing knee highs, skirt, shirt and goes to the mall to shop?
Really, the environment and behaviour are the factors here, not the dress code.
Could the cop have said something other than "dressing like a slut"? Of course. We're past his poor use of language. The meaning of what he said and the context of the discussion is what is important when it comes to determining whether this guy intended harm with his words, IMO...which he clearly did not.
As stated before: For some odd reason, you can't have a non-emotional discussion of this crime with people like you can about say, armed robbery. If you try to objectify it in any way, people assume you are trying to either blame the victim or side with the perpetrator. Neither is the case here.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
[sarcasm] What we should be trying to do is have a chat with the rapists to find out why they do it so we can understand them better [/sarcasm]
Saying clothing has absolutely nothing to do with rape is one extreme and saying it is the sole reason is the other extreme. The balance as always is found somewhere in between.
Saying clothing has absolutely nothing to do with rape is one extreme and saying it is the sole reason is the other extreme. The balance as always is found somewhere in between.
I now have a new name for the walk of shame.
Maybe, but I think I'd take the word of a criminologist who has studied this extensively over the anecdotal "evidence" being presented in this thread.Blue Herring wrote:
Sorry, but you can't expect people to avoid semantics when the whole fucking argument is about semantics.
Also, that criminologist's logic doesn't follow. Just because some people are into grannies or target specific people they know doesn't mean that an enticing attire won't attract attention from a predator.
Humans are violent animals with a thin veneer of civilization. For the reason I don't walk around a mall parking lot waving a wad of cash over my head, or leave equipment unchained or in an unlocked garage at night, or walk around Tehran with a Muhammad-bomb t-shirt, I wouldn't walk around dressed like a slut if I was a chick.tuckergustav wrote:
Not a good comparison...a bear is a wild animal. We are human beings for goodness sake. (For some reason, I have the line from Planet of the Apes in my head now..."Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I don't think anybody feeding bears at Yellowstone was 'asking' to get mauled. This is common sense stuff. Violent crime is a reality that isn't going away any time soon.
Women shouldn't have to go through life as if we are in danger of being mauled by a bear. That's just silly.
So yes, despite a bear's different motives, the bear analogy is a good one. It's unfair, but it's common sense.
No, they shouldn't. I also shouldn't have to password-protect my PC or lock my door at night. In fact, I don't have to do any of those things, but if I don't my risk factor increases.Women shouldn't have to go through life as if we are in danger of being mauled by a bear. That's just silly.
Yeah, her statement wasn't anecdotal at all.Jaekus wrote:
Maybe, but I think I'd take the word of a criminologist who has studied this extensively over the anecdotal "evidence" being presented in this thread.Blue Herring wrote:
Sorry, but you can't expect people to avoid semantics when the whole fucking argument is about semantics.
Also, that criminologist's logic doesn't follow. Just because some people are into grannies or target specific people they know doesn't mean that an enticing attire won't attract attention from a predator.
Surely she'd have a better reason then "NOT EVERYONE WHO'S RAPED WEARS THAT STUFF" if she'd actually have a reason. Rather, it seems like an issue she feels about personally, since a second later she stated that it's "a common myth that aims to blame the victim" which is utter crap.
I understand the desire to blindly believe anyone who has any perceptive authority because it's easier. But really, it doesn't do anyone any good.
So, if she is right, she can present her data for it professionally instead of a half-assed abduction.