22
23

Saw this for the first time today and immediately wanted to slap this girl in the face. (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by Kittenbean

all 39 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]y0rugly 16 points17 points ago

O.o As a lady, what the actual fuck did I just read? The girl who wrote that obviously has some serious deep-seeded issues if what someone is wearing provokes her to post something like that.

[–]Knight of /newyellownumberfive 2 points3 points ago

Smacks of saying the rape victim was asking for it.

[–]MPsai 2 points3 points ago

Even more bizarrely she seems to be saying all rape and sexual abuse is caused by any female dressing provocatively anywhere.

[–]Kittenbean[S] 2 points3 points ago

Welcome to small town Oklahoma. I deal with people like this on a daily basis. Mega Christian and mega retarded.

[–]Impalpable 0 points1 point ago

Tulsa/Marlow?

[–]Kittenbean[S] 0 points1 point ago

Nope, good old Washington. It's 15 minutes south of Norman.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Close to me. Thought it might be, because I swear I've heard this exact crap before.

[–]TotallyNotThatOneGuy 0 points1 point ago

Thank you for making my day, madame.

[–]Kittenbean[S] 1 point2 points ago

It's my job. Never a big deal.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

As a man who apparently can't control himself around ladies not dressed in burkas, what the fuck did I just read?

[–]rhymes_with_truck 9 points10 points ago

Yep, because women dressing immodestly is the reason rapes happen. It has nothing to do with violent people taking power over others. Nope, it's all about sexual lust and men being the beasts that we are, unable to control our collective urges to fuck everything with a vagina that shows a little skin.

Fuck that girl and her shitty opinions.

[–]sethpeck 2 points3 points ago

Agreed.

[–]rhymes_with_truck 0 points1 point ago

what the fuck am i reading

[–]sethpeck 0 points1 point ago

(work filter blocked...warn people on that!)

[–]y0rugly 1 point2 points ago

I'm not going to go get all "Deep" and shit - but I know several girls who were not "asking for it" when they were raped. They had on hoodies and jeans and were not flaunting anything. They were raped and it wasn't their fault... EDIT: just to add to the argument. Just because a girl dresses sexy doesn't mean she'll get raped.

[–]ResonatingConcrete 3 points4 points ago

As a human being... What in the name of Satan's flaming balls did I just read?

Apparently, the writer goes around handing tissues to people, who have been assaulted by men who saw girls wearing dresses and went home to rape their children and beat their wives, because, having a penis attached, they had no way of stopping themselves, because they were possessed either by the girls or their dresses, who are evil.

Right...

[–]armacitis 0 points1 point ago

That's silly.They were clearly possessed by penises.Just think of gay men,it makes sense doesn't it?

[–]ResonatingConcrete 1 point2 points ago

Now, now. I refuse to believe that the dresses are not the Ultimate Evil.

If they were possessed by penises, I bet those were gay-man penises who have become gay, because they were possessed by dresses and waited too long to exorcise the dress-spirit. I call a moment of silence in memory of all the penises converted to gay-ism by the Evil Dresses.

[–]mostlikelyatwork 2 points3 points ago

Her comment makes me want to cry. It makes me want to sit with the 19 year old when she speaks first about the fierce slapping she received every night after blaming a rape victim's "provocative style of dress" instead of the rapist. I wish I could sit with the 57-yr-old and hand her tissue after tissue, when her tears first come, as she explains the slapping she received when she said the girl had it coming. I wish you knew how your lack of human decency and the ability to think is driving the desire of everyone around you to slap the stupid right out of you.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

this.

[–]bluefootedpig 0 points1 point ago

Ah yes, because just like society teaches people to lock their houses and cars, and not "don't steal". (because let's face it, you can't stop a thief)

I was once walking up to this girl, just ready to rape her, then I remembered, oh yeah! I'm not suppose to do it, so I turned around and walked away. Good thing I was taught rape is bad, otherwise I might not have known that.

/end sarcasm

On a more serious note, do disagree with advise like lock your house? lock your car? that if someone leaves their car unlocked in the middle of the hood, and their breaks in, not a single drop of fault can be placed on the person who put the car there?

I am not saying to blame victims, I am saying we need to take responsibility. If that means carrying mace, it means carrying mace. If it means not jogging down the dark path at 2am, then that is what it means. I just fail to see how this logic of "don't commit a crime" actually achieves anything.

For me personally, when I am standing at my train stop at 10pm, I don't leave my bag out in the open. Why? because the train platform is a high theft area. Now I could just complain that thieves should know not to steal, or I can change my habits slightly to protect myself and keep the bag close-by or tied to me.

[–]bluejohnnyd 0 points1 point ago

Carrying mace and not being alone in dangerous neighborhoods are pretty far distant from wearing certain clothes and being open about sexuality. To further your analogy, if locking the house is equivalent to not being alone at night in a dangerous neighborhood, then what would be the home-security equivalent of a short-cut skirt? Big windows? Landscaping that suggests wealth and a juicy target for heist? At a certain point, the personal responsibility argument gets a little ridiculous.

[–]bluefootedpig 0 points1 point ago

well, we know that short skirts has nothing to do with rape, that the person is picking an easy target not by clothing or lust, but by ease of commit the crime.

But sure, if we want to take the analogy farther you can. A short-cut skirt might be yes, having a lexus in the driveway. While it doesn't force someone to steal, it does make that person a bigger target. Now if you couple that lexus with a home security system, gaurd dog, etc, the house is far less likely to be robbed, even with a lexus in the front.

Now take same lexus, and put it in the ghetto in front a house with no gate, no locks on any doors. What are the odds of being robbed?

This is actually a very basic human desire called signaling. Women who dress in short skirts are signaling a certain message to people. If you dress in a suit, you signal to everyone a different message than if you wear a T-shirt and jeans. We signal to ourselves, and we signal to those around us.

Think about it like this, let's change the analogy to mugging. Let's say you have a fancy watch, iphone, dressed in a suit, and you walk down an ally-way and you got mugged. Would you blame the victim for being mugged down an ally-way with bad lighting or blame the muggers? I would think you would blame the muggers, but at the same time kind of say, "well you shouldn't walk alone down an ally-way wearing wealth, odds are you will be mugged".

Likewise, someone rapped is a victim and the person who did the raping is a criminal, but that doesn't change that rape doesn't happen in town square. If you don't believe me, let's look up where rape happens and see how often it happens in a public area where 100+ people are present. I would imagine that the rate of rape drops when there are 100+ people around. Which makes sense, safety in numbers.

Again, I am not saying personal responsibility is 100% to blame for this, but to say 0% is just silly. To assume that walking alone, without mace, in the dark, down an ally that you can easily spot 5 guys checking you out is more than 0% blame. Just as if the 5 guys, rather than raping you mugged you, the question becomes do you give the same advise to both people.

[–]bluejohnnyd 0 points1 point ago

I'd be all for advocating caution, but the fact remains that a healthy majority of rapes - somewhere north of 60% - are perpetrated by people the victim knows, and something like 45% are perpetrated by people that the victim not only knows but considers friendly.

And you seem to be misunderstanding my analogy. My fault, I didn't clarify it well enough. When I compare rape to robbery, if clothes and behavior are the lawn ornaments and car in the driveway, then consent is the lock. A sufficiently motivated thief will bypass all but the most extreme security systems, just as a sufficiently motivated rapist will ignore consent and physically subdue his victim (even mace, without proper training in its use, is less effective than usually thought). The flaw in the analogy is that sex with consent is not a crime, whereas robbery of an unlocked house still is.

It's trivial to say that rape doesn't happen with witnesses around. Most crime happens out of the view of witnesses, of course it makes sense that rape would be no different. Where rape becomes unnerving is that most rapes happen in familiar, if not intimate settings (40% of rapes occur in the victim's home), and more often than not the victim knows the perp beforehand. This is even moreso the case with juvenile rape, where the victim knows the perpetrator something like 90% of the time.

I'd agree, if we want to play with numbers, that there is no complete elimination of the "could haves" or "should haves" on the victim's part, but it seems to me that suggesting that the victim's personal responsibility is anything more than negligible in the vast majority of cases is callous at best.

[–]bluefootedpig 0 points1 point ago

perhaps it is a bit callous, but I wouldn't call it negligible. Just like an insurance claim is invalidated if you left you car unlocked (which is not permission to rob / steal the car), I am only saying that there need be some responsibility to be aware of your situation.

Forced rape, aggressive, threatening, etc yes, all those rapes need to stop. But rape definition is not that strict. For instance, there was a recent video of a rape debate where the women said if a woman is having sex, and decides she isn't into it (maybe she already came), and as a man you continue, that is rape.

I don't know how often these scenarios happen, I only know that they do happen. Personally, I see the definition of rape as being far too loose. Personally, I think most crimes that you want to prosecute someone should be if physical harm came to you, or you lost a possession (such as in theft). If you made a bad decision, and have to pay the consequences of it, I do not see that as a crime. I have, against my better judgement, slept with a girl whom I really didn't care for, and really most likely did it to make her feel better. If I was a woman, this would have been considered rape by a friendly person. I call it a bad decision and I live with it everyday, the ruin of a friendship, the fallout, etc.

But I don't know, we seem to be somewhat on the same page, it is indeed sad so much rape is done by "friends", but until I get more information on that demographic, I must reserve my judgement that it is rape.

P.S. for a big example, just look at julian assange. For rape charges, he is being hunted down cross countries. I think it was naomi wolf that criticized it, saying that the fact she had sex with him, then cooked him breakfast, and had him sleep over the next 5 nights, kind of indicates that it wasn't rape.

[–]bluejohnnyd 0 points1 point ago

Rape isn't defined by anything other than sex without consent. Either partner can revoke consent at any point before or during the act, and if the other doesn't heed that, it becomes an immoral (and criminal) act. I'd agree that it's pointless semantics unless the then-victim actually does something to communicate this reversal, but to say that rape can't happen because sex has been initiated, or steps towards sex have been taken, is to strike a blow against the right to personal autonomy for the sake of an ill-supported claim of personal responsibility.

Physical harm and loss or damage of property don't constitute all of crime. Imposition on another's autonomy, such as in rape and kidnapping, are also crimes as well and for good reason. I don't think your situation would have been rape - rape does not mean sex that has fallout or consequences. Rape is sex that happens without the permission of, or against the will of one of the participants. As soon as consent is revoked for the act of sex to happen, and as soon as that revocation is ignored, it becomes rape; the line is really quite stark.

[–]bluefootedpig 0 points1 point ago

But the question you raise is what is considered revoked? If the person appears to not be in it... is that rejecting? According to "enthusiastic" sex or something like that, it is rape. No words need to be exchanged, if the person doesn't appear to be into it, then it is rape.

So what is considered being revoked?

As far as rape being defined as anything other than sex without consent is very vague, seeing how it is extremely rare that consent is every verbally given. There is a lot of implied consent, like if you touch a person between their legs and they don't move your hand or say no, then you assume it is okay. But in reality, the person never gave consent. They never said anything, quite literally. So you must read the implied consent. Under rape law, this is still rape.

[–]bluejohnnyd 0 points1 point ago

I would argue that implied consent should be something that we as a culture try to make rare. As it stands, it's messy and complicated, moreso than it needs be.

As to what is considered being revoked, I thought I'd made that clear. Words like "no" or "stop," for instance. Communication. I don't think it's reasonable to think that implied communication is reliable enough to make convictions out of, but that's why I think implied consent is a load of huey.

[–]itismedamnit 0 points1 point ago

...I just... I don't even... no words.

[–]Lan777 0 points1 point ago

None of what she said is nearly as malignant as her implication that she not only knows the innermost thoughtsmof people she has never met while thinking that she is already better than them.

[–]_XxDerpyHoovesxX_ 0 points1 point ago

I can't bring myself to finish reading it.

[–]JohnWL 0 points1 point ago

Fuck all of this. This is such a sick way of thinking. Fucking sick.

[–]superfes 1 point2 points ago

I didn't know where it was going until it wasn't my fault, then I was okay with it...

Seriously though... is she Muslim or something?

[–]Kittenbean[S] 2 points3 points ago

Not Muslim, just an extremely over the top Christian.

[–]mycatismygod 0 points1 point ago

I've always thought that this type of argument is actually highly offensive to men rather than women, even though it is stated as the opposite. It assumes that all men are rapists just barely in control of themselves.

[–]gus2144 0 points1 point ago

Mormon isn't she?

[–]chakolate 0 points1 point ago

Sorry about my previous response - I was responding to a different post.

Dog I miss my mind sometimes.

[–]boardin1 1 point2 points ago

It pisses me off that she is implying that I'm only an animal that can't control my sexual urges and that only by covering her skin can she hope to contain the beast within me.

Fuck You!

[–]dwella 1 point2 points ago

What in blazing fucks was that? This kind of emphasizes to me why I have so few female friends - it's hard to find ones who don't have that disgusting slut shaming mentality. Obvs this girl is NOT representative of the female mindset, but there is far too much of this modesty bullshit going around these days. Dress how you want, act how you want, fuck who you want, but don't act like what you do (or don't do) somehow makes you better than other people.