'Asking for it'

[catdoctor]

Hi
Can you help me with my DM?
Since marrying my DSF she's developed - or maybe rediscovered sensibilities I find disturbing.
I won't bore you with the claptrap on gay marriage, the most recent conversation was regarding women 'asking for it' ie rape, through their dress/ behaviour.
I was ashamed that I couldn't counter with anything other than - ' no one in their right minds asks to be subject to any violent act'. Please explain to me in words of one syllable why, evidently, no woman asks for it
She was a JP for several years, I could weep.

JP? Japanese?

The only person who is ever responsible for rape is the rapist. It doesn't matter what a woman wears, if there's no rapist around, she won't be raped. It doesn't matter where a woman goes, how much she drinks, whether she goes back to a man's flat or not, if there is no rapist about, she will not be raped.

Yes what's jp? I'm sure once you explain it will be obvious.

Men are not animals driven by carnal urges. They are the same as us women and have the ability to look at a naked or skimpily dressed woman without losing all control. To think a woman is asking for it cheapens men.

A woman should be able to wear what she wants, where it is appropriate and not be seen as a sexual object for the enjoyment of men. These women may well be asking for attention or acknowledgement from suitors of their choice but the still have the free will to say no to who ever they wish.

Justice of the Peace?

like a magistrate.

To think a woman is asking for it cheapens men? That's really not what I meant tho I suppose that's not too wrong.

I meant... To think Men are like this cheapens them

It makes me sad that some people think that way, how can it be anything other than the rapists fault?

I like what a pp poster said about how a woman can dress revealing, get really drunk or do whatever but at the end of the day no rapist = no rape.

I'm sure there's plenty of women who dress fully covered and aren't drunk and still get raped so I don't see her point! I suppose women who are drunk are just an easier target

What sort of help are you looking for?

Set statements for when she comes out with this stuff?

A way of letting it wash over you?

Stopping her new DH's influence over her opinions if you think that is the source?

How about this?

JP is magistrate, yes.
Yes, Raskova I've used the same concept - that this belittles men as much as women. Thank you Capt this is a useful straightforward retort.

I'm bothered that I'm not able to articulate a reasonable counter argument.

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?

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

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

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.

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?

There is this analogy

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

Sorry Inky can't make your dodah work

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.

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

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

Not surprising, but disturbing.

Yes basil disturbing indeed. I have had to face up to some unsettling stuff re my DM since I have become a mother.
Raped herself? Don't know - what she has done in my eyes is 'sell' herself in marriage to DSF in order to achieve stability/status. I suppose that could be rape, maybe - shit, it gets weirder still. I miss my mother, who she used to be.
Thank you all for your messages . I often read the feminist boards - can you offer a resource for a beginner in fem theory?

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).

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.

There is no provocation in rape. HTH

mont and scallops isn't this the point though - people thinking like my DM seem to believe there is provocation in rape and this somehow excuses the actions of the rapist and lays the blame on the raped?