It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rape of woman in skinny jeans 'not possible'

page: 15
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in


posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:51 PM
What seems to be overlooked in this and all the similar threads about rape, is that every situation is different

Until that is absorbed and acknowledged, this sort of discussion is fruitless and simply frays tempers and creates factions

There is no 'one size fits all' rape scenario, just as there cannot be a 'standard victim' or 'standard rapist' or 'standard rape scenario'

It's the same with traffic accidents, for example. Sometimes one party will put up their hands and admit yes, they are fully responsible. But most often, there's accusation and counter-accusation, further confused by the varying testimonies of witnesses. And throughout, the vast majority involved believe they are 'telling the truth'

Women are stereotyped as 'bad drivers' very often. And many women deserve the label, whilst others are excellent drivers

In the same way, men are often considered 'better drivers than women' and many deserve that description, whilst as we know, many men are useless fool drivers

Many people have excellent recall and are honest to boot and so could be considered 'reliable witnesses', whilst others -- knowingly or otherwise - twist events to fit their mood

Rape is no different. Many (men, children, women and even animals and fruit or bicycles) are raped through no fault of their own. In other words, they cannot be said to have contributed to their rape by either word or action

Others, in some way (even though they may not have realised it at the time) could be argued to have contributed to the series of events which led to their rape

In many instances, rape is the result of a communications break-down

And other rapes occur because someone has 'played with fire' or 'tempted fate'

More damage can be sustained in a traffic or road accident than via rape, yet we don't see these emotive threads about traffic/road accidents, nor do we see people apportioning blame along gender-lines

Most of us exercise caution when on or near roadways, because we don't want to become a fatality or placed in a coma or have our legs amputated

Traffic-road accidents are at least as common as rape, so it makes sense that we should exercise the same caution in order to avoid being raped

However, despite our caution, some of us are going to being involved in traffic-road accidents, just as some of us will be raped

We could apply this same template to most things in life. Parachuting or scuba-diving, drug-use, hitch-hiking, camping, cooking, chemistry experiments, childhood, use of electricity or gas, etc. etc.


[edit on 6-5-2010 by Dock9]

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:09 PM
You know what. Why am I even bothering? What is the point, really? You can accuse people of silly, irresponsible behaviour if they are male, but the same standards don't apply if they are female. You can criticise men that get harmed while taking part in stupid behaviour, but applying this same standard to women means you are attempting to blame the victim.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by Dark Ghost

Don't be disheartened, Dark Ghost

It's only one of hundreds of online fora, after all. Out there in the real world, there's more healthy perspective within the general population -- and far less concentrated agenda

Take heart in the fact you're an intelligent, well-reasoned individual who consistently appeals to the intelligence and reason of others, in order to defray the divisions between male and female. You're one of the good guys, working to make things better. And that's appreciated by many who simply browse and/or don't get involved

You bother because you care

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:27 PM
reply to post by chise61

If by chance you respond to me, when I don't respond

it is simply that I am done

I can understand that. I was done with thread too, until I started receiving U2U's about it.

Look...if you're still reading, I ask for you to humor me for a moment. It's possible I might be "sick and twisted" or it's possible I might have a useful idea that I'm simply failing to properly convey.

But please try to work with me to understand the idea first. if you don't like it, so be it. But at least understand it before you decide whether to reject or accept it.

you forgot the word BLAME in your definition.

No. I didn't include it because it had nothing to what was I trying to say. I'm not placing blame at all. If you belive that, then I've failed to commuicate an idea, and for that I apologize.

The rapist is always responsible for HIS OWN ACTIONS

You're right. I agree with you. A rapist is always responsible for his actions.

the victim is not responsible for being raped.

...well, sort of...but only because that's what being a victim is all about: not accepting responsibility. If they were responsible, they wouldn't be a victim.

A human being is, as you say..."always responsible for their actions." If a man rapes a woman, he is responsible for his actions. If a woman is raped by a man, she is responsible for her actions. They're both responsible for their actions. The rape is a result of both their actions.

If you believe a rapist is in control, he will be. If you believe that you are in control, you will be. If you refuse to participate in responsibility, and leave it solely to a rapist...what do you expect will happen?


I think we need to clarify what is meant by "responsibility" here. You seem to be associating it to "blame" and that's not the whole picture. Let's use an example: let's say your friend asks you to watch her child, and you agree to be responsible for him.

What does that have to do with blame? Nothing.

By agreeing to "be responsible" you are agreeing to be in charge. If the child asks if he can play in traffic, you can tell him no. You decide, not him.

That is what we mean when we say women need to be responsible for themselves. They need to take charge and decide what's going to happen to their body, and make sure that it goes the way they want. If a child runs off into traffic and you're responsible for him, you'll run after him and stop him...not sit there complaining about being a victim.

If you say that a rapist is "responsible" for raping a woman, you are saying that he gets to decide. Is that what you want? Do you really want a rapist to be the one deciding what happens to your body?

Rapists being responsible for rape is exactly the problem and exactly what needs to stop. Women need to be responsible for themselves. That doesn't mean allow themeslves to be raped and feel bad. It means not letting it happen just like you wouldn't let a child run into traffic.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by LordBucket]

new topics

top topics
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in