"Rape Culture" Claims Obscure True Dangers To Young Women

[Opti]

Sept 30, 2014 10:20:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 29, 2014 23:34:01 GMT -5 justme said:

Unfortunately in my age I've realized that if it's a resounding NO on my part I have to send the guy away before anything gets close to that. But I still argue the problem is that most guys don't immediately shirk away at the word no. It's honestly the biggest turn off for me, when they can't accept the first no. Crossed out guys I've really liked otherwise. Hell, one guy I currently like has gotten to that point. It's not so much that he wants to (that's always good) but the whole not respecting me and what I say that's the issue. 

well, i think there are a couple of things going on.  one is respect/no respect.  the second is ego.  getting rejected sucks, but the whole sense of worth can get bound up in sex in a way it is not bound up in other social interactions.

True, and I'll even blame the current Pope for continuing that culture.

He just married some atypical, but heterosexual couples, in Rome

as a way to state the church is becoming more inclusive to modern

mores. However, there was something he said that really gave me pause.

It was something about these marriages allow men to become more of a

man and women to become more of a woman.

Really, how can I take that except that the head of the Catholic church

ultimately defines manliness and womanliness in the context of

a sexual relationship(sanctioned by the church of course...), not as

something innate or one can choose without marriage, without a

heterosexual relationship?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2014 7:35:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Why debate labels like "rape culture"? It's sufficient to characterize a society by actions and consequences.

If a woman engages in behaviours such as drinking, partying, provocative dress, sexual flirting, etc., she increases her likelihood of being raped. In past threads I've posted articles and whitepapers quantifying these correlations.

sure, and the more a person drives, the more likely they are to get in an accident.  but we don't automatically blame the driver for the accident simply because he assumes more risk.

[justme]

Sept 30, 2014 10:20:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 29, 2014 23:34:01 GMT -5 justme said:

Unfortunately in my age I've realized that if it's a resounding NO on my part I have to send the guy away before anything gets close to that. But I still argue the problem is that most guys don't immediately shirk away at the word no. It's honestly the biggest turn off for me, when they can't accept the first no. Crossed out guys I've really liked otherwise. Hell, one guy I currently like has gotten to that point. It's not so much that he wants to (that's always good) but the whole not respecting me and what I say that's the issue. 

well, i think there are a couple of things going on.  one is respect/no respect.  the second is ego.  getting rejected sucks, but the whole sense of worth can get bound up in sex in a way it is not bound up in other social interactions.

True. But I think lack of respect and the guy's ego are two things that play into bad situations. It's just sad that someone can be completely up front with a person, laying all the cards down on the table, but another acts and behaves like that all was lying/playing hard to get.

How the whole notion that women play hard to get so guys just have to convince them came about, I have no idea. But it seems like a pretty ingrained "this is how the world works" idea in both genders. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2014 9:08:21 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Sept 30, 2014 2:18:35 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Just out of curiosity has it occurred to you that guys are "conditioned" to keep going because women make them keep going? And I'm not talking about women that "finally give in". I'm talking about women that KNOW they will give in, ahead of time, and want to give in, but only after they "make the guy earn it".

I'm old fashioned.  I admit it.  But dang.  All this sounds about as romantic as picking ticks off dogs. 

yep.  sounds way more like digging a hole than dancing to me.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2014 10:30:02 GMT -5 justme said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:20:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

well, i think there are a couple of things going on.  one is respect/no respect.  the second is ego.  getting rejected sucks, but the whole sense of worth can get bound up in sex in a way it is not bound up in other social interactions.

True. But I think lack of respect and the guy's ego are two things that play into bad situations. It's just sad that someone can be completely up front with a person, laying all the cards down on the table, but another acts and behaves like that all was lying/playing hard to get.

i think i already know the answer, but i want to hear it: why do you think that is?

How the whole notion that women play hard to get so guys just have to convince them came about, I have no idea. But it seems like a pretty ingrained "this is how the world works" idea in both genders. 

do you REALLY have no idea?  c'mon!

it comes from puritanical notions of sex, of course!  sex is "dirty", and women are supposed to be "pure" and "chaste".  it is not for fun.  it is not for intimacy with a partner.  it is for procreation.  c'mon.  you know that. 

[Opti]

Sept 30, 2014 10:17:52 GMT -5 justme said:

Sept 30, 2014 2:18:35 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Just out of curiosity has it occurred to you that guys are "conditioned" to keep going because women make them keep going? And I'm not talking about women that "finally give in". I'm talking about women that KNOW they will give in, ahead of time, and want to give in, but only after they "make the guy earn it".

It's a bit of the chicken and the egg, but not quite. Is it that it's common knowledge/thought that you can wear a girl down and thus guys do just that and girls eventually get tired of saying no. Or is it that society has deemed woman to be people pleasers and not cause a scene so that lends them to be. 

Personally, it pisses me off that another person is trying to convince me to want what they want. And I'm honestly racking my brain trying to remember the last guy that took me on a date and when I said no to him asking to come up left it at that vs trying to convince me to let him up. 

You could use new beliefs and people in your life too.

This really didn't happen to me, even in college. Maybe it was

because I was warned about men and rape from an early age

by my Mom and/or I give off an aura it will go badly for you if

it isn't mutual.

I didn't have martial arts experience then, but had survived some

bullying including guys or brothers sent to beat me up on behalf

of girl's my age because they thought I was stuck up, etc. I just

was smart, not as social, and kept quiet when I had nothing to say.

What they thought I thought was totally incorrect. Though after

years of bullying - verbal and physical - I decided they *were* right.

As people, they were worse than me. I would have never done the

shit they did to me to someone else without provocation prior.

I have some formal martial arts experience now, mostly Bagau,

an internal art better than Tai Chi.

[Opti]

Sept 30, 2014 9:26:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Sept 29, 2014 22:42:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Someone needs to fess up. Which one of you posters forced Paul, yes FORCED paul, into posting this Facebook snap shot where Paul's real name is exposed for all of us to see and know.

Would the culprit please step forward and announce yourself, damn it. This is an outrage. Outrage I say.

The type is too small, I can't read it without a magnifying g

[The Captain]

Sept 30, 2014 10:25:37 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:20:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

well, i think there are a couple of things going on.  one is respect/no respect.  the second is ego.  getting rejected sucks, but the whole sense of worth can get bound up in sex in a way it is not bound up in other social interactions.

True, and I'll even blame the current Pope for continuing that culture.

He just married some atypical, but heterosexual couples, in Rome

as a way to state the church is becoming more inclusive to modern

mores. However, there was something he said that really gave me pause.

It was something about these marriages allow men to become more of a

man and women to become more of a woman.

Really, how can I take that except that the head of the Catholic church

ultimately defines manliness and womanliness in the context of

a sexual relationship(sanctioned by the church of course...), not as

something innate or one can choose without marriage, without a

heterosexual relationship?

I'm soooo grateful you understand what the pope is thinking. Please explain more to me...

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 30, 2014 8:21:28 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

The backlash against the "rape culture" label is likely motivated by the public's tendency to commute "you are not to blame" to "you should be able to engage in behaviour X consequence-free"

No, the backlash has always been there. Long before the phrase rape culture existed women were told they wouldn't have been raped if they hadn't been wearing that, drinking that, at that party, walking in that part of town, unmarried, had their ankles showing or looked that man in the eye. Or they have been told it wasn't rape because they wanted it, they didn't say no loudly enough, or soon enough or you can't expect a guy to stop now! The condition existed long before the name for it.

Believe me, no one has EVER ignored the idea of false allegations. Every allegation ever made has been labelled a false allegation. Feminists screaming about the rape culture and insisting it stop is a backlash to how our culture dismisses rape of women as a serious crime worthy of punishment.

You're completely missing the point that a woman who does not want to be raped should not wear that, drink that, party there, walk in that part of town, fornicate, imply "no" rather than state it, or resist sexual advances passively rather than assertively. We live in a reality where these behaviours lead to rape. Abstaining from such behaviours also mitigates public skepticism about rape. A chaste woman who minds her company and circumstances is more sympathetic than one who sleeps around, dresses provocatively, and gets drunk off her can, in particular because the first woman has clearly acknowledged reality and forsaken behaviours with significant risk.

Personally I'd much prefer a small number of rape victims to a large number of rape victims who don't feel as bad afterwards because Jane Q. Feminist assures them it isn't their fault. People who truly despise rape ought to pull their heads out of their ideological bottoms, acknowledge the reality in which we live, and focus on prevention. One of the greatest services feminists could do for our society is hammer women with the facts about how alcohol, partying, free sexual liaisons, etc. factor into rape. Give them the raw data. Let them hear testimonials by amped-up young men about what they consider consensual sex. Drive it home in women's minds that there are very real risks.

Instead we get endless polemics about how the world ought to be and about society's great skepticism, neither of which have done anyone a shred of good. If you love your children, you teach them to check both ways--just in case--when crossing at a crosswalk, you don't let them get wiped out by a negligent driver and then bombard them with consolation that it wasn't their fault. That's lunacy.

[justme]

Sept 30, 2014 10:33:45 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:17:52 GMT -5 justme said:

It's a bit of the chicken and the egg, but not quite. Is it that it's common knowledge/thought that you can wear a girl down and thus guys do just that and girls eventually get tired of saying no. Or is it that society has deemed woman to be people pleasers and not cause a scene so that lends them to be. 

Personally, it pisses me off that another person is trying to convince me to want what they want. And I'm honestly racking my brain trying to remember the last guy that took me on a date and when I said no to him asking to come up left it at that vs trying to convince me to let him up. 

You could use new beliefs and people in your life too.

This really didn't happen to me, even in college. Maybe it was

because I was warned about men and rape from an early age

by my Mom and/or I give off an aura it will go badly for you if

it isn't mutual.

I didn't have martial arts experience then, but had survived some

bullying including guys or brothers sent to beat me up on behalf

of girl's my age because they thought I was stuck up, etc. I just

was smart, not as social, and kept quiet when I had nothing to say.

What they thought I thought was totally incorrect. Though after

years of bullying - verbal and physical - I decided they *were* right.

As people, they were worse than me. I would have never done the

shit they did to me to someone else without provocation prior.

I have some formal martial arts experience now, mostly Bagau,

an internal art better than Tai Chi.

Well, it's not like I felt in physical danger. I mean I'm just talking about sitting in a car conversation. "You going to invite me up" "No, I need to go to sleep" "Come on I could help you sleep" "Nope, I've got this sleep thing down". 

It's not every guy that does that. But usually the guys that take the first no aren't the ones inviting themselves up in the first place. 

[Opti]

It will take awhile to find the article with the quote, AND I didn't

say I *knew* what the Pope was thinking. I read a direct quote

and found it disturbing.

Read better!

www.buenosairesherald.com/article/169729/pope-francis-marries-couples-who-cohabited-had-children

[mmhmm]

Sept 30, 2014 10:36:43 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:25:37 GMT -5 Opti said:

True, and I'll even blame the current Pope for continuing that culture.

He just married some atypical, but heterosexual couples, in Rome

as a way to state the church is becoming more inclusive to modern

mores. However, there was something he said that really gave me pause.

It was something about these marriages allow men to become more of a

man and women to become more of a woman.

Really, how can I take that except that the head of the Catholic church

ultimately defines manliness and womanliness in the context of

a sexual relationship(sanctioned by the church of course...), not as

something innate or one can choose without marriage, without a

heterosexual relationship?

I'm soooo grateful you understand what the pope is thinking. Please explain more to me...

No kidding, captain! Now, my thinking is more along the lines of people who care sincerely for one another being able to share a life sanctioned by their church and, in doing so, become more aware of themselves in relationship to others in a good way, not in a way that rejects who they are. Marriage isn't all about sex. It's about commitment, mutual love, and a deep sharing of values and goals.

[justme]

Sept 30, 2014 10:32:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:30:02 GMT -5 justme said:

True. But I think lack of respect and the guy's ego are two things that play into bad situations. It's just sad that someone can be completely up front with a person, laying all the cards down on the table, but another acts and behaves like that all was lying/playing hard to get.

i think i already know the answer, but i want to hear it: why do you think that is?

How the whole notion that women play hard to get so guys just have to convince them came about, I have no idea. But it seems like a pretty ingrained "this is how the world works" idea in both genders. 

do you REALLY have no idea?  c'mon!

it comes from puritanical notions of sex, of course!  sex is "dirty", and women are supposed to be "pure" and "chaste".  it is not for fun.  it is not for intimacy with a partner.  it is for procreation.  c'mon.  you know that. 

Well I know that aspect of it. But I was also reading something and they were talking about how at one point it time it was believed that it was the women that were sex crazed gender... here is the article. Or at least close enough to what I read. 

The Puritans believed that sexual desire was a normal and natural part of human life for both men and women (as long as it was heterosexual and confined to marriage), but that women wanted and needed sex more than men. A man could choose to give up sex with relatively little trouble, but for a woman to be so deprived would be much more difficult for her.

It's a rather long article, I can't remember if I read the whole thing or if there's links to back the ideas up. So yeah, if you can come back with stuff blasting the article mea culpa since I haven't really researched what the article says.

[Opti]

I need to go do useful things that must be done today.

If it is slow tonight I will look for the article that has that

quote. Probably not widely reported.

Here's yet another link:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/14/pope-francis-marries-20-couples-_n_5817910.html

Forty "I do's" — or "Si" in Italian — were pronounced in St. Peter's Basilica Sunday as Pope Francis married 20 couples, with one bride already a mother.

Francis in his homily likened families to the "bricks that build society."

Among the couples, all from the Rome area, is one in which the groom's first marriage was annulled by the church and the bride has a daughter from an earlier relationship. Some of the other couples already were living together.

The Vatican views sex outside marriage as sin, but Francis stresses the church should be a forgiving one.

He said marriage was "real life, not some TV show." He told the couples love of Jesus can help whenever their love "becomes lost, wounded or worn out."

Some hope a major Vatican meeting next month on family concerns might lead to permission for divorced Catholics who remarry to receive Communion. Francis has reportedly told a woman in his Argentine homeland whose husband's first marriage wasn't annulled she was free of sin and should take Communion anyway.

[Green Eyed Lady]

it is for procreation

Well...that's just great.  Wonder if there's a room available at the convent.

[Opti]

Sept 30, 2014 10:40:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:36:43 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I'm soooo grateful you understand what the pope is thinking. Please explain more to me...

No kidding, captain! Now, my thinking is more along the lines of people who care sincerely for one another being able to share a life sanctioned by their church and, in doing so, become more aware of themselves in relationship to others in a good way, not in a way that rejects who they are. Marriage isn't all about sex. It's about commitment, mutual love, and a deep sharing of values and goals.

I'll bet $100, neither of you have read that quoted sentence yet.

Don't judge, without full info, you used to say.

Is today different?

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 30, 2014 10:27:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 30, 2014 7:35:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Why debate labels like "rape culture"? It's sufficient to characterize a society by actions and consequences.

If a woman engages in behaviours such as drinking, partying, provocative dress, sexual flirting, etc., she increases her likelihood of being raped. In past threads I've posted articles and whitepapers quantifying these correlations.

sure, and the more a person drives, the more likely they are to get in an accident.  but we don't automatically blame the driver for the accident simply because he assumes more risk.

This gets into issues of what is reasonable risk mitigation. Even if the man isn't legally at fault for the accident, I'm guessing society wouldn't be too sympathetic if he was speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, texting on a phone, is too old to drive, etc. when the accident occurred. In other words, did he acknowledge the risk, and did he take reasonable precautions to mitigate it?

In the case of rape, all of the behaviours I've condemned (see the list in my previous post) are elective. There isn't a shred of necessity in any of them. Locomoting, on the other hand, is quite necessary, and driving is as safe or safer than any of the conceivable alternatives.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2014 10:48:06 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

it is for procreation

Well...that's just great.  Wonder if there's a room available at the convent.

"get thee to a nunnery"

[The Captain]

Sept 30, 2014 10:39:06 GMT -5 Opti said:

It will take awhile to find the article with the quote, AND I didn't

say I *knew* what the Pope was thinking. I read a direct quote

and found it disturbing.

Read better!

www.buenosairesherald.com/article/169729/pope-francis-marries-couples-who-cohabited-had-children

I did.

"Francis, who is the first non-European pope in 1,300 years, has expressed tolerance regarding other topics that are traditionally taboo in the Church, asking "who am I to judge?" a gay person "who seeks God and has good will"."

"The pope has said the Church must end its obsession with teachings on abortion, contraception and homosexuality, and become more merciful, or risk collapsing "like a house of cards"."

Very disturbing
indeed!


Now if you want to have a honest discussion about the "disturbing" changes the current pontiff is implementing I will invite you to start a thread in the religion board.

Personally, I didn't see anything disturbing in the article you linked.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Sept 30, 2014 10:49:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:48:06 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Well...that's just great.  Wonder if there's a room available at the convent.

"get thee to a nunnery"

lol...I think I'm already there

And my reasons for same have been re-enforced twenty-fold!  

[Tennesseer]

Sept 30, 2014 10:48:06 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

it is for procreation

Well...that's just great.  Wonder if there's a room available at the convent.

The nunneries are practically empty. You could have your own floor and suite of rooms all to yourself.

[mmhmm]

Sept 30, 2014 10:48:33 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:40:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

No kidding, captain! Now, my thinking is more along the lines of people who care sincerely for one another being able to share a life sanctioned by their church and, in doing so, become more aware of themselves in relationship to others in a good way, not in a way that rejects who they are. Marriage isn't all about sex. It's about commitment, mutual love, and a deep sharing of values and goals.

I'll bet $100, neither of you have read that quoted sentence yet.

Don't judge, without full info, you used to say.

Is today different?

You've lost your $100. Shall I tell you where to send it? I don't comment on what I don't read, Opti, and I don't judge. You may believe what you like. I'm fully entitled to disagree with you, and I do - today, yesterday, and tomorrow where applicable.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Sept 30, 2014 10:51:42 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:48:06 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Well...that's just great.  Wonder if there's a room available at the convent.

The nunneries are practically empty. You could have your own floor and suite of rooms all to yourself.

I have that now....plus TV!

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2014 10:48:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:27:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sure, and the more a person drives, the more likely they are to get in an accident.  but we don't automatically blame the driver for the accident simply because he assumes more risk.

This gets into issues of what is reasonable risk mitigation. Even if the man isn't legally at fault for the accident, I'm guessing society wouldn't be too sympathetic if he was speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, texting on a phone, is too old to drive, etc. when the accident occurred. In other words, did he acknowledge the risk, and did he take reasonable precautions to mitigate it?

here is the problem i have with you stretching the analogy: it pays lip service to the idea that a woman in pumps and a dress is "looking to get laid".  but that is actually the opposite of my point.

i can't speak for why most women here dress up, but i am imagining that it is for the same reason that most men shave and shower.  but i think it is a mistake to assume that anyone that wants to look beautiful, fit in, or be socially accepted wants to get laid. 

i am starting to see strong parallels between conservative Islam and the US.  it is a wonder we don't get along better.

[Tennesseer]

Sept 30, 2014 10:52:58 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:51:42 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

The nunneries are practically empty. You could have your own floor and suite of rooms all to yourself.

I have that now....plus TV!

For free? All you would have to do yearly is pay 'homage' to your local bishop.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 30, 2014 10:48:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:27:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sure, and the more a person drives, the more likely they are to get in an accident.  but we don't automatically blame the driver for the accident simply because he assumes more risk.

This gets into issues of what is reasonable risk mitigation. Even if the man isn't legally at fault for the accident, I'm guessing society wouldn't be too sympathetic if he was speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, texting on a phone, is too old to drive, etc. when the accident occurred. In other words, did he acknowledge the risk, and did he take reasonable precautions to mitigate it?

In the case of rape, all of the behaviours I've condemned (see the list in my previous post) are elective. There isn't a shred of necessity in any of them. Locomoting, on the other hand, is quite necessary, and driving is as safe or safer than any of the conceivable alternatives.

actually, locomoting in a single passenger vehicle MIGHT BE NECESSARY, or it might be just a way of getting you to the club.  it also might NOT be necessary.  if you use public transportation, you can safely text, not wear a seatbelt, be intoxicated, be too hold to drive, etc.  i think you will also find that the safety record of these public alternatives is VASTLY better than the private ones.

edit: if you want to stretch the analogy further, we could talk about whether or not people are criticized for not using public transportation. 

[djAdvocate]

to get back to the OP, it posits that women are somehow unaware of the risks in society, and i think that after reading through 8 pages of posts, it is pretty clear that women are not only aware of it, many have experienced it.  but what does she suggest women should do to protect against it?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 29, 2014 23:21:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 29, 2014 23:18:42 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Non-resistance is NOT consent. Keep asserting it is, but it isn't going to make you right. My comparison was a bit tongue-in-cheek to demonstrate the utter stupidity of that assertion, but it's still valid. Don't like it? Too bad. Trying to reason with you is like trying to talk to a brick wall. You are a man who admits he sees nothing wrong with giving a woman a smack if she deserves it and now you assert that it's perfectly fine to force yourself on a woman if she doesn't fight you tooth and nail.

Have a party all by yourself, Paul. Cause I'm not playing anymore. Steff is right. This is downright creepy.

Note the edit, paul. It is what you have asserted, not you, GEL is objecting to. She's objecting to what you have posted, as I said. Hell, I object to it, as well! So have any number of others.

You're both wrong.  If you cannot produce the post where I said it's perfectly fine to "force yourself" on a woman and if she doesn't "fight you tooth and nail"...it's not rape.  You don't have to admit you're both wrong- it's prima facia.  It was never posted by me.

By definition, if a man is FORCING himself on a woman, she's resisting- hence the need for force.  If it's done by force, it's not done by consent.  Again post #65 is your reference.

Accept responsibility for going too far, or don't.  I don't give a shit.  You have definitely lost a lot of credibility and good will with me.  And it will get fixed one way or the other.  I have been accused of condoning rape and the charge is utterly without merit.  Don't think this can't bite you.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 30, 2014 10:54:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 30, 2014 10:48:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

This gets into issues of what is reasonable risk mitigation. Even if the man isn't legally at fault for the accident, I'm guessing society wouldn't be too sympathetic if he was speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, texting on a phone, is too old to drive, etc. when the accident occurred. In other words, did he acknowledge the risk, and did he take reasonable precautions to mitigate it?

here is the problem i have with you stretching the analogy: it pays lip service to the idea that a woman in pumps and a dress is "looking to get laid".  but that is actually the opposite of my point.

i can't speak for why most women here dress up, but i am imagining that it is for the same reason that most men shave and shower.  but i think it is a mistake to assume that anyone that wants to look beautiful, fit in, or be socially accepted wants to get laid. 

i am starting to see strong parallels between conservative Islam and the US.  it is a wonder we don't get along better.

I posted two articles in the last discussion we had about how dress factors into a man's perception on a woman's consent to sex. Not surprisingly, both concluded that dress was a factor in several rapes, and that men take a woman's provocative dress into account when assessing her willingness for sex. I didn't create this reality, I just happen to live in it.

As for your noble attempt to disparage social conservatism, I'll simply point out there might be just a tiny bit of wiggle room between "sexually provocative" and "burqa". If social conservatism is all the same to you, fine. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you criticize Paul for failing to acknowledge differences in liberal ideologies.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 30, 2014 11:12:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

to get back to the OP, it posits that women are somehow unaware of the risks in society, and i think that after reading through 8 pages of posts, it is pretty clear that women are not only aware of it, many have experienced it.  but what does she suggest women should do to protect against it?

First and foremost- just be aware; and as you have pointed out- develop relationships first.  Get to know people VERY well before you crash at their pad, or go out alone with them.  When I say get to know them, I mean get to know them.  And never assume that even if you do know them well, that you know everyone they know.  Someone whose face is familiar from a group of friends is not someone you actually know.

I would say with respect to the people who have experienced NUMEROUS obvious incidents of outright sexual assault learn what the term "common denominator" means, and do a little self-examination.  A lot of problems are headed off by simply not putting yourself in a position of vulnerability alone with a stranger.