I guess a male who likes a woman kindly asks her to hang out.If you dress like a hooker, how can you complain if men want to treat you like one?
regardless of her clothing
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I guess a male who likes a woman kindly asks her to hang out.If you dress like a hooker, how can you complain if men want to treat you like one?
That is statistically false. The vast majority of rape occurs to women while wearing t-hirts or sweaters and jeans. There is no indication that women who wear less clothing or shorter skirts or pants are raped more frequently.Dressing with modesty will not usually attract unwanted attention.
God had nothing to do with what you said. Don't defame Him.From God's perspective...what is sick about it?
...a male is suppose to be able to turn his arousal on and off like a faucet.
If you look carefully at the Imam's suggestion, he is equally blaming the men as being the dogs, unable to control their urges...
I don't think men are dogs by any standard, and I would agree that most men are moral, decent, civilized human beings. But we also know that there are some men who are animalistic, predatory, and violent. It doesn't have much to do with what the woman is wearing; some guys are just violent and overamped. It's even worse if they're on drugs or alcohol.
But one also needs to be cautious and have a certain degree of situational awareness, especially if one chooses to enter a wretched hive of scum and villainy. It's a sad world we live in.
Sure, teach girls and women to respect boys and men. But while you're at it, be sure to teach boys and men to respect girls and women. In business, if you want to cut costs, you start with your biggest single expense. You don't start with you second or third or fourth largest expense -- you start with your first and make your first cuts there.
Evidently there is a need for this, since most sexual assaults are committed by men, and not the other way around.
When a female turns up at a place known as a pickup joint, dressed like a hooker, and is clearly drunk, how on earth can you blame an equally drunk male not to assume that she is there for the same reason he is?
Yeah, but that's because cost cutting forces prioritization.
Is that the case here? I honestly don't know.
I agree, Stevicus. Yet are there not two sets of issues here? You raise the practical issues of safety and survival, but @Deeje raises the moral issues of who is to blame, who is morally obliged to act, and in what way are they morally obliged to act.
From a practical standpoint, it's damn foolish to walk into "the worse bar in town" where no one knows you and you have no friends, and then get totally drunk. But from a moral standpoint, there is no sound principle or reason why doing that is morally wrong. Foolish, yes. But immoral, no
There is definitely a 'women are below men and all should adhere to gender norms' air in all the congregations and literature I've viewed. One of the plethora of reasons I left.
Of course, there are JW outside that normative thinking. (#notallJW) but they tend to be outside the governing body.
You have a low opinion of men, whether you confess to it or not. Yeah, we're all animals who flush our morals down the drain the moment we see a bare belly or short skirt -- and none of us ever drink responsibly either. That's just asking too much of a man.
Thanks a lot.
Yes, the business principle of beginning with the major cost does apply here. Here's why: Suppose you had two expenses. The first was a major expense of $1000. The second was a minor expense of $100. Now, suppose you cut 10% of each. You would be rewarded with $100 for you cut to your major expense, but only $10 for your cut to your minor expense.
Now translate that into rapes. Suppose that men commit 1000 rapes an hour in a given country, but women only commit 100 rapes an hour. If you were humane, and genuinely concerned with reducing suffering as fast as possible, then -- all else being equal -- which problem would you focus on first, supposing you had limited resources and needed to focus on each in turn, rather than at once?
Naturally, the principle rests on "all else being equal" -- or at least, significantly equal.
I find it hard to believe rapists aren't all mentally I'll, although I know they're not, and can rationalise that I want there to be a 'wall' separating them from 'normal' people.
I know, you don't like it when I personalise your points, but...
The answer is 'easily'. I can easily blame a male who anally rapes a girl, regardless of whether she is stark naked, and blind drunk.
I've been drunk. I've been around plenty of women with lowered inhibitions (to put it kindly). I was raised not to take advantage of extremely drunk women, even if they seem receptive, and this particular case goes far beyond 'merely' taking advantage of a drunk woman.
My parents would be disgusted with me if I didn't help organise some transport or similar.
So sure...she was foolish. Just like it would be foolish of me to wander around with a lot of money in my wallet. Or to wear flashy jewellery and wander down quiet laneways at night. That has absolutely nothing to do with the men who attacked her, does not lessen their culpability in the slightest, and (frankly) having my gender compared to dogs unable to control their hormones merely provides an out for every undisciplined, un-empathetic piece of filth going around.
I know what you mean, Dave. I have a very hard time getting my head around the normal, average, basically decent guy who date rapes, for instance, or the doting uncle who fondles his nieces.
She was raped by the son of the nightclub's owner. It was not a gang rape. He was alone with her.
I wonder how his parents reacted?
You think they blamed their son? He was in the habit of taking advantage of drunk girls who frequent this nightclub. Sounds like it was not an unusual thing for him. Perhaps he was not raised like you.
"Foolish" doesn't quite describe what she did. "Irresponsible and naive" maybe....but we reap what we sow, you know. If you don't want to grow tomatoes then don't plant them. Its called putting yourself in harm's way. You have to take a certain amount of responsibility for that whether you asked for it or not.
If all "your gender" were like you LnM, then perhaps these incidents would stop happening and all the nice men would send all the drunk girls home in a cab?
But wouldn't it be nicer if there were no drunk girls in the first place and people learned how to have a good time without getting blind drunk and actually treated each other with respect? Too much to ask I know....
Teaching respect for women, regardless of whether they are acting sensibly or foolishly, dressing modestly or not, is a long term thing. And his parents failed at it.
What you're arguing, perhaps, is that we should be teaching girls to respect themselves. I'm guessing we'd differ on what that means, but in terms of it's importance, I wholeheartedly agree.
The victim has invariably suffered from a 'natural' consequence far outweighing the 'crime' though. Who could possibly suggest she's avoided anything??
There's no 'perhaps' about it, but the world doesn't work like that.
my principles don't change based on the presence of alchohol.
I don't see alchohol as reducing responsibility for my actions in ANY way, unless it's a case of drink spiking (which I've not personally experienced).