Acquaintance Rape

Heineken Helen

Rygar wrote:

Most of these posts involving what she was wearing do not mean that her choice of clothes is a justification for a man to rape or force himself on her. They're saying that her choice of clothes may have been reason for him to think she was into him.

well since we MUST stick so implicitly to the original post apparently, what's that got to do with anything? Because her post suggested that her clothes WEREN'T like that at all.

comebackwoman

AllNiteThing wrote:

I think you're still thinking in those utopic terms I was referring. Of course it is MY job and anyone elses job out there to NOT break the law (as I said), if you want to be a part of this society. Unfortunately you can't rely on everyone to do their job (ESPECIALLY people you do not know). The only thing you can control, is yourself, which means avoiding situations that are risky, and not being naive and stupid to how the world works. Rationality and thinking do not always override biology and history as you may want it to. That is why rape, murder, etc etc will never, ever go away, no matter how much you want it to.

Exactly why I said it's good judgment to avoid risky situations - clearly I understand our society is not a utopia or I would be out of a job I just think it's important to be clear on whose responsibility it is to avoid crime - it rests solely on the perp - not the victim. That's not to say one shouldn't be aware of risks and make efforts to avoid those risks - that's just good sound judgment. And biology is not an excuse to disregard someone's clear boundaries. Yes, we may have drives - we all do, but we also have the ability to make rational and informed choices. Rape and murder don't still exist because of biology - they exist because of choices to disregard the laws of society and to give into impulses. I may have an urge to eat a pint of cookie dough ice cream - but I also have the ability to make a choice not to give into that urge.

soulsinging

AstroFan wrote:

I think the "3 paragraphs" are to clarify that it is in response to the people who implied that he was a terrible person because he went to her house with the thought of sex in his mind. If you ignore the context and just attack the quotes, it leads to 20 pages of miscommunication.

The arguments that:
1) He's a bad person for thinking sex was a likelihood
and
2) He's a bad person for what happened after the rejection

...are two different things.

I have not seen any person in this thread justify the non-rape that did(n't) happen, and I would not defend anybody if I thought they were defending something(that apparently didn't happen...) like that.

that's exactly what i was trying to say. the buts and ifs go to argument number 1, which is a bullshit argument.

Motown322

Heineken Helen wrote:

thank you... its been implied way too much in this thread.

Nobody's come out and said 'it makes not one bit of difference what she was wearing' and left it at that. It's all 'of course it doesn't matter what she was wearing... BUT...' and then followed by a further 3 paragraphs

Then what the fuck was she wearing? Her silence is deafening at this point. She also stated that Suitor #2 claimed she was "asking for it" because of the way she was dressed, which leads me to believe that she wasn't wearing baggy jeans and a XXL hoodie with a snow parka over it.

Look, rape is wrong. It's always wrong. Not respecting a "NO" is always wrong. But IMO, the OP put herself in a bad spot here. The dude was obviously out of line after taking 15 minutes to beg and plead after she said no, but I don't think it's out of line for him to assume this might've been a booty call.

Rygar

Heineken Helen wrote:

well since we MUST stick so implicitly to the original post apparently, what's that got to do with anything? Because her post suggested that her clothes WEREN'T like that at all.

What it has to do with anything is that most people here aren't saying, and haven't said, that if she was dressed provocatively it is a reasonable excuse for attempted rape or assault or whatever.
Most have speculated on potential dress in terms of where the guy got the idea she was interested.

Motown322

soulsinging wrote:

that's exactly what i was trying to say. the buts and ifs go to argument number 1, which is a bullshit argument.

Bingo.

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

well since we MUST stick so implicitly to the original post apparently, what's that got to do with anything? Because her post suggested that her clothes WEREN'T like that at all.

i felt her post suggested the opposite. she was evasive and only would say it was clothes she wore comfortably around the house, which could mean anything. it felt like she was trying to avoid an answer. if she had been wearing a ratty old sweatsuit, then she would have out and said that. and the fact that she drew special attention to him remarking on her clothes implies that there is something going on there she's not saying.

PJaddicted

That is why for my entire life, I've always had very BIG dogs as my constant companions, starting when I went away to college! No worries no matter who comes in your home. I was attacked when I was 14 by my group of so called friends, nothing happened because someone came and helped me....I learned very early on to not trust anyone.

oxc

Heineken Helen

Motown322 wrote:

Then what the fuck was she wearing? Her silence is deafening at this point. She also stated that Suitor #2 claimed she was "asking for it" because of the way she was dressed, which leads me to believe that she wasn't wearing baggy jeans and a XXL hoodie with a snow parka over it.

Look, rape is wrong. It's always wrong. Not respecting a "NO" is always wrong. But IMO, the OP put herself in a bad spot here. The dude was obviously out of line after taking 15 minutes to beg and plead after she said no, but I don't think it's out of line for him to assume this might've been a booty call.

We DON'T know... why is it ok for you lot to speculate and get completely carried away into a conversation on whether or not clothing matters in these cases.

I'm sorry but I still can't agree that you're not supposed to invite somebody over. And you never assume anything!

Heineken Helen

soulsinging wrote:

i felt her post suggested the opposite. she was evasive and only would say it was clothes she wore comfortably around the house, which could mean anything. it felt like she was trying to avoid an answer. if she had been wearing a ratty old sweatsuit, then she would have out and said that. and the fact that she drew special attention to him remarking on her clothes implies that there is something going on there she's not saying.

but you said it doesn't matter? That's what I don't get... you all imply that it doesn't matter what she wore at all... but yet you all really need to know what exactly she WAS wearing?

AllNiteThing

soulsinging wrote:

it's not stated, becos she disappeared after she said it. why? it makes a difference, becos as i've said, i suspect she WAS trying to look good and seduce the neighbor and just got cold feet. which is fine, she has every right and it does not excuse his behavior after she said no. but it does make his behavior a bit more understandable and it's certainly a far cry from the rape claim in the subject. it's also pretty fucked up and a big fuck you to REAL rape victims to claim rape when all that happened was she invited a guy over, had second thoughts about seducing him, and then he left. and the reason we don't know what she's wearing is becos she won't say, i suspect becos she would have to admit what really happened and it's easier on her guilt and embarrassment to blame him and claim he assaulted her than to admit she set up the situation and then backed out.

Exactly what I've been trying to say. This victim mentality is a slap in the face to the real victims. Sick attention whoring.

The Champ

Heineken Helen wrote:

I'm sorry but I still can't agree that you're not supposed to invite somebody over. And you never assume anything!

..and again, since we're going in circles..I think this is the difference between you and the majority in this thread. If 'someone' who is not your 'friend' is invited over to watch a movie as described in this scenerio, it's logical to presume that some romantic interlude is expected to occur and/or hope to develop. Doesn't necessarily mean that sex will take place, obviously. But unless both parties are dumb as fucking rocks, they both know full well what's going on. Of course when she says 'no' it should be over, but only because the sparks or what have you did not develop on her end..

AllNiteThing

Heineken Helen wrote:

I'm sorry but I still can't agree that you're not supposed to invite somebody over. And you never assume anything!

If you as a woman invite a strange man over to 'watch videos', you are assuming the risk of whatever moves he makes, right or wrong. It's not that you're 'not supposed to invite someone over', it's that 'you should use good judgement with whom you invite over and when'. Tish obviously didn't do this.

The Champ

AllNiteThing wrote:

If you as a woman invite a strange man over to 'watch videos', you are assuming the risk of whatever moves he makes, right or wrong. It's not that you're 'not supposed to invite someone over', it's that 'you should use good judgement with whom you invite over and when'. Tish obviously didn't do this.

This is so fucking dumb, why else would she invite this fucker(acquaintance) over? She can't be that stupid..

AllNiteThing

comebackgirl wrote:

Exactly why I said it's good judgment to avoid risky situations - clearly I understand our society is not a utopia or I would be out of a job I just think it's important to be clear on whose responsibility it is to avoid crime - it rests solely on the perp - not the victim. That's not to say one shouldn't be aware of risks and make efforts to avoid those risks - that's just good sound judgment. And biology is not an excuse to disregard someone's clear boundaries. Yes, we may have drives - we all do, but we also have the ability to make rational and informed choices. Rape and murder don't still exist because of biology - they exist because of choices to disregard the laws of society and to give into impulses. I may have an urge to eat a pint of cookie dough ice cream - but I also have the ability to make a choice not to give into that urge.

Yes, yes, it is yours and mine responsibility not to infringe on the right of others. Unfortunately, that excuse won't work as I'm getting knifed at 3am in the ghetto. 'But, but....what about rationality and informed choices?!?!'. I doubt the mugger would give 2 shits. I and you may have good decision making, but hoping that everyone else does, or expecting them to, does do us a whole lot of good, namely when around people we do not know, correct? Clearly biology is no excuse, in our society, but it does help to explain a root cause for actions and a template for understanding human behavior which can better serve our decision making. Or in this case, our ability to avoid negative situations.

Motown322

Heineken Helen wrote:

We DON'T know... why is it ok for you lot to speculate and get completely carried away into a conversation on whether or not clothing matters in these cases.

I'm sorry but I still can't agree that you're not supposed to invite somebody over. And you never assume anything!

Clothing doesn't matter in a rape case. Rape is 100% wrong and there's no "but" or justification for it. This was not a rape case. This is a case of someone getting the wrong impression and then acting like a douchebag after his advances were rebuffed. How did he get the wrong impression, though? We've been able to establish that she:

-- didn't know the guy very well.

-- invited him over to watch a movie (just the two of them)

and she may have been dressed in something other than a tracksuit.

You cannot defend or justify his actions after she told him no, but yo umay be able to understand his thoughts during the course of events leading up to it and what might've prompted him to get the idea that she was into him. THAT'S the root of the discussion here IMO.

Heineken Helen

AllNiteThing wrote:

Yes, yes, it is yours and mine responsibility not to infringe on the right of others. Unfortunately, that excuse won't work as I'm getting knifed at 3am in the ghetto. 'But, but....what about rationality and informed choices?!?!'. I doubt the mugger would give 2 shits. I and you may have good decision making, but hoping that everyone else does, or expecting them to, does do us a whole lot of good, namely when around people we do not know, correct? Clearly biology is no excuse, in our society, but it does help to explain a root cause for actions and a template for understanding human behavior which can better serve our decision making. Or in this case, our ability to avoid negative situations.

it doesn't make a bit of difference if you know them or not! How many times do I have to say this... so unless I go down the muslim route of refusing to be alone with a man at ALL... there's just no point.

comebackwoman

AllNiteThing wrote:

Yes, yes, it is yours and mine responsibility not to infringe on the right of others. Unfortunately, that excuse won't work as I'm getting knifed at 3am in the ghetto. 'But, but....what about rationality and informed choices?!?!'. I doubt the mugger would give 2 shits. I and you may have good decision making, but hoping that everyone else does, or expecting them to, does do us a whole lot of good, namely when around people we do not know, correct? Clearly biology is no excuse, in our society, but it does help to explain a root cause for actions and a template for understanding human behavior which can better serve our decision making. Or in this case, our ability to avoid negative situations.

We're talking about 2 different things here. Yes - we need to take steps to keep ourselves safer - but you can do everything right - you can take every possible step to keep yourself safe and that doesn't mean you won't be a victim - and it doesn't mean that if you make some poor choices that being a victim is your fault. Of course the mugger doesn't give 2 shits - but that doesn't mean he doesn't need to bear the responsibility, or that the victim is to blame, and it doesn't mean biology caused him to steal a car. It's one thing to understand root causes, it doesn't mean we hold people less responsible for breaking laws or violating rights.

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

I'm sorry but I still can't agree that you're not supposed to invite somebody over. And you never assume anything!

you are just about the ONLY person here who is stubbornly refusing to admit this sounds like a booty call. every american girl on here even thinks it sounds like it and is unsurprised that is how he saw it. but just to make sure, let me get this straight... you commonly call up guys you barely know late on lonely weekend nights and invite them over just to watch a movie alone with you?

Heineken Helen wrote:

but you said it doesn't matter? That's what I don't get... you all imply that it doesn't matter what she wore at all... but yet you all really need to know what exactly she WAS wearing?

jesus christ, has that liffy water made you brain dead? i have said it only matters depending on the situation. if you are saying he tried to rape or sexually harass her, no what she is wearing does not matter. that is wrong. if you are saying he is a bad person for thinking she invited him over for a booty call, then what she is wearing does matter in terms of how he got that impression. do you guys even know what a booty call is over there?

The Champ

Motown322 wrote:

You cannot defend or justify his actions after she told him no, but yo umay be able to understand his thoughts during the course of events leading up to it and what might've prompted him to get the idea that she was into him. THAT'S the root of the discussion here IMO.

According to her, he respected her "no's." I mean, in this cuddly 'movie time' scenerio, I would completely understand him saying something like 'come on, not even a fucking reach around or something?' Then maybe he was apologizing for the remainder of the 15 minutes..