Self Respect vs Responsibility

poet123

kno wrote: »

Erm someone on here made an unfounded link between clothing and risk of sexual assault. Sadly such thinking does exist.

No, people on here stated that risk is best avoided. Risk in the form of where you are, your sobriety, your dress, your demeanour etc etc. Your comment is too simplistic.

skintchick

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't think you want to see anything more than your point of view. I've personally experienced what you're talking about and I can still see that we have a personal responsibility not to put ourselves in avoidable dangerous situations.

I'm not comparing a sneak theft of a possession with a violent sexual assault. I don't want to be called into hospital to see my son on life support because he walked home through a risky area rather than, say, pay for taxi any more than I want to have to comfort my daughter after a sexual attack because she gave out an unintended message. I want young men and young women to keep themselves safe by taking sensible precautions.

That won't stop all physical attacks, sexual or otherwise - sometimes you're just in the wrong place at the wrong time - but it makes sense to avoid the avoidable.

You cannot avoid rape.

Most women who are raped, are raped by men they know, in places they thought were safe, like their homes. Usually they are not wearing provocative clothing.

I was raped in my own home, in non-provocative clothing, by a man I knew and trusted.

Nothing I could have done would have prevented that apart from never allowing a male friend into my home.

What 'unintended message' do you mean? Has anyone ever given out the message 'I would like to be raped?'. I doubt it.

So-called provocative clothing, getting drunk and all the other things people on here are blaming for rape may well increase your chances of being leered at and/or groped. But rape? Rape is different.

Most men who would grope a woman would not rape. For them, it is about desire and they want the woman to want it too. So when she makes it clear she doesn't, they stop. Rapists rape because they want to, because it is about control. They do not stop when told to, because they don't care what the women wants.

All this talk of towpaths, miniskirts and the like is nonsense and missing the point.

Women get raped wearing trousers, women get raped wearing pyjamas, women get raped wearing burkhas, they get raped in streets, and in their homes, and in their cars, and in the workplace.

WOMEN GET RAPED BECAUSE RAPISTS RAPE.

It really IS as simple as that.

Confusing lower-end sexual assault (groping, etc) with rape muddies the waters and gives leeway for people to say 'she asked for it', 'she led him on', and other abhorrent things.

No means no. Rapists don't care. Any move away from this truth is dangerous to women.

You could always google 'rape culture'and 'rape 101' to find out more about this.

kno

poet123 wrote: »

No, people on here stated that risk is best avoided. Risk in the form of where you are, your sobriety, your dress, your demeanour etc etc. Your comment is too simplistic.

I'm saying exactly what you are saying, that Women are at fault.

poet123

kno wrote: »

I'm saying exactly what you are saying, that Women are at fault.

No, you are saying what you interpret I am saying, there is a difference. I am not responsible for your lack of comprehension.;)

skintchick

poet123 wrote: »

No, you are saying what you interpret I am saying, there is a difference. I am not responsible for your lack of comprehension.;)

You are saying that women can somehow lower the risk of being raped by changing the way they dress, the way they behave and where they go.

But that is not true.

And not only is it not true, it puts an element of blame onto the woman - if she had ony not gone down that towpath she wouldd not have been raped, if she hadn;t worn that miniskirt she would nto have been raped, if she hadn;t smiled at him she would not have been raped.

This is not only not true, it is ridiculous.

Rapists rape because they want to rape, not because of what a woman is wearing, and the statistics are important because they show that this is true, that women are more likely to be raped by someone they know, and often in a place they deemed safe.

You can use winking smilies all you like, but you are saying that women who are raped are at least in part to blame for that, and that is offensive and inaccurate nonsense.

Kno has called you out on this correctly. Don't try and pretend s/he is wrong about what you are saying. It is exactly what you are saying and it is abhorrent.

kno

poet123 wrote: »

No, you are saying what you interpret I am saying, there is a difference. I am not responsible for your lack of comprehension.;)

Don't play dumb, your opinions are pure filth.

poet123

kno wrote: »

Don't play dumb, your opinions are pure filth.

But surely as a feminist you would acknowledge I am entitled to my opinion?

skintchick wrote: »

You are saying that women can somehow lower the risk of being raped by changing the way they dress, the way they behave and where they go.

But that is not true.

And not only is it not true, it puts an element of blame onto the woman - if she had ony not gone down that towpath she wouldd not have been raped, if she hadn;t worn that miniskirt she would nto have been raped, if she hadn;t smiled at him she would not have been raped.

This is not only not true, it is ridiculous.

I disagree. It is not about what if after the event, rape is wrong wherever, however, it happens but if you can think ahead and minimise the risk that is a good thing.

skintchick wrote: »

Rapists rape because they want to rape, not because of what a woman is wearing, and the statistics are important because they show that this is true, that women are more likely to be raped by someone they know, and often in a place they deemed safe.

The optimum words are often and likely..that means not universally.

skintchick wrote: »

You can use winking smilies all you like, but you are saying that women who are raped are at least in part to blame for that, and that is offensive and inaccurate nonsense.

No I am not saying that but you clearly, and understandably, have an agenda here. I think you are too close to the issue to see my comments for what they are.

skintchick wrote: »

Kno has called you out on this correctly. Don't try and pretend s/he is wrong about what you are saying. It is exactly what you are saying and it is abhorrent.

I am saying that if I had a daughter I would advise her to try to minimise her risks of attack by considering her dress, sobriety, who she trusts, demeanour, etc, etc. If you consider that abhorrent so be it.

It shouldn't be necessary, but sadly it still is.

kno

You can have your disgusting opinions poet123, but own them don't try to deny what you are saying.

poet123

kno wrote: »

You can have your disgusting opinions poet123, but own them don't try to deny what you are saying.

There speaks a true feminist!! Opinions are only valid if they agree with me. You have your opinion and I have mine, I accept that as a personist, clearly you have some way to go.

kno

poet123 wrote: »

There speaks a true feminist!! Opinions are only valid if they agree with me. You have your opinion and I have mine, I accept that as a personist, clearly you have some way to go.

I accept your right to an opinion but I don't need to agree with them, what's unfeminist about that?

You are not owning your opinions, you deny what you say that's an issue.

A Woman should be able to walk about in a mini skirt at midnight without the fear of being raped, it's Men who should be taught about self respect for females in this subject.