Indecent clothing... what is, what makes? (+ consequences)

Remove all ads!

Saber, yes, I've heard that and it's quite credible. But it's true for rapists who are already horny enough and looking out for a woman to rape.

But some men aren't out to rape but give in to temptation at some point. Especially in 1v1 situations, some rapes happen because the man is aroused so much that he can't control himself and get out when no longer welcome.

Erm, and let's remember that some rapists say, "she was wearing this and that, so she wanted sex." Sexy clothes play a role in self-justification of the rapist, so, apparently, to some of them they give the wrong idea that they aren't so unwelcome as it might seem. The kind of rapist that uses this excuse would probably go after the sexier twin.

And I don't need her name. It's a popular opinion and it's true for a certain kind of rapists.

 

Alright, agreed. I just wanted to make the distinction. But to clarify (if perhaps I made it seem otherwise), I do agree with you on the "sexy-clothes justification" for rape, and how it is a poor attempt at justifying a horrible crime.

 

Chev, I remember when you supported the Virgina law to ban wearing pants indecently so that your trousers was shown. =)

 

Rape is first and foremost a power thing, so the burlap sack scenario makes perfect sense. Being horny is not of top priority on the list. Wanting to be "in charge" and to "show her", "put her in her place" and crap like that is why men rape.

The situation where a woman is dressed provokatively, flirts, takes the guy home maybe, gets into some foreplay and then says "no" does not excuse rape. At all. What's so hard to understand about the word "no?" Nobody's *that* horny that they simply can't stop themselves, and ignore all resistance. A guy who does that makes a choice. Doesn't care. Thinks she wants to play rough. Or adopts the kind of thinking as above. "She can't say no to me after all that." "She owes me." And that's just as bad as an assault on a dark alley, which is a much rarer scenario anyway - most rapes occur between acquaintances.

The appearance, clothing and behavior of the woman does play a part in this situation forming, yes. Hell, you can't get date raped if you don't go on a date. But it's really not an excuse.

The only exception to this is women who cry rape after consensual sex, just to get the man in trouble. Or cry rape after being rejected. People who do that not only harm an innocent man, but they also harm real rape victims. They're as low as rapists. These people tend to be manipulative, sexual predators even.

 

@Rutkowski: Hmm? I hate it when lower underwear sticks out and I'm not fully comfortable with upper underwear (women only ) showing, either, unless it's same colour or something. It should be avoided and it can be. Wearing a belt is enough to prevent panties or briefs/boxers from showing. I don't mind when someone's wearing something totally relaxed in the house and the exposure is accidental. Heck, I don't even mind if people walk around the house in underwear (although they might grab a robe if they open the door/invite me over, but I don't care if it isn't people I first met yesterday and I guess underwear alone is less frowsy than underwear that sticks out ), but I really don't like the frowsiness of underwear display in public, let alone the stupid statements it conveys when it's intentional. I can sort of understand people who don't care or mind such accidental exposure if they are wearing extremely informal clothes and if that's what they normally wear. But when underwear stick out on someone dressed more formally, that's just wrong. More frowsy than indecent, although it can be indecent, yes, like when people actually think it's seductive.

@Susipaisti: Rape is always a sexual thing and first and foremost so. If it's a power thing, it's because sex in general is a power thing for the person and/or because he gets off on violence. Rape victims are told that rape is not sex but just violence, but that serves to make them feel less bad and is supposed to help the recovery, but it's far from reality. Rapists rape because it makes them feel good or because they want the woman, not because they give a lot of thought to women's place. That scenario only works for rape within family, sometimes army or work groups. But it doesn't work for a guy who won't take a no.

No one is horny enough to be unable to stop and get out? If people are horny enough to break chastity vows, marital vows, religious tenets, whatever, then why not enough to ignore resistance? It doesn't excuse them but the amount of ill will required is much less than for stranger rape in the alley. Plus, the person who arouses others only to pull off and have fun watching horny, frustrated people, is also responsible for his or her actions. It's like taunting someone bigger than you and complaining about getting slapped around. Still not saying the victim owes sex to the rapist even after foreplay, though (except spouses who, after all, owe sex to each other, just not in the "I want so you have to" way).

Date rape is different. Going on a date, spending an evening with someone or even inviting him or her to your room doesn't say you want sex, neither does wearing something sexy or even not wearing anything at all. But aiming strong sexual vibes at a particular person can sway his or her mind and showing off some sexy garments can be a part of it. I would still mete out a hefty prison term if I were the judge (come on, no freaking suspended sentences for rape!), although still shorter than for a clearer situation, like the burlap case.

Yeah, it's actually rape in a way. Especially if someone's rejected and starts making up fantasies about being raped by the rejecter.

Hmmm... you know what? We've mentioned the "she said no but she meant yes" kind of rapists. Along with the goons who can't imagine a woman could not want sex with them. I think women who dress so sexually that they give the impression they are insanely horny and out for some random banging, they harm the more innocent women by reinforcing or even creating the bad ideas that some goons have. Women who willingly make objects of themselves make it easier for men to reduce other women to objects. Of course, this works also for men who make objects of themselves, which actually isn't rare. Each guy that makes a breeding stallion of himself helps women see no further than a guy's equipment, that is see guys as vibrators that breathe.

Heck, what if the "sexy" twin (**** me boots, 8'' skirt and clingy/transparent open shirt without underwear tied in a knot isn't my idea of sexy but heh ) physically makes the prospective rapist so horny that he goes after the burlap twin, choosing the latter as the easier target? She's not on par with the rapist, nor is he excused, but does everything look okay?

[ January 21, 2006, 02:02: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Of course they get off on it. But they don't do it just 'cos they're horny. They hate women. They're incapable of normal (or at least equal) relationships with women. No, they don't give a lot of "thought" to it, they just see things in a certain way. They wish to subject.

If it was just a sexual thing, or first and foremost a sexual thing...well if you're so damn horny, you can masturbate. That power thing is pretty closely intertwined there. It's the wish to dominate and be in charge that drives them to rape. Sex is second on the list. And bearing in mind that rapes among strangers are much more rare than those between acquaintances - the woman being pretty and desirable can't be the only reason then. Maybe the guy gets frustrated because she does not "put out", or because she does for someone (everyone?) else but not him. Then it's about "showing her", "teaching her a lesson." It's about the rapist's idea of women being askew to begin with.

Think of the burlap sack example. Many rapists don't go after the one they want the most. They go after the one they believe they can subdue. In a nutshell: saying sexuality is *not* a factor makes no sense, but the power thing is the more important issue.

I maintain that it's a choice. People who break vows obviously don't care that much for the vows, deep down. They're probably thinking along the lines of "I probably shouldn't do this...oh, to hell with it." Or "nobody's gonna find out. It doesn't matter." If a person bothers to *think*, to really think of the consequences, even the most gorgeus person in the most arousing of circumstances can be turned down - if there is motivation. People who seem to be slaves to their hormones don't bother to think too much. They could, but they won't. Maybe they don't even know they could.

Sounds strange, that. If you can truly compare it to taunting someone and then complaining about getting slapped, why does the victim not owe sex after foreplay then? Would it not be just the unavoidable consequence she brought on herself, if that comparison holds? It doesn't sound like you believe that, so why make that kind of comparison at all?

But the fault is in those goons. Being all chaste and trying to tone down the sexuality sounds like humoring the goons. It's *their* attitudes that need to be changed, and the legal system needs a bit of boot to the backside. Even in places where women wear burkhas, there are plenty of rapes. The way women present themselves seems like a rather small factor. A rapist has likely initially learned his attitudes at a very young age, from the way his father has thought of, talked about and treated women.

In that situation the sexy twin has done no wrong. It's the rapist's mind that is screwed.

 

It's still a sexual kind of domination. They won't be satisfied with getting their laundry done, socks fixed, dinner cooked and so on, will they? The putting out for all but him is just one scenario. Also, not everyone sees masturbation as a solution. There are people who won't do that no matter how horny they are because it simply doesn't catch with them.

That's not so rare, really.

Because you don't owe submission to slapping when you taunt someone, either.

Erm. Is really the getting slapped after taunting less inevitable than getting raped after erm... taunting sexually? Why?

Hmm... theoretically, if a very stupid woman teased, taunted and aroused a big goon until he were so horny he couldn't control himself, she would have brought it on herself the same way as if she taunted and teased him in a non-sexual way and simply got beaten. That doesn't excuse the offender but it doesn't leave the victim blameless, either.

Erm. What? I'm not sure where you got that one from but sounds like the anti-traditional propaganda I've heard so many times. Opressed women's sexuality and all. I'm not talking about dressing nicely, I'm talking about dressing like a whore and/or wearing so little (or so tight) that walking around in it is tantamount with teasing and actively arousing people. Not just women, everyone should tone down his raging hormones to such a level that he could function normally in the society, for decency's sake. Nowadays people are more concerned with expressing their (often raging and/or weird) sexuality than dealing with it.

My point was that women who choose to dress like whores give some men the idea that all women are whores. Therefore, women who dress like whores are partly responsible for the effects of that idea, which includes innocent women being treated like whores. Whorish attitudes also need to be changed. Perhaps not by the means of the law, except indecent exposure laws maybe.

Erm, the difference between a burkha and a bikini isn't so great as the difference between normal behaviour and heavily sexualised behaviour. Don't forget clothes with a special eye-catching intent. Some kind of cleavages or butt cleavages show more than a bikini does and the notion of uncovering is stronger (bikinis, little tops, short skirts etc are minimally covering... humongous cleavages and very low-riding trousers are uncovering... if you catch my drift). I've witnessed or heard about many taunts and such that women have had to suffer after dressing too provocatively and I'm not sure it would always have ended in taunts if it hadn't been for so many other people around. Also, in case of such clothing, the "showing her her place" factor that you have described may turn in.

Partly yes but not all fathers of rapists are rapists.

I beg to differ. What she does is wrong and she knows what she's doing and can more or less the consequences (arousing people leads to them being aroused, making people so horny they would all dream about "it" carries the risk of them reaching for "it" the bad way). Still chooses to make an item of herself rather than behave like a normal woman, plus she contributes to the stereotypes, not to mention the moral questionability of arousing everyone around. Don't get me wrong. She didn't get the other twin raped, the rapist did. But what she does contributes to what more women do and that affects the image of women in men's eyes. They don't care, they want immediate, low-level, simple sexual appreciation to build up their egos or I don't know what. Then they complain about all their men being *******s or about being seen as whores. I know a quick solution to that and many a mother or grandmother knows as well, but no... Of course, the average homo sapiens should have enough willpower to resist all indecent temptations and simply leave if it goes overboard. He or she should also have enough of a brain to make out what's normal and what's perverted and steer clear of the latter, as well as not to follow stereotypes.

Hmmm... just a small request. If this discussion of sexual assaults, assailants' personalities and stereotypes develops further than what's related with clothes and the way people choose or wear them, I'd rather we did it in a separate thread.

[ January 21, 2006, 13:17: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Much easier said than done. It is quite difficult to not follow stereotypes, and very few people can actually not follow them. Society in general (well, at least over here) enforces stereotypes all of the time, and many people follow them, whether because they aren't educated enough to see over them, or just happen to think like them.

And whats normal for you and me may be different for somebody else. You could argue that what is normal is what the law says, but I don't think that the law always makes things 'normal'. Education is the key. If everyone were educated about the consequences, and they were brought up respecting other humans, than there wouldn't be an issue.


And I think we should move this to another thread, but I'll leave that up to you.

 

I'm getting the feeling that we don't understand the concept of hookerish-looking outfits and behavior quite the same way...maybe I'm making assumptions here. The kind of thing you're describing sounds really extreme, like women who can *literally* be mistaken for bona fide hookers, which I haven't actually seen much of, whereas I've been talking about things that can be considered indecent by people with a very definite idea of what's "proper", whether with good or ill intentions, but don't seem *that* bad to raging liberals like me.

That said, I don't think we're talking apples and oranges here. I firmly believe that speculating about whether a rape or treating women like whores could have been prevented by toning down the provokative clothing or sexual behavior is tantamount to making excuses for the rapists. It's a sad reality that it affects things, of course, but I just don't see it as something that passes the blame, even partially.

I know, but it's something that could very well be prevented. It's a question of wanting to, of having the motivation. If a person is a slave to their desires, it means they're not motivated to resist them. Everyone can control themselves, if they have the sufficient motivation.

The reason I dissected that comparison so much is that I simply don't think it works. If you don't get laid after being (even quite plainly) hinted you will, no harm is done to you. It's disappointing, frustrating, but any reaction beyond that requires a certain kind of a person. For a normal person it shouldn't take any special restraint not to commit rape at that point. Whereas taunting, insulting and picking a fight is directly harming you, and in that situation it takes a lot of conviction and willpower not to do anything about it.

I don't think it's very smart to go around hitting on people without the intent to deliver. A sad reality again. But I don't think it can be used as an excuse.

But women wearing burkhas can't really be accused of heavily sexualised behavior, can they? Yet they still get raped.

They don't have to. If the fathers have strongly sexist views, see women as objects and do the virgin/whore division, it's enough to make at least a fertile ground for a would-be rapist. The fertile ground has to be there. It doesn't have to come from the parents, it can come from friends at puberty age or something. But a man with a profound respect for women as human beings simply will not commit rape. No matter what they wear or how they behave.

You have a point, but then again this whole thing would require the line be drawn somewhere, and that's pretty difficult. There's always some rapist **** that goes and rapes no matter how women conduct themselves. If a woman doesn't "put out", she's a frigid/dyke/stuckup and needs to be "taught a lesson"; if she does put out, she's a whore and needs to be taught a lesson. It's just a lose-lose situation as long as there are men with these type of ideas around.

Absolutely.

This seems very much true...but a lot of it has to do with men still categorizing every woman as either Virgin Mary/their mother or a filthy whore. I don't know how to make people get rid of this kind of thinking, however.

Oh man, that's what I thought too, when I wrote the previous post no less, and this bit was actually the first thing I was going to respond to, but I got carried away anyway...

I think this is a very interesting subject and such a thread I'd certainly participate in, but I'm a bit too drunk right now to do it properly. Maybe when I sober up I'll start one. Or you may if you like.

 

Grr, I hate it when girls where skirts (especially short ones) when it is snowing, below 0 (C), and the wind is blowing. That is inappropriate. I mean, come on...

 

@Saber:

Nah, the law has that effect on people but I'm not a big of this thing in continental (Romano-Germanic) law systems and even in common law it doesn't really cut it, either. Can't legislate normality and normality is an abstract being which has no real existence, so I guess in practical terms, it's all about either not flipping out too much or knowing what you're doing and having a good reason for it.

As for respect, I respect a prostitute but I don't respect her trade. It's probably even more difficult to respect someone who makes a point of looking or behaving like one without being one. Heck, some prostitutes are desperate women who see no other way to raise money for anything from food for children to lung surgery for grandfather. Think third world countries. Spoilt rich brats dressing like prostitutes are an affront to all those disturbed women in a no-win situation.

Sometimes it's easier to understand and respect someone who does indecent things as a job (prostitutes, porn models and actresses, strippers etc) than someone who titillates the general audience for sport or something. It may be less demoralising in the cash for sex sense, but it's probably even cheaper. After all, many prostitutes seem to have some sense of morality outside their jobs. Hypocritical as that is, it provokes curious thoughts when it's compared to how some younger women behave at parties, holidays, trips and all such situations.

@Susipaisti:

I'm pretty liberal about what's decent to show or cover in something clingy or whatever, actually. I don't really have a strict, absolute definition of what clothes are whorish. But sex for money crosses the line for me. Pretending that one does it (whether realistic or just statement-ish) doesn't exactly make me want to whack said person on the head with a censer (well, unless it's Monday morning or something ) but I think it's indecent. Even if it isn't something revealing or clingy per se, it still alludes to prostitution and being sexually available for cold hard cash.

No, not really. If we instruct people in dangerous jobs to behave calmly and not try to be heroes while taken hostage, we aren't making excuses for terrorists that way.

Provocative clothing is a good reason to be seen as a whore if it crosses certain lines. Of course, it doesn't create any sexual entitlements for anyone (after all, prostitutes can't be prevented from denying service, even if they are racists or discriminate against a trendy minority), but it isn't even a sign of loose conduct: it's a already an element of it.

What you said sounds a bit as if we were talking about women being labelled as women who conduct themselves loosely because they merely just conduct themselves loosely. I'm sure it's not what you mean but there must be some limit to protecting people from themselves and making them feel good at the cost of realism.

Correct. But aren't provocatively dressing and behaving women slaves to certain desires, as well? It's reasonable still to put rapists in prison for many years even if the victim was almost trying to get raped. But it's also reasonable to force the slutty provocativeness to tone down a bit, same way as you wouldn't allow a kid to taunt a bull with a red cloth. That, and the fact it's so low... Not sure if it should be a crime except maybe when it becomes too active and too graphic (after all, public display of a porn movie wouldn't go).

There is a point there. I'll still insist that harm is done, but it's a psychological kind of harm. Not saying less serious than physical, but more difficult to measure for sure. It would be a bit unserious if such behaviour were outlawed as a crime, though. Still, not all kinds of arousing qualify as merely hinting at sex. However, yes, there's no excuse for taking it further than one of the parties wants, provided the wish is communicated. Putting one party in jail because of the other party's internal psychological dissent is crap, though. It's like putting you in jail for scaring to death someone arachnophobic who gets to see your pet spider when paying a visit. Or because you're so ugly that people drop things on their legs when they see you. Or whatever. But I'm digressing. My point is that wearing sexually arousing clothes and behaving in sexually arousing ways has the direct natural result of being seen as available, ready and willing. This means staring, being laughed at, perhaps frowned upon, taunted, that kind of thing. It's idiotic to expect, let alone demand otherwise. People's screwed up mentalities work as an excuse (after all, it isn't an unconditional invitation to sex) but not when they are being played. As an analogy, you don't get insurance money if you burn your house because you feel like toying a bit with a box of matches.

Well, yeah. But I think it's more abominable to do certain things without provocation than with it. It wouldn't feel right to give the same number of years in prison to a dark alley rapist as to someone who reacted that way to being intentiously stormed with sexual messages. Perhaps as a deterrent to teach men not to react like that to women who behave in slutty ways. But it still wouldn't feel totally right.

There are many more differences between their situation and ours. Not just the fact no one here is expected to wear a burkha and no one there gets away with a bikini. Would you think a woman's chance of getting raped wouldn't increase if she put on something short and clingy instead of a burkha before leaving the house in a Muslim fundamentalist country?

Don't know if I would be classed as a man who has such views. Typically, I don't like intruding so much on people's bedrooms and all, and it's not my hobby to collect such information and judge people on it. I believe in understanding and leniency for individual people but not really in calling wrong things right for politically correct reasons, or adjusting principles to "reality". Take into consideration that rape is putting out by the rapist, too, so some people with that kind of view still wouldn't rape a stranger to teach him or her a lesson.

I'm not a big fan of putting out or being provocative, whichever gender does it, and yet I don't feel like teaching anyone a lesson by means of doing something I normally frown on doing.

Yes, you have a point there. Some guys do think like that. We don't have much of it where I live, so that's why I forget about them sometimes. Those guys should be forcibly medicated even if they haven't done anything yet.

Well, you could always look on men as either Joseph or a whoremonger, I guess, and I've seen that kind of approach too. The basic problem with such categorising and doing bad things out of it is that those men forget that their raping is still unlawful intercourse by those categories. Still, those people who get the "don't sin" part but don't get the "be merciful" part, they may be inclined towards the virgin-whore dichotomy but may also apply it to themselves. Meaning they could class someone as a whore for a single act but wouldn't get the idea of teaching him or her a lesson by means of rape. I don't even think the "women's place" thing works with superiors and relatives other than spouses, maybe boyfriends. They may see women as inferior but not necessarily obliged to anything sexual. Rape by husband is what falls under that category. Returning to virgin-whore for a while, I don't think relaxation of morals is the answer. The problem is not a rigid morality but rather the fact that certain people judge others by it but don't apply it to themselves. A man who wants a woman to put out for him but sees women as whores for what he terms putting out, doesn't have things right by Christian standards (or any logical standards), does he...

Topic amended.

 

Nice going with the thread title.

I think this was extremely well said. It's kind of the same thing as rich kids trying to behave like ghetto gangstas.

This kind of attitude I can well tolerate. You disapprove of something, but have the sense not to go around whacking heads or the like.

If someone makes a *seriously* convincing (and deliberate) impression of being a prostitute, and gets all offended over a very non-hostile, well meaning comment, well...that goes over the top by my reckoning too. If the comments are malicious, but the impression really, really convincing, taking offense does seem...a wee bit strange. It makes me think that the woman has chosen that kind of attire for the specific purpose of rousing negative reactions, so she'll have an excuse to say men are pigs.

That said, I draw the line of what creates a convincing impression of being a hooker pretty far. And I wouldn't make comments myself. I believe in leaving people alone.

Hmm...a more fitting comparison to that would be the following scenario: There is a serial rapist stalking the neighborhood, and the police have issued a warning that women should avoid being outdoors by themselves late at night, until the criminal is caught - yet a woman decides the "chauvinist pigs" are "oppressing her" with such warnings, and goes on a midnight stroll in her hottest outfit. Staying indoors in that situation would not be humoring the rapist, by my book.

For the "toning down the provokative clothing is tantamount to humoring the rapists" -point, a more fitting comparison would be forbidding people from going to the bank because a robbery may take place. "Hey, if you got killed in a robbery, you could've avoided it by staying home."

People are slaves to their needs only in that they *have* those needs. If you can *live* without sating a need (literally, as opposed to, say, with eating), you're not a slave to it unless you allow yourself to be. People can't help having a sex drive; people can help sleeping around or making a big sex show of themselves. It's just a want.

Yep.

The bull example doesn't hold. People don't function on that "stimuli -> reaction" -level to such a great extent as most animals do. Rape is not a natural or inevitable result of *any* action or provokation. It's perfectly fair to expect not to get raped even after doing the sexual equivalent of waving that red cloth.

This applies with the kind of manipulative "crying rape after a consensual act" -thing we discussed earlier. The wish must be communicated, absolutely. If it isn't, then it's indeed crap.

Getting a little far fetched now...

Hey, that has actually happened!
Sorry, had to say that. Anyway, back on track:

As long as physical attacks aren't included, 'cos they aren't warranted no matter how you play with fire. Just as with the bull example.

Well, a woman wearing a bikini in a place like that would get stoned to death on the spot. Or something more heinous. The thing is, those burkha women can be as chaste and decent as can be by the standards of those places but still get raped.

I may be a bit dense today, but I didn't quite get this bit. Collect what kind of information, leniency towards what, what politically correct reasons...?

Well it's great you're not like that. A person without an ingrained appreciation or respect for other people (namely, women) might be different.

Can I come over?
I see it all the time.

A man who takes it upon himself to "punish" or "set straight" a woman he sees as a "harlot" might even see himself as a teacher, or in a judge/jury/executioner type of position, and think his actions perfectly justified. Him getting off on it is just an added bonus, apparently. It's strange how the human mind can work sometimes.

 

Yeah, and some contact with good old police rubber staff teaches them right. If the Slutwear(tm) kids get a little ostracism it won't hurt them in the long run bu perhaps the exact opposite.

I mostly meant malicious comments... or bone fide naughty comments. Not something like, "Excuse me, miss, but since you seem to have the apparition of a lady of the night..." A wee bit strange is how I would put it, as well. And yes, I agree with you on the "men are pigs" scenario. There are some other causes, as well, though. Don't know... taunting, making some statements, a challenge? At any rate, it's part of the "That I dress like one doesn't mean I am one" syndrome.

In some cases, it's pretty obvious it's a spoilt little brat trying to look whorish. Still, it's weird to expect no naughty reaction from men. Or from women, if it's a male brat.

I would try to cut the conversation if approached by one and would probably come up with something tongue-in-cheek if the purpose of the approach were a social one (if she asks the time or direction, let her have her answer and begone with her ). The situation would change if it were someone from the family or closer friends or if I were somehow responsible for him/her.

She would be morally to blame for the death of mutilation of a cop if one were hurt in the process of saving her. I don't want to say she would get what she deserves, but she shouldn't complain about being raped. As in blaming the system, the cops, whatever. Not as in blaming the scum.

Situation becomes more complicated when we are talking about a psychotic rapist, someone who should be hospitalised. In that case, provoking him is like provoking an animal. And it's not really great to shoot the dog for biting the leg that kicks him, is it?

Not really. Your banking comparison works only with regard to blaming women for being pretty and not hiding it (like people do). Wearing something revealing, let alone sexually charged, is like walking the pavement blindfolded with your wallet lying flat on your outstretched hand.

Correct, but it also works for those who feel the need to walk around in sexually charged clothing. That's also something that can normally be controlled. They don't need Slutwear(tm) like they need warm clothes in the winter.

Perhaps but sexual actions and reactions are different and with the right amount of manipulation, a man can be manoeuvred into doing something that will hold as an act of rape in the court. You are right in pointing out that there is no such inevitability as with animals, but this is why I'm not talking about it being an excuse but about it not being right to put such an account of rape on par with a dark alley rape on an unsuspecting stranger.

Yeah, but courts come up with some lack of internal consent bull****, claiming that it's rape even if the victim is inhibited from communicating dissent for internal reasons. Ideally, people should find out if the partner is perfectly consenting, but in certain situations total lack of active dissent may be interpreted as consent. Not being enthusiastic isn't enough. Okay, but this is a bit too far removed from clothing. Clothing can't create a credible impression of consent.

Well, one could combine "come and touch, I know you want to" gesture with "how dare you, you pig, I'm calling the cops" reaction if something actually happens. If you understand attack as something necessarily violent, I agree. If not, I have reservations.

Nuns get raped here too. I'm not saying a chaste woman won't be raped. Contrary, some scum will always want to humiliate her because of her being chaste. All my points could probably be contracted into one statement that one can't disclaim responsibility for sending certain communicates. "I didn't really mean that" is a crappy excuse. Some rapists will go for chaste types, others will just get horny and rape the immediate stimulus. Others will have different motives. Thing is, no one has the right to make the society play his games. If a person chooses to dress a slut, she shouldn't have the right to have others pretend he or she is a monk or something. In sexual assaults, there are many bull**** defences brought up by defence lawyers. But there are also crappy evidence exclusions obtained by victims' lawyers, as well. Some things are relevant, some are not. I'm opposed to dismissing something as irrelevant for political reasons. Or accepting as relevant, same thing.

I don't collect information about people's sex lives and judge them on it. I have different things to do. I believe in being merciful and lenient for people, as well. But calling wrong things right for "rights" or liberation or emancipation or whatever political reason is crap.

Well, it's not like I treat a slut like a nun in all respects. There is the kind of respect that's always due and the kind that has to be earned...

I know it from second-hand sources, I think. Well, if I were to start thinking about all men I've known, maybe I would come up with some kinds of mentality that gravitate in that direction, but I'm not sure. Rejected men tend to think ill of the rejecting women's conduct sometimes. But that would be it.

Yeah.