'Asking for it'

I voiced the same assessment in the post above.

I'm finding it really distasteful and nasty Mont that you are theorising about women's lived experiences as though it were some kind of intellectual exercise or contest.

They come about because many men believe they are entitled to put their cocks into women whether women want them to or not and therefore they become rapists.

It's really not complicated.

If I understand you correctly, you are referring to criminal predisposition?

While there is certainly predisposition, it's clearly not the case that all rapes occur within an identical set of circumstances. A given person can't be considered a rapist unless they have actually committed a rape already, and conditions that might cause the one to rape do not necessarily do so for another.

We must also take into account the large subset of rapes in which the rapist - for our purposes, the male - does not even realize the import of his actions precisely because he does not think to take the female's wishes into consideration and simply assume both consent and compliance as a given. How do you think it comes about that so many rapes are committed by individuals known to the victim?

There is no provocation in rape unless the person being provoked is a rapist.

It is impossible to provoke someone to rape you if he is not a rapist.

There is indeed provocation in rape. That's precisely the problem.

The sheer presence or vulnerability of a woman should not constitute a provocation, and that it does to too many men (and women) is something that must be tackled directly and explicitly.

"people thinking like my DM seem to believe there is provocation in rape "

That is because people like your DM believe all men are rapists.

It is impossible to provoke a man who isn't a rapist, to rape you. A man will only be provoked to rape, if he believes that he has the right to rape.

And people like your DM give rapists permission to rape. They offer them succour and support.

Spell it out to her. She is on the side of rapists. Make her own it.

I'm with you catdoctor. You are completely correct. My post was in response to Mont's 3rd point not to your DM. I suspect that response would be a bit blunt for her .

With regards your question about feminist theory Kat Banyard The Equality Illusion is a good start. I also enjoyed Backlash by Susan Faludi (if enjoyed is the right word!). Both of those are encompass a wide range of topics. A lot of feminist books focus on narrower topics such as porn, beauty standards, gender stereotypes etc. Greer's The Whole Woman is supposed to be good too although I haven't read it.

There is no provocation in rape. HTH

Why not analogize to murder in this particular respect? (Though let me be clear that my analogy is fully constrained to what follows.) Let's not go through all the potential causes or rationales for killing another human, or the special cases (e.g. capital punishment, assisted suicide, etc.). Suffice to say that killing another human is only even slightly tolerable if it is considered to be in self-defense. Accidental or negligent killings, then, are somewhere between that and full, heinous, murder.

So, then:

Is there such a thing as rape in self-defense? No, come on - that's silly.

Well, if the victim of murder or manslaughter is not considered to have been "asking for it", then how could the victim of rape be so?

Now, "asking for it" refers to either secretly wanting "it", or else to having in some sense 'brought the outrage upon oneself'. I can't address the former interpretation head-on, but for the latter we may return to murder.

Simply put, no victim of manslaughter or murder is considered to be responsible for their fate legally-speaking. This is so even if their interactions with the perpetrator prior to the crime were much more active and threatening than is usually the case with rapists and rapees. For example, if I insult you and urinate on the couch in your home and you gun me down for it, most would feel quite uneasy to say that I "had it coming". And again, with rape all the victims are said to have done to the perpetrator (for this particular subset of cases) is "tempted him".

Think of how shocked we the public would be to hear of a case in which someone's excuse for murdering someone would be "they was dressed like shit and they looked at me funny". We'd likely conclude that this individual should be sequestered away from the general population. It would be difficult to find apologists.

Summing up:

1. Rape can not be in self-defence.
2. Killing is not an acceptable response to provocation.
3. With rape, if there is any provocation involved then it is surely usually of a comparatively-passive sort.

I think your response was perfect.

I'm not great at fem theory myself so will duck out of that (just so you know I'm not ignoring your last post).

It's actually really disturbing that someone with those attitudes should have sat as a JP.

Not surprising, but disturbing.

it's not illegal or immoral to wear revealing clothes.
It is both illegal and immoral to have sex with someone without their consent.

Ask her if she thinks all the men she knows are rapists.

If they see a woman who is dressed up and getting drunk and being flirty and they knew they could probably get away with raping her, does she think they would do so?

If yes, then tell her you don't want your kids around them.

If no, ask her what distinguishes them from the men who would rape a woman in those circumstances.

Also tell her that you know women who know for sure that the men they know, are not rapists. Because not all men are rapists, as she seems to think.

Make her face her deep, insulting assumptions about men.

And don't forget, she may well have been raped herself, her DSF may hold disgusting views and she's embracing cognitive dissonance and reactionary ideas as a way to somehow live with a horrible man. Lots of women do this.

There is this analogy

www.buzzfeed.com/derekj/if-mugging-were-treated-the-same-way-as-rape-r76

Asking for what? A women dressed in a sexy oufit might indirectly be asking for attention, flirting and admiration. She isn't asking for violence and violation. It's a crazy reaction to be violent towards a person for being pretty. Doesn't your mother agee?

The way I tend to think of it is that shoplifters don't get away with stealing stuff because the shopkeeper laid his goods out all enticingly. It's there to attract attention if you like, but attracting your attention doesn't mean it's yours. You are expected to approach the shopkeeper and ask, and if he wants to, he will sell it to you for an agreed price. He doesn't even have to sell it to you if he doesn't choose to; he most certainly doesn't have to give it to you. And good luck with grabbing it and running away - the Plod will not take "but he wanted me to have it" as an answer.

There's an obvious problem with using this argument as it suggests to some overly literal minds that all women are for sale, or that the only reason for being glammed up is to attract the attention of men (and completely ignores the fact that a lot of women who are raped were simply minding their own business whilst wearing everyday clothes). But even if the woman in question is about is to sell her body, she should still have the complete right to say no thanks, that offer is not acceptable.

slutwalkphoenix.wordpress.com/how-to-prevent-rape/

I think this turns it round nicely. Preventing rape is really really easy.

It is a difficult one to counter. It does seem to be completely reasonable from a certain PoV that if a woman dresses in a provocative manner, then she 'brings it on herself' until you realise that most women are raped by people they already know, there was a Twitter thing a while back, which asked what women were wearing when they were raped, the overwhelming majority were dressed in 'normal' everyday stuff, jeans, PJs etc. There is also the problem for those people who believe in blaming the woman that that woman may well have worn that same 'sexy' outfit, or ones like it a million times and have had a lovely evening with respectful people who didn't rape her. In both scenarios the only changed variable is that there was a rapist present.

If that makes any sense at all?

How about this?