"It is also from this mindset that I think you get your idea nd some of the fault lies in women. Some women dress that way on purpose, to advertise their availability. While that should not mean that all women who dress that way are asking for sex or harrasment/abuse, it does give a bit of a mixed message. I cannot, in good conscience, agree with or accept this idea. The idea that a man cannot 'help himself' is wrong, wrong, wrong. Sure, there are times when a woman dresses in a certain fashion to attract attention. But that attention never comes with a RIGHT to harass her, to expect sexual favors from her, to demand, or to threaten. It is when someone views that manner of dress as giving them a right to expect those things that we see the problems arise. Again the belief that women are either pure or sexually available creates that expectation."
The "some women" who dress that way on purpose was mostly referring to prostitutes (the ones who do things the old fashioned way and stand on street-corners anyway) and those very few women who are so wrong in the head that they would welcome anyone who came their way (yes, there are some women who are that stupid-- I've known a few!!) Does that ever give any man a right to force himself on a woman? No way-- never! Not even on a prostitute.
Also, saying "some of the fault lies in women" does NOT mean the woman who was attacked, but rather the stupid women who purposefully dress for sexual attention. Sort of a "they wrecked it for the rest of us" sort of thing.
I also an not saying that there is any situation where a man "cannot help himself". Temptation, yes. Extreme difficulty controlling the direction his mind goes-- most definitely. But when it comes down to actions, every man is capable of holding himself back (with the possible exception of some who have serious disabilities that cause extraordinarily poor judgement, but I would hope that they have the supports in place to keep them from being in a position where they would harm another human). The fact that my husband managed to keep himself in check when I was beyond tempting says something! (like I said, the no kissing thing annoyed me-- I occasionally pushed the limits-- I was definitely the more aggressive one when we were dating, mostly because I had no idea how the male brain works-- stupid me didn't realize how hard (literally) I was making things for him!)
1. Also, saying "some of the fault lies in women" does NOT mean the woman who was attacked, but rather the stupid women who purposefully dress for sexual attention. Sort of a "they wrecked it for the rest of us" sort of thing.
The miniscule fraction of women who are legitimately advertising their bodies for sex are not to blame for the sexual predation of themselves and other women who are "dressing for attention". The point is that it should not matter how you are dressed. These women did not "wreck it for the rest of you". The problem lies not with women or how they are dressed or how other women have dressed on a street corner in the past, but rather the skewed expectations of society. Your dress, your promiscuity, your state of inebriation, these do not constitute consent. Only consent = consent.
Now, perhaps you're simply talking about risky behavior. If I walk down Rape Alley, I should expect to be raped. Same as if I walked down Murder Alley with a $100 hanging out of my pocket. Fair enough. But the victim, however risky their behavior, is NOT at fault. The person who committed the crime is at fault. Situational factors may play a role in causation, but not culpability. And where do we draw the line? Maybe it wasn't Rape Alley, maybe it was a Frat house. You should expect to get raped there, right? Or in a crowd at a concert? Certainly you've given up your right to not be groped by dancing in close proximity to 1000 people. Showing cleavage? Well, someone was bound to consider that an invitation. And this is where society fails women. Making the leap from cause to culpability. Insinuating that it is somehow the fault of the victim because of how they DRESSED is madness.
If you think I'm saying that gives men permission to approach/touch/attack a woman, clearly you haven't read what I wrote (It's possible I was somewhat unclear though as I am heavily drugged and sometimes jumble my thoughts together lately).
What I am saying is that, regardless of who is to blame, people should take responsibility for their actions. If a woman get's raped because she was wandering around in a dark alley at 2 am, YES, the fault for the actual rape still lies on the man who raped her-- he was wrong. But the fact of the matter is that she was stupid.
Whether something is right or wrong does not change reality. Should a woman be able to walk around safely at any time of day or night while wearing whatever she wants? YES-- not disputing that. But can she? Well, that's a whole other matter. Sadly, our world is flawed and there's a pretty good chance that something bad will happen to her. Engaging in risky behavior does not make you an activist, it makes you stupid. And it's not entirely related to clothing either-- I wouldn't wander around myself at night no matter what I was wearing. It's called using your common sense.
And while we're at it, dark alleys aren't really the best place for men either-- they can still be mugged or attacked. If a man gets mugged because he was wandering around alone at night in a dangerous part of town while wearing expensive, brand name clothing, will people say that he should have known better than to go out there? That he should not have flaunted his wealth in an area where crime is prevalent? Of course they will-- he made an unwise decision. Is it right that he was robbed? Not in a million years-- but he also did not take the precautions to be safe when there was a risk.
Why is it such a big deal to tell girls to be safe when we expect men to take precautions as well?
I do NOT like that the world is not safe, and I fought against my parents' strict rules when I was a teenager-- why shouldn't I be allowed to walk through the forest alone on my way home from school in the winter? (since it was dark by 4pm ) It didn't seem fair when my brothers were allowed to walk that way. But I grew up being protected and learning how to protect myself. I am one of the VERY FEW women who has never been sexually assaulted. It's sad that the numbers are the way they are-- it's WRONG. BUT, it's also how it is right now. We should fight to change it, yes, but we should also work to protect ourselves until it does change and not put on rose coloured glasses and hope that everyone will behave as they should.
Also, in case you feel like picking on this point, I do NOT think that I have escaped assault just because I have stayed away from dangerous places-- I know that a lot of women (and children!) are assaulted by people they know-- "friends" and family. I think that my parents picked their friends well and were lucky to not invite anyone into our home who had intentions to hurt us.
There are times when bad things will happen, no matter how careful you are, but it does make sense to protect yourself however you can.
Here's a totally unrelated example that may make my point clearer. I live a very healthy lifestyle and did everything that they tell you to do to prevent cancer. Yet I still got cancer. We found out afterwards that I have a weird genetic condition that caused it. But taking asprin reduces my chances of getting a future cancer. Sometimes bad things happen no matter how safe we are (first cancer), but when there's something I can do to keep myself safe (taking asprin), I would be stupid not to do it. Cancer is unfair and it's not my "fault" if I get it-- it's genetic and nothing I did caused it-- but there's a way to reduce my risk, so I am doing it. If I chose not to take the asprin and got another cancer, no one could blame me-- it might have happened anyway-- but I would be kicking myself for not taking that extra precaution.
2. The fact that my husband managed to keep himself in check when I was beyond tempting says something! (like I said, the no kissing thing annoyed me-- I occasionally pushed the limits-- I was definitely the more aggressive one when we were dating, mostly because I had no idea how the male brain works-- stupid me didn't realize how hard (literally) I was making things for him!)
Really? Your husband respected his boundaries and yours. Good for him. You did not. Let's talk about that.
Our society typically views men as more libidinous, but as shadowravyn points out above, this has not always been the case. Women in our society are taught from a very young age to not be sexual, men are expected to be. This has nothing to do with capability or "how the male brain works" and EVERYTHING to do with society. Surely you've heard of the slut/stud dichotomoy? A few decades of reinforcing this concept will certainly have an effect on how aggressive women are sexually. Biologically, there are some differences. Men tend to peak earlier due to testosterone, women tend to peak later. But this is a general case and not really very indicative of who initiates sex in what contexts. I know many people, men and women who are more or less interested in sex than I am. It's not as simple as "guys want it more, girls want it less". Nor can we view men as some kind of barely controlled engine of sex and women as the ignition.
You describe yourself as the more aggressive party while you were dating. Beyond that, you admit to pushing your then boyfriend's boundaries and then lay the praise on him for being able to control himself. This is absurd. And what if he had not controlled himself? What about your control? This is not some kind of fantasy where the man is a barely controlled sparkly monster, soothed or inflamed by the touch of our heroine.
In general, I think we see men as more aggressive sexually because they tend to be physically stronger than women (testosterone again) and the act of penetration is perceived as a violation even if completely consensual. But if we're not talking about the physical threat of rape, then we're only talking about sexual intent and sexual desire. Men don't have a lock on those. Women are just as sexual as men, we just have a society that likes to obfuscate that fact.
ummm i kind of take umbrage with this sentence "Does that ever give any man a right to force himself on a woman? No way-- never! Not even on a prostitute." I agreed with you all the way to the end, when you seemed to indicate the prostitutes are somehow less than "regular women" and therefore things that would be unacceptable to do to a "regular woman" could and would be totally acceptable to do to a prostitute. Sorry to butt in but that sentiment just kept coming back to me and i had to say something.
I only specify prostitutes separately here because I talked about them specifically earlier in relation to clothing. I was not saying that they were separate from other women, but rather making the point that they are included, despite the fact that I pointed out a difference in "working" clothing choices.
The "some women" who dress that way on purpose was mostly referring to prostitutes (the ones who do things the old fashioned way and stand on street-corners anyway) and those very few women who are so wrong in the head that they would welcome anyone who came their way (yes, there are some women who are that stupid-- I've known a few!!) Does that ever give any man a right to force himself on a woman? No way-- never! Not even on a prostitute.
Also, saying "some of the fault lies in women" does NOT mean the woman who was attacked, but rather the stupid women who purposefully dress for sexual attention. Sort of a "they wrecked it for the rest of us" sort of thing.
I also an not saying that there is any situation where a man "cannot help himself". Temptation, yes. Extreme difficulty controlling the direction his mind goes-- most definitely. But when it comes down to actions, every man is capable of holding himself back (with the possible exception of some who have serious disabilities that cause extraordinarily poor judgement, but I would hope that they have the supports in place to keep them from being in a position where they would harm another human). The fact that my husband managed to keep himself in check when I was beyond tempting says something! (like I said, the no kissing thing annoyed me-- I occasionally pushed the limits-- I was definitely the more aggressive one when we were dating, mostly because I had no idea how the male brain works-- stupid me didn't realize how hard (literally) I was making things for him!)
Reply
1. Also, saying "some of the fault lies in women" does NOT mean the woman who was attacked, but rather the stupid women who purposefully dress for sexual attention. Sort of a "they wrecked it for the rest of us" sort of thing.
The miniscule fraction of women who are legitimately advertising their bodies for sex are not to blame for the sexual predation of themselves and other women who are "dressing for attention". The point is that it should not matter how you are dressed. These women did not "wreck it for the rest of you". The problem lies not with women or how they are dressed or how other women have dressed on a street corner in the past, but rather the skewed expectations of society. Your dress, your promiscuity, your state of inebriation, these do not constitute consent. Only consent = consent.
I give you.. an analogy.
Now, perhaps you're simply talking about risky behavior. If I walk down Rape Alley, I should expect to be raped. Same as if I walked down Murder Alley with a $100 hanging out of my pocket. Fair enough. But the victim, however risky their behavior, is NOT at fault. The person who committed the crime is at fault. Situational factors may play a role in causation, but not culpability. And where do we draw the line? Maybe it wasn't Rape Alley, maybe it was a Frat house. You should expect to get raped there, right? Or in a crowd at a concert? Certainly you've given up your right to not be groped by dancing in close proximity to 1000 people. Showing cleavage? Well, someone was bound to consider that an invitation. And this is where society fails women. Making the leap from cause to culpability. Insinuating that it is somehow the fault of the victim because of how they DRESSED is madness.
Reply
What I am saying is that, regardless of who is to blame, people should take responsibility for their actions. If a woman get's raped because she was wandering around in a dark alley at 2 am, YES, the fault for the actual rape still lies on the man who raped her-- he was wrong. But the fact of the matter is that she was stupid.
Whether something is right or wrong does not change reality. Should a woman be able to walk around safely at any time of day or night while wearing whatever she wants? YES-- not disputing that. But can she? Well, that's a whole other matter. Sadly, our world is flawed and there's a pretty good chance that something bad will happen to her. Engaging in risky behavior does not make you an activist, it makes you stupid. And it's not entirely related to clothing either-- I wouldn't wander around myself at night no matter what I was wearing. It's called using your common sense.
And while we're at it, dark alleys aren't really the best place for men either-- they can still be mugged or attacked. If a man gets mugged because he was wandering around alone at night in a dangerous part of town while wearing expensive, brand name clothing, will people say that he should have known better than to go out there? That he should not have flaunted his wealth in an area where crime is prevalent? Of course they will-- he made an unwise decision. Is it right that he was robbed? Not in a million years-- but he also did not take the precautions to be safe when there was a risk.
Why is it such a big deal to tell girls to be safe when we expect men to take precautions as well?
I do NOT like that the world is not safe, and I fought against my parents' strict rules when I was a teenager-- why shouldn't I be allowed to walk through the forest alone on my way home from school in the winter? (since it was dark by 4pm ) It didn't seem fair when my brothers were allowed to walk that way. But I grew up being protected and learning how to protect myself. I am one of the VERY FEW women who has never been sexually assaulted. It's sad that the numbers are the way they are-- it's WRONG. BUT, it's also how it is right now. We should fight to change it, yes, but we should also work to protect ourselves until it does change and not put on rose coloured glasses and hope that everyone will behave as they should.
Reply
There are times when bad things will happen, no matter how careful you are, but it does make sense to protect yourself however you can.
Here's a totally unrelated example that may make my point clearer. I live a very healthy lifestyle and did everything that they tell you to do to prevent cancer. Yet I still got cancer. We found out afterwards that I have a weird genetic condition that caused it. But taking asprin reduces my chances of getting a future cancer. Sometimes bad things happen no matter how safe we are (first cancer), but when there's something I can do to keep myself safe (taking asprin), I would be stupid not to do it. Cancer is unfair and it's not my "fault" if I get it-- it's genetic and nothing I did caused it-- but there's a way to reduce my risk, so I am doing it. If I chose not to take the asprin and got another cancer, no one could blame me-- it might have happened anyway-- but I would be kicking myself for not taking that extra precaution.
Reply
Really? Your husband respected his boundaries and yours. Good for him. You did not. Let's talk about that.
Our society typically views men as more libidinous, but as shadowravyn points out above, this has not always been the case. Women in our society are taught from a very young age to not be sexual, men are expected to be. This has nothing to do with capability or "how the male brain works" and EVERYTHING to do with society. Surely you've heard of the slut/stud dichotomoy? A few decades of reinforcing this concept will certainly have an effect on how aggressive women are sexually. Biologically, there are some differences. Men tend to peak earlier due to testosterone, women tend to peak later. But this is a general case and not really very indicative of who initiates sex in what contexts. I know many people, men and women who are more or less interested in sex than I am. It's not as simple as "guys want it more, girls want it less". Nor can we view men as some kind of barely controlled engine of sex and women as the ignition.
You describe yourself as the more aggressive party while you were dating. Beyond that, you admit to pushing your then boyfriend's boundaries and then lay the praise on him for being able to control himself. This is absurd. And what if he had not controlled himself? What about your control?
This is not some kind of fantasy where the man is a barely controlled sparkly monster, soothed or inflamed by the touch of our heroine.
In general, I think we see men as more aggressive sexually because they tend to be physically stronger than women (testosterone again) and the act of penetration is perceived as a violation even if completely consensual. But if we're not talking about the physical threat of rape, then we're only talking about sexual intent and sexual desire. Men don't have a lock on those. Women are just as sexual as men, we just have a society that likes to obfuscate that fact.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment