Related Articles

21 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

Also, read the article about SlutWalk, if only for the inevitable “look I’m not defending rapists, but you ladies really shouldn’t encourage those rapists” comments.

Um, no thank you?

ReplyReply
mygif
Fred Davis said on April 4th, 2011 at 4:26 pm

What MGK means is “Read the article about SlutWalk if only for the picture of a woman holding a sign that starts with “by the Whore-y hosts of hoggoth!””

ReplyReply
mygif

Xmas 1985. 14 years old. Bundled in layers. Was it my fault too

I think that sums up my counterpoint to “encouraging those rapists”. Jesus F.

ReplyReply
mygif
Hairious Maximus said on April 4th, 2011 at 8:13 pm

But the “ladies really shouldn’t encourage those rapists” is a perfectly valid point.

It’s not about blame or fault, its simple cause and effect. Women who go around with their tits out are more likely to be sexually assaulted. That’s all there is to it.

ReplyReply
mygif

…I’m calling Poe on Hairious Maximus.

ReplyReply
mygif
That Guy said on April 5th, 2011 at 1:12 am

I’ll call more than Poe’s Law. I’ll call Bullshit. Because my actions are *mine*. What someone else does, talking in movie shows, smoking in bed, voting Republican… does not matter. When I choose to boot them in the head the onus is on me.

So, no. Women wear what they like, and I, as a guy do not force them into anything. Cut, dried, and final.

ReplyReply
mygif

Hairious Maximus, I don’t care if you actually believe what you said or if you’re a troll: you’re still a disgusting human being. I wish you had to wear a sign over your head from now on that labeled you as a victim blamer, because that is what you are.

And MGK, this is the first time I’ve commented on your blog though I’ve been reading it for a while, and I want to say thank you for being a really wonderful feminist voice out there in the geekosphere. It’s something that I rarely see but it’s encouraging.

ReplyReply
mygif
Hairious Maximus said on April 5th, 2011 at 3:46 am

@Lissla:

Let me quote myself, since its all of three posts up:

“It’s not about blame or fault”

Feel free to apologise anytime you like.

@That Guy:

Well, let me throw a different scenario your way. It’s nighttime, and you’re about to go out on your bike. Do you:

1) Wear light-coloured clothing that makes you easily visible.
OR
2) Wear dark-coloured clothing that makes you difficult to see.

ReplyReply
mygif

Usually I don’t comment, but this argument is flawed in so many ways, I just had to adress it:

First from a pragmatic viewpoint: “Women who go around with their tits out are more likely to be sexually assaulted. That’s all there is to it” It’s all about blaim! Blaim for the rapist.

There is no evidence to suggest that women that don’t ‘have their tits out’ are less likely to be raped. Rape is often caused by people that know the victim: clothes often don’t matter.

From a moral perspective

“1) Wear light-coloured clothing that makes you easily visible. OR 2) Wear dark-coloured clothing that makes you difficult to see.”

In your example we are thinking about accidents: the driver that might hit you doesn’t want to hit you. Because he won’t notice you, he accidently causes injury. He isn’t (in some cases) to blaim. Nor are you: the circomstances just where bad and you might improve those chances by dressing brightly.
You’re comparisement however comes down to this: ‘if a women ‘has her tits out’ she makes people, that otherwise wouldn’t be tempted’, rape her. You take away the choice and responsibility of the rapist, and transfer it to the victim. Rape is not an accident, caused by making yourself noticable. It’s a violent crime causes by a violent criminal.

2 “It’s not about blame or fault, its simple cause and effect.”

Rape is not about fault or blame? Rapists are to blame for the rape. If you say it’s cause and effect, you’re implying that ‘having your tit’s out’ causes ‘rape’. Most decent people would say that a rapist causes rape.

Cause and effect? The cause is a sick man that want’s to have violent sex. The effect is the rape of a women with whom he has opportunity.

I wonder why you say: ‘women that have their tits out’. It says a lot about you: just like calling someone a slut you make a moral assesment of the way they dress. You could have formulated you’re flawed arguments in more neutral terms, you didn’t and I wonder why.

Finally: rapists don’t rape because of clothing or dress, they rape because something is very wrong inside there mind. Normal people don’t rape, no matter what kind of clothes someone is wearing. Rapists rape, no matter what kind of clothes someone is wearing.

ReplyReply
mygif
Hairious Maximus said on April 5th, 2011 at 5:47 am

Hey G223:

Actually, I’ve seen a figure of 4.4% of rape cases being influenced by provocative behaviour being thrown about. Example here:

http://www.usu.edu/saavi/pdf/myths_facts.pdf

(It’s presented as evidence that gussying up doesn’t make rape any more likely, despite the fact that it suggests the exact opposite imo)

I won’t respond to most of the rest of your post because, as I’ve said twice already, I’m not arguing the morality behind rape because there is no argument.

The point of my analogy was that, in that scenario, taking option 2 would in some cases make it more likely that you would get hit by a car. Similarly, showing a bit of leg will in some cases make it more likely that you’ll get raped. (It’s not the only factor of course. Getting hammered and wandering around Grope Alley alone would also not be advisable)

That doesn’t mean that women “dressing like sluts” deserve to get raped, much as you wouldn’t deserve to get hit by a car. But it does mean that doing so will make it slightly more likely to occur.

Oh, and I figure that MGK’s comment section doesn’t need too much Hairious Maximus, so I’ll be bowing out now. :)

ReplyReply
mygif

@G233: neat dissection of that light/dark clothing analogy!

So, what do you guys think about this analogy: Rape vs bike theft! Where I live, if I were to leave my bike unlocked on the street, I would be surprised to still find it there the next morning. Much as, if I were to chat with somebody in a bar, follow that somebody home, and then suddenly, in bed, naked, I decide that no, I don’t want sex after all… I would be more surprised if I wasn’t raped than if I was.

Does that mean that the thief had a right to take my bike, or that my hypothetical acquantaince had a right to rape me? Of course not. Both are still criminal acts. Stealing an unlocked bike is as as bad a crime as stealing one that is locked. Raping a “sluttily-dressed”, drunk woman is as bad a crime as raping a sober woman in a business suit – if you ask me. And the same goes for male victims, of course.

In a perfect world, I should be able to leave my bike unlocked on the street. But I can’t. So I lock it. I think that’s a reasonable precaution. And I don’t scoff at people encouraging others to lock their bikes, either.

Likewise, in a perfect world, I should be able to dress like a slut, dance dirty, have a drink or two, chat somebody up, jump into bed with somebody, and at any point decide: no, I don’t want to do this, I’m fine with oral sex but I don’t want anal (or whatever it is I don’t want)… and be perfectly respected. But because we don’t live in a perfect world, I can’t. So I try to dress decently, I don’t go home with strangers, and I generally try to not encourage people to see me as a sex object. I think these are reasonable precautions. And I don’t scoff at people advising others to behave modestly, either.

Is this also wrong?

ReplyReply
mygif

@Hairious Maximus: 4.4%? Wow, that’s way less than I thought. Thanks for the link!

ReplyReply
mygif
That Guy said on April 5th, 2011 at 8:00 am

The provocateur is gone, or so it’s claimed but I’ll answer the question anyway. First – an accident is an accident. It is sometimes tragic, sometimes inescapable, and sometimes somone’s fault.

It’s also completely changing the goalposts, as “accident” implies nobody’s fault of volition. We are not talking about “accidents” we are talking about “forcibly violating another human being’s person for sake of power gratification”.

For your attempted bait and switch to work, we need to look not to a driver trying to drive properly and making a mistake, but one that is unhinged and looking to run someone down. No matter what “who” it happens to be – when the opportunity comes, it’s going to happen. Because they *choose* to do it.

In that case I could wear ninja pajamas, spray paint my bike black, rip off the reflectors and head out of the city where dark really happens or I could wear a tuxedo made of led units running off a car battery on the back of my bike. Neither would change the fact that Mr (or Ms) Driver wants to take me off the road.

It is NOT about what women wear. Rape happens in societies that swatch women head to toe. It happens in nudist colonies, it happens at beaches and in the depths of canadian winter. It is not incumbent on women to change what they do to avoid “inciting” incidents. It is incumbent on those around them to be moral adults and make the right choices.

TLDL. No. Harious, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

ReplyReply
mygif

Successful troll is successful and all that, but I have to say I love (and by love I mean hate) the logic that somehow showing a bit of leg or cleavage completely removes the moral agency of any males in the area. Males are apparently such primitive, instinct driven beasts that any hint of sexual arousal will cause them to go into a mating frenzy like a dog looking to hump your leg. Can’t be helped, it’s just how men are built.

For bonus points, try to reconcile that logic with the idea that men should rightfully be in charge of everything and women should stay at home and pop out babies because women are too irrational and given to emotion to be in charge. (as various religions would have us believe.)

ReplyReply
mygif

(It’s presented as evidence that gussying up doesn’t make rape any more likely, despite the fact that it suggests the exact opposite imo)

So you present evidence that disproves your own point, and then pretend that you’ve somehow been validated. Or do you just not understand percentages?

ReplyReply
mygif
That Guy said on April 5th, 2011 at 12:12 pm

Troll or not, there are some things that should not go unanswered.

If I get a smile from my reactions by some examplar of Penny Arcade’s G.I.F.T.? No skin off my back. But leaving ideas like that unanswered, and unridiculed means they could gain credibility.

ReplyReply
mygif

Uh… to ask something different entirely, although now I feel kinda guilty for bringing it up…

‘”Serpentine! Serpentine!” If you recognize that, then you have seen The In-Laws already.’

I know that reference from The Venture Brothers, from like two or three seasons ago. Is it from somewhere else as well?

ReplyReply
mygif
Candlejack said on April 5th, 2011 at 2:19 pm

Uh, Tetris? When did all the girls the cop advised not to dress slutty start getting drunk and going home with strangers?

Because not getting drunk and going home with strangers is good advice, but it has nothing to do with what the cop said. He just said women shouldn’t dress slutty. Whatever “slutty” might be to your potential rapist, I suppose. (Ooh, there’s a fun game: try to guess what the unrevealed rapist in your neighborhood/circle of acquaintances can’t see as a fetish!)

ReplyReply
mygif

I never clicked though on that Slutwalk link. I wasn’t replying to it, just presenting for discussion my personal justification to not dress sluttily, not get drunk with strangers, and not following strangers home. It’s all packet and parcel to me, and since people tend to get so upset when girls are advised to “not be sluts”, I just wanted to get some comments on it.

ReplyReply
mygif
That Guy said on April 6th, 2011 at 10:27 am

Well, Tetris that’s a wieghted concept – what is “slutty”? Should an adult woman have to curtail her clothing choices for the benefit or mores of another person? (Big hint- no.)

While not drinking to excess/ not going home with people is kind of common sense, even then I would say onus shared, not only on a woman.

Why whould a woman have to be the only one worried about the consequences of overconsupmtion? Why didn’t the officer add “And hey- Men? You have to stop drinking to the point of clouding your judgement and not being able to take no for an answer. Oh, and just because you buy her a few drinks? Yeah, you got nothing on the lady, leave her alone.”

Long and short? “Don’t be a slut” is pretty much the tarted up version of “She wanted it, look at how she dressed.” That kind of thinking is not a get out of jail free card. Or at least should not be.

If you can see a sports car, want a sports car, obsess over sports cars, but not steal a sports car? Yeah you can dwell on how sexy women are, see a sexy woman, enjoy her form and her beauty and LEAVE IT AT THAT. The lady is not responsible for you keeping yourself in line – that’d be your job.

ReplyReply
mygif
Candlejack said on April 6th, 2011 at 10:35 pm

Dressing sexy is “packet and parcel” with drinking and casual hook-ups? Um, wow, would you like some help with that heavy baggage, or are you comfy carrying it all on your own?

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments