Do women ask to be sexually harrassed/assaulted?

[Zephie]

No, these have no merit whatsoever. The idea of blaming the victim is idiotic.

1. Woman dresses provocatively (but she doesn't want to arouse men!)
2. Man can't help himself, decides to get verbal or touchy
3. IT'S THE MAN'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

That situation is equal to the following:

1. Offer cookie to dog (but you don't want the dog to eat the cookie!)
2. Dog can't help himself, decides to eat the cookie
3. IT'S THE DOG'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

So men are dogs, not human beings capable of rational judgment and self control?

Apparently. Woof -scratches side with foot-

[Muravyets]

Also, lol @ all the feminists and women in this thread resorting to insults and lame jokes because they can't refute my point.

Anyone care to attack my point with logic, not emotion?

Your point appeared to be that women cause sexual harassment and rape and deserve it for daring to make themselves visible in front of men. Do you really want that to be addressed?

[Muravyets]

If being ferociously annoyed to see people eat packets of crisps in public was a well-spread and well-known phenomenon, then yes, it was my fault.

so, it is your contention that all men are rapists at heart?

[Dimoniquid]

If being ferociously annoyed to see people eat packets of crisps in public was a well-spread and well-known phenomenon, then yes, it was my fault.

so, it is your contention that all men are rapists at heart?

Apparently God is in all of us. I think that might make him one.

[Zephie]

Also, lol @ all the feminists and women in this thread resorting to insults and lame jokes because they can't refute my point.

Anyone care to attack my point with logic, not emotion?

Your point appeared to be that women cause sexual harassment and rape and deserve it for daring to make themselves visible in front of men. Do you really want that to be addressed?

Maybe he is misunderstood and means women that dress provocatively have an increased chance of being assaulted by degenerate men who can't control their urges. Equivalent to walking through a bad neighborhood with your wallet sticking out bulging with money.

[Galloism]

No, these have no merit whatsoever. The idea of blaming the victim is idiotic.

1. Woman dresses provocatively (but she doesn't want to arouse men!)
2. Man can't help himself, decides to get verbal or touchy
3. IT'S THE MAN'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

That situation is equal to the following:

1. Offer cookie to dog (but you don't want the dog to eat the cookie!)
2. Dog can't help himself, decides to eat the cookie
3. IT'S THE DOG'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

So men are dogs, not human beings capable of rational judgment and self control?

Of course.

*slaps your ass*

Sorry. I can't control myself.

[Bottle]

Also, lol @ all the feminists and women in this thread resorting to insults and lame jokes because they can't refute my point.

Anyone care to attack my point with logic, not emotion?

Your point appeared to be that women cause sexual harassment and rape and deserve it for daring to make themselves visible in front of men. Do you really want that to be addressed?

Maybe he is misunderstood and means women that dress provocatively have an increased chance of being assaulted by degenerate men who can't control their urges. Equivalent to walking through a bad neighborhood with your wallet sticking out bulging with money.

Women who "dress provocatively" aren't any more or less likely to be assaulted. That's just a myth that is used to make women responsible for rape.

[Muravyets]

Also, lol @ all the feminists and women in this thread resorting to insults and lame jokes because they can't refute my point.

Anyone care to attack my point with logic, not emotion?

Your point was that men are dogs. I think the people in this thread who might find offense with your shit argument are the men.

That was not my point at all. Please kindly remove yourself from any future intellectual debates. No offense.

Sorry. I can't control myself around shit arguments. It gets me all angry and I lose control and viciously assault the people who make them. It's your fault, really, for making such a shit argument.

Sorry, but I'm just going to ignore you from now on. You're calling my arguments 'shitty', yet you're incapable of refuting a single one of them. I rest my case.

You may have rested it with your first post. It was never anything but a justification for rape by claiming that all men are inherently rapists and when women get sexually assaulted it is their own fault for existing in their presence. That argument is so universally offensive to both sexes and also so obviously false as a matter of fact that it was basically dead from the start.

If being ferociously annoyed to see people eat packets of crisps in public was a well-spread and well-known phenomenon, then yes, it was my fault.

It's the 1930s in Germany, and I have an incredible urge to violently attack Jews. Does that mean when I beat your head in for wearing the Star of David it's your fault?

If you go outside on the streets as a jew in the 1930's you can expect the get the shit beaten out of you, yes.

And now the Holocaust was the Jews' fault for being Jews when Germany decided to turn on them? I think we know all we need to know about you at this point. Thanks, bye.

Who's next?

[Bottle]

No, these have no merit whatsoever. The idea of blaming the victim is idiotic.

1. Woman dresses provocatively (but she doesn't want to arouse men!)
2. Man can't help himself, decides to get verbal or touchy
3. IT'S THE MAN'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

That situation is equal to the following:

1. Offer cookie to dog (but you don't want the dog to eat the cookie!)
2. Dog can't help himself, decides to eat the cookie
3. IT'S THE DOG'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

So men are dogs, not human beings capable of rational judgment and self control?

Dogs can be trained to obey the word "no" with very little difficulty. A more valid comparison might be gerbils or other small rodents which do not respond to verbal commands.

[Yootwopia]

Relevant

[Muravyets]

It is smiple. KEEP IT YOUR PANT UNTIL INVITED!

It seems so obvious, doesn't it? And yet, here we are, having to debate about it. Scary.

[Muravyets]

No, these have no merit whatsoever. The idea of blaming the victim is idiotic.

1. Woman dresses provocatively (but she doesn't want to arouse men!)
2. Man can't help himself, decides to get verbal or touchy
3. IT'S THE MAN'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

That situation is equal to the following:

1. Offer cookie to dog (but you don't want the dog to eat the cookie!)
2. Dog can't help himself, decides to eat the cookie
3. IT'S THE DOG'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

So men are dogs, not human beings capable of rational judgment and self control?

Of course.

*slaps your ass*

Sorry. I can't control myself.

*punches you in the balls*

It's the Geniasis Plan.

[Great Nepal]

Some womans do dress too provocatively and calls for the harassment herself - but I dont say they deserve rape or something like it - but if she calls for harassment herself, she gets it. There is a difference from fashion and provocative behavior or provocative dress.

I absolutely agree.

'Cause when I'm sitting on the train in 98 degree heat, sweating out the weight of a small child from the humidity, in a tank top and short shorts because I don't think my body can take a core temperature of 105 degrees for longer than 8 hours, absolutely the only thought running through my head is "damn I wish that guy staring down my shirt would grab my tits!"

105 degrees? Are you from earth or mercury?

[Muravyets]

No, these have no merit whatsoever. The idea of blaming the victim is idiotic.

1. Woman dresses provocatively (but she doesn't want to arouse men!)
2. Man can't help himself, decides to get verbal or touchy
3. IT'S THE MAN'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

That situation is equal to the following:

1. Offer cookie to dog (but you don't want the dog to eat the cookie!)
2. Dog can't help himself, decides to eat the cookie
3. IT'S THE DOG'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

So men are dogs, not human beings capable of rational judgment and self control?

Dogs can be trained to obey the word "no" with very little difficulty. A more valid comparison might be gerbils or other small rodents which do not respond to verbal commands.

I see. Men are gerbils. *has that printed on a coffee mug so I won't forget*

I suppose it's a step up from when they were toasters.

[Blitzkrenia]

Some womans do dress too provocatively and calls for the harassment herself - but I dont say they deserve rape or something like it - but if she calls for harassment herself, she gets it. There is a difference from fashion and provocative behavior or provocative dress.

I absolutely agree.

'Cause when I'm sitting on the train in 98 degree heat, sweating out the weight of a small child from the humidity, in a tank top and short shorts because I don't think my body can take a core temperature of 105 degrees for longer than 8 hours, absolutely the only thought running through my head is "damn I wish that guy staring down my shirt would grab my tits!"

105 degrees? Are you from earth or mercury?

Fahrenheit. Still a bit high, though, unless one was to have a fever.

[Illithar]

No, these have no merit whatsoever. The idea of blaming the victim is idiotic.

1. Woman dresses provocatively (but she doesn't want to arouse men!)
2. Man can't help himself, decides to get verbal or touchy
3. IT'S THE MAN'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

That situation is equal to the following:

1. Offer cookie to dog (but you don't want the dog to eat the cookie!)
2. Dog can't help himself, decides to eat the cookie
3. IT'S THE DOG'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

So men are dogs, not human beings capable of rational judgment and self control?

Dogs can be trained to obey the word "no" with very little difficulty. A more valid comparison might be gerbils or other small rodents which do not respond to verbal commands.

I see. Men are gerbils. *has that printed on a coffee mug so I won't forget*

Men are not gerbils. Adagar is a gerbil. Men are capable of understanding the difference between yes and no.

Proving that Adagar is not a true man.

[Bottle]

No, these have no merit whatsoever. The idea of blaming the victim is idiotic.

1. Woman dresses provocatively (but she doesn't want to arouse men!)
2. Man can't help himself, decides to get verbal or touchy
3. IT'S THE MAN'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

That situation is equal to the following:

1. Offer cookie to dog (but you don't want the dog to eat the cookie!)
2. Dog can't help himself, decides to eat the cookie
3. IT'S THE DOG'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

So men are dogs, not human beings capable of rational judgment and self control?

Dogs can be trained to obey the word "no" with very little difficulty. A more valid comparison might be gerbils or other small rodents which do not respond to verbal commands.

I see. Men are gerbils. *has that printed on a coffee mug so I won't forget*

I suppose it's a step up from when they were toasters.

I just find it amusing that we currently have another front-page thread in which men are complaining about how FEMINISTS are responsible for the fact that it is more "acceptable" for a woman to hit a man than vice versa, while in this thread we have a host of anti-feminist men arguing that men are equivalent to dogs who, presumably, can be effectively trained to behave by thwacking them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

[Zephie]

Also, lol @ all the feminists and women in this thread resorting to insults and lame jokes because they can't refute my point.

Anyone care to attack my point with logic, not emotion?

Your point appeared to be that women cause sexual harassment and rape and deserve it for daring to make themselves visible in front of men. Do you really want that to be addressed?

Maybe he is misunderstood and means women that dress provocatively have an increased chance of being assaulted by degenerate men who can't control their urges. Equivalent to walking through a bad neighborhood with your wallet sticking out bulging with money.

Women who "dress provocatively" aren't any more or less likely to be assaulted. That's just a myth that is used to make women responsible for rape.

Uh ok? Please don't put words in my mouth.

[Bottle]

Also, lol @ all the feminists and women in this thread resorting to insults and lame jokes because they can't refute my point.

Anyone care to attack my point with logic, not emotion?

Your point appeared to be that women cause sexual harassment and rape and deserve it for daring to make themselves visible in front of men. Do you really want that to be addressed?

Maybe he is misunderstood and means women that dress provocatively have an increased chance of being assaulted by degenerate men who can't control their urges. Equivalent to walking through a bad neighborhood with your wallet sticking out bulging with money.

Women who "dress provocatively" aren't any more or less likely to be assaulted. That's just a myth that is used to make women responsible for rape.

Uh ok? Please don't put words in my mouth.

I think if you read more carefully you will find that I didn't put anything in your mouth.

[Muravyets]

No, these have no merit whatsoever. The idea of blaming the victim is idiotic.

1. Woman dresses provocatively (but she doesn't want to arouse men!)
2. Man can't help himself, decides to get verbal or touchy
3. IT'S THE MAN'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

That situation is equal to the following:

1. Offer cookie to dog (but you don't want the dog to eat the cookie!)
2. Dog can't help himself, decides to eat the cookie
3. IT'S THE DOG'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

So men are dogs, not human beings capable of rational judgment and self control?

Dogs can be trained to obey the word "no" with very little difficulty. A more valid comparison might be gerbils or other small rodents which do not respond to verbal commands.

I see. Men are gerbils. *has that printed on a coffee mug so I won't forget*

I suppose it's a step up from when they were toasters.

I just find it amusing that we currently have another front-page thread in which men are complaining about how FEMINISTS are responsible for the fact that it is more "acceptable" for a woman to hit a man than vice versa, while in this thread we have a host of anti-feminist men arguing that men are equivalent to dogs who, presumably, can be effectively trained to behave by thwacking them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Nah, it's an entirely consistent world view. Everyone knows it's mean to beat up a dog. Just ask the ASPCA.

It's also consistent in its "blame the wimminz for everything" theme.

[Illithar]

No, these have no merit whatsoever. The idea of blaming the victim is idiotic.

1. Woman dresses provocatively (but she doesn't want to arouse men!)
2. Man can't help himself, decides to get verbal or touchy
3. IT'S THE MAN'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

That situation is equal to the following:

1. Offer cookie to dog (but you don't want the dog to eat the cookie!)
2. Dog can't help himself, decides to eat the cookie
3. IT'S THE DOG'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

So men are dogs, not human beings capable of rational judgment and self control?

Dogs can be trained to obey the word "no" with very little difficulty. A more valid comparison might be gerbils or other small rodents which do not respond to verbal commands.

I see. Men are gerbils. *has that printed on a coffee mug so I won't forget*

I suppose it's a step up from when they were toasters.

I just find it amusing that we currently have another front-page thread in which men are complaining about how FEMINISTS are responsible for the fact that it is more "acceptable" for a woman to hit a man than vice versa, while in this thread we have a host of anti-feminist men arguing that men are equivalent to dogs who, presumably, can be effectively trained to behave by thwacking them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Actually, I think just the one idiot was saying that. I also think he left the thread.

[Skibereen]

You read the question, allow me to elaborate.

It is the thought of many that younger girls who dress scantily and provocatively are inviting harrassment and other unwanted contact upon them. In other words, if the girls didn't dress this way, they wouldn't find themself in that predicament. The same could also be said about their carriage, if them acted decently, modestly, no unwanted contact would be thrust upon them either.

Thoughts NSG? I reckon these theories have merit, but certainly aren't the answer.

1. What do you mean by "younger"? Given the level of open pedophilia on General that question is asked in total seriousness.

2. Harassment and Contact are not synonymous.
Yes I believe many women invite:looking, cat calling, and attention.
I also believe there is only one way to invite "Contact" and that is to actually consensually invite it, no manner of dress or projected attitude is an invitation for anyone to reach out and touch a woman. If by some chance you have misread the signals then once its made clear---you misread the signals, move the fuck on.

As to this nonsense about rational judgment--its completely rational to give attention to provocatively clad women. it not rational to act and dress in a way that draws attention then be abashed when it is received.

But we cant just paw someone over unless we KNOW we've been invited to do so, and if it turns that invitation wasn't real...deal with it and move the fuck on.

There is never justification for rape. And if people equate the words "attention" and "harassment" with rape then you need serious mental help. Since you clearly think unwanted attention or bad manners is far worse a thing then what it is, or you think rape much less horrible then what it is either way--youre sick in the head.

On a side note, in everything I have read on the subject- provocative dress isnt a common denominator for rape victims. So no, rapists look for victims not sluts--they arent asking they are taking. Normal horny guys look for sluts, because regardless of bad manners they are still ultimately ASKING.

[Bottle]

No, these have no merit whatsoever. The idea of blaming the victim is idiotic.

1. Woman dresses provocatively (but she doesn't want to arouse men!)
2. Man can't help himself, decides to get verbal or touchy
3. IT'S THE MAN'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

That situation is equal to the following:

1. Offer cookie to dog (but you don't want the dog to eat the cookie!)
2. Dog can't help himself, decides to eat the cookie
3. IT'S THE DOG'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

So men are dogs, not human beings capable of rational judgment and self control?

Dogs can be trained to obey the word "no" with very little difficulty. A more valid comparison might be gerbils or other small rodents which do not respond to verbal commands.

I see. Men are gerbils. *has that printed on a coffee mug so I won't forget*

I suppose it's a step up from when they were toasters.

I just find it amusing that we currently have another front-page thread in which men are complaining about how FEMINISTS are responsible for the fact that it is more "acceptable" for a woman to hit a man than vice versa, while in this thread we have a host of anti-feminist men arguing that men are equivalent to dogs who, presumably, can be effectively trained to behave by thwacking them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Actually, I think just the one idiot was saying that. I also think he left the thread.

I count at least four in the first two pages.

[Muravyets]

Also, lol @ all the feminists and women in this thread resorting to insults and lame jokes because they can't refute my point.

Anyone care to attack my point with logic, not emotion?

Your point appeared to be that women cause sexual harassment and rape and deserve it for daring to make themselves visible in front of men. Do you really want that to be addressed?

Maybe he is misunderstood and means women that dress provocatively have an increased chance of being assaulted by degenerate men who can't control their urges. Equivalent to walking through a bad neighborhood with your wallet sticking out bulging with money.

Women who "dress provocatively" aren't any more or less likely to be assaulted. That's just a myth that is used to make women responsible for rape.

Uh ok? Please don't put words in my mouth.

She was not attributing that argument to you. She was pointing it out as the flaw in that argument (which is often made by other people). The facts are that mode of dress has no affect on actual occurrences of rape or harassment. Neither do such factors as location or activity at the time of the assault. Many decades of sex crime statistics show this. The persistent common belief that being sexy increases the risk of being sexually assaulted is a myth that is mostly invoked as a knee-jerk "blame the victim" response. So even if Agadar did believe that, he'd still be wrong and still be blaming women for rape.

Further, I think Agadar's subsequent posts proved pretty clearly that my first interpretation was the correct one.

[Illithar]

No, these have no merit whatsoever. The idea of blaming the victim is idiotic.

1. Woman dresses provocatively (but she doesn't want to arouse men!)
2. Man can't help himself, decides to get verbal or touchy
3. IT'S THE MAN'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

That situation is equal to the following:

1. Offer cookie to dog (but you don't want the dog to eat the cookie!)
2. Dog can't help himself, decides to eat the cookie
3. IT'S THE DOG'S FAULT! ARREST HIM!

So men are dogs, not human beings capable of rational judgment and self control?

Dogs can be trained to obey the word "no" with very little difficulty. A more valid comparison might be gerbils or other small rodents which do not respond to verbal commands.

I see. Men are gerbils. *has that printed on a coffee mug so I won't forget*

I suppose it's a step up from when they were toasters.

I just find it amusing that we currently have another front-page thread in which men are complaining about how FEMINISTS are responsible for the fact that it is more "acceptable" for a woman to hit a man than vice versa, while in this thread we have a host of anti-feminist men arguing that men are equivalent to dogs who, presumably, can be effectively trained to behave by thwacking them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Actually, I think just the one idiot was saying that. I also think he left the thread.

I count at least four in the first two pages.

I was talking about comparing men's level of self-control to that of a dog, an argument I find to be gross and offensive.