Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogitsune
|
This list fails to provide access to its sources (if any) for most of the 'myths', so the information inside should be taken with a grain of salt. The part you quoted actually cited some 'sources', but they seem to be non-existent or inaccessible at least on the internet.
Searching for 'rape statistics', all that could be found regarding clothing and rape was that the rapists 'didn't remember the clothing of their victims', and that some victims were either 'too old' or 'too young' to wear provocative clothing. This can hardly be thought of as conclusive proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic
I don't agree with that at all. For one, rapists don't care what a woman wears. She could be ugly, covered in mud and dressed in a burlap sack.
Rape isn't about sex. It's about power, control, creating fear and terror. Why do you think mentally disabled people get raped? The elderly? You really think those rapists find a fat, wrinkly 90-year-old prune to be sexually attractive?
No, the power they gain over their victim is where the arousal comes from.
|
Rape is largely about sex. Many people misinterpret the fact that 'control and power are major factors that rapists are after'. It doesn't translate to 'rape is all about the power', no matter what many (feminist) sources claim. Rape is by definition 'non-consensual intercourse (sex)'. If it's 'not much about the sex', then it's a very rare kind of rape, one that could only be committed by a person without sexual drive or consciousness - therefore having no need for sex. This is, however, unlikely since that kind of people can be expected to use systematic infliction of pain (or perhaps humiliation) instead, since that's much more 'effective' in terms of damage caused. Not to mention the fact that - if they were male - they might be unable to get an erection in the first place. But I digress.
Studies have indeed shown that rapists get 'turned on' by the feelings of power and control. Please note, however, that most victims of rape are very young, and according to any credible source the majority of them are less than 25 or even 18 years old. This leads to the conclusion that rape is just one form of sex amidst others, and abides by the 'laws of attraction' just like the others. To put things simply, the rapists want to have sex with someone they find attractive and vulnerable, and so they rape because they prefer to 'have sex' while feeling the power and control they have over that someone.
There are people who are sexually attracted towards the elderly, and the percentage of such people is likely to be closely correlated with the percentage of elderly rape victims. So yes, that kind of rapists do "find a fat, wrinkly 90-year-old prune to be sexually attractive" (The 'fat' part is irrelevant. A fat person can hardly be 90 years old - they have to be somewhat healthy to live that long).
On a related note, people seem to have the misconception that 'rape is torture'. No matter how you look at it, torture is torture, while rape is non-concensual intercourse. The two are not related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic
I don't buy it. If I go out one night dressed in a short skirt and heels and a tight top, it is one hundred percent not my fault if someone attacks me and rapes me. It is entirely their fault; they made the choice to attack me.
|
Firstly, there is no 'fault'. It's a meaningless and illogical concept. When someone is accused of being 'at fault' and told to 'take responsibility', nothing is achieved.
The prevention of crime exists to prevent harm, not to make the potential of getting harmed go away. In other words, all the factors that lead to a 'crime' are 'at fault'. If the so-called victim is the one who had the conscious choice of making the crime happen or not, with no concequences arising from the 'no crime' -option, then the victim could be said to be '100% at fault', even if there were many other factors that were, in reality, also 'at fault'. In the situation you mentioned, ignoring safety precautions is a factor that shouldn't be ignored - it 'deserves' blame just as much as the crime itself.
People have a tendency to focus on the final major 'conscious' (i.ex. a human) factor when it comes to crimes or even accidents, and try to blame them for everything. I.ex. when someone is killed, the murderer is convicted and people put the blame on the murderer. But in reality, the reasons that lead to a murder 'should be blamed', if anything, because a crime never starts from nothing. There are always factors that precede the final one, factors that are much more decicive when it comes to prevention.
Here's an example: If you carry food to people who are starving, and refuse to give it to them no matter what you aren't exercising any 'fundamential right' of yours. If you get attacked because of this, the attackers aren't 'at fault'. If there is fault, it can be applied to everything that lead to the situation - you going there with food, the famine itself, and to an extent the attackers; even the existence of the food could be blamed, or the fact that people need nutrition to survive. This is simply irrational. Nothing is achieved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic
Don't let the whiny leftist handwringers and the destiny-worshipping bible-thumpers tell you different. We're all responsible for our own choices and nothing, nothing is predestined.
|
Responsibility, you say. Things that happen before our birth decide what kind of people we will be, what kind of an environment we will live in, and in other words all our 'conscious choices' have their roots somewhere withing the past, which we couldn't have affected no matter what. People aren't responsible for things that happen before they are born, and thus, there is no real 'responsibility'. It is a concept used to encourage people to behave in 'a right way', and a concept that will give people a sense of 'reason'. Nothing more, nothing less.
On topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo
I'm just gonna respost this even-handed article for people to re-read. It's one of the few I could find with a more balanced look at the urban dancing scene:
http://artsblog.freedomblogging.com/...oo-sexy/30475/
In case you don't click, I'm gonna repost a few sections from the guy investigating this:
"To me, this style of dance is undoubtedly too risqué for kids this age. But Dance Precision’s girls are by no means unique in their transgression. The world of urban dance is both competitive and popular; other teachers are guilty of allowing their students to perform sexualized material at too young an age, simply to make a big impression at competitions."
“This (dance routine) isn’t something I would feel comfortable with in my classroom or on a public stage, especially for girls this age,” said Jennifer Backhaus, who teaches dance at Chapman University and runs her own modern dance company. “But this is a different world from the one I’m in. There are different expectations and pressures.”
“I see it more and more,” said Festival Ballet artistic director Salwa Rizkalla from her studio in Fountain Valley. “This style of dance isn’t part of the (ballet) aesthetic, of course, and I would never allow it. But many young girls are being exposed to it now.”
"But when I tried to get a dance teacher to make a similar defense of Dance Precisions on the record, I struck out time and again. (Dance Precision’s owners refused my requests for comment – they were clearly shaken by the controversy when I talked to them.)
A seasoned commercial choreographer who requested anonymity summed it up for me. “This is a big, lucrative part of the dance scene, and some of my friends teach girls in schools like Dance Precisions. There’s too much money at stake for them to speak out against it.”"
Karen Drews, a veteran employee of the Irvine Barclay Theatre, suggests this brouhaha is part of something bigger. “When I lived in the south, these young-girl beauty pageants had the same feeling. Some people thought some things the girls were made to do were inappropriate. This debate isn’t new or confined to dance.” |
Excuse me for my short-sightedness, but what does this blog post prove? Indeed, it has gathered quite a lot of 'authoritative' opinions regarding the subject, but that's all there is.