SlutWalk
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
The question isn't a matter of whether or not the girl is at fault for being an idiot. Being an idiot is being an idiot. If she want's to dress provocatively, that's fine. What the girl's fault REALLY is.... Not bringing enough of a protection. It's everyone's right to dress as they like and I'm just as opposed to guys walking around naked as girls - it just shows indignity and decay in social order. It's completely the rapist's fault, but that doesn't change the fact that the victim is still being an idiot.
If someone is going to act in a way which is innocently provocative in which there is potential risk, there should also be carried a means to defend against that risk. Eg, something along the lines of a gun. If you want your rights, you must be prepared to defend them even if it means imprisonment or the death of someone else/yourself.
Just as I walk around with my computer in unsafe conditions in a backpack, I'm always lightly armed within legal limits so that I at least have a chance to fight back and defend my rights.
The same should go for girls who dress provocatively.
If someone is going to act in a way which is innocently provocative in which there is potential risk, there should also be carried a means to defend against that risk. Eg, something along the lines of a gun. If you want your rights, you must be prepared to defend them even if it means imprisonment or the death of someone else/yourself.
Just as I walk around with my computer in unsafe conditions in a backpack, I'm always lightly armed within legal limits so that I at least have a chance to fight back and defend my rights.
The same should go for girls who dress provocatively.
I do not. Judging that rights are a very valuable thing. From a pragmatic point of view, as idealistic as it is to believe that society's institutions can protect you at all times, ultimately there must be times where you must take it upon yourself to ensure your own safety. Civil order cannot stop all threats, prevent all crimes.
People throw around the word "rights" too lightly and forget that ultimately rights are defended upon the premise that one will devote themselves to the protection of their rights. It was a line of thought most prevalent in America for the longest time. People had the right to defend themselves because rights are precious and not something to be thrown around without consideration. As much as we want to drive civil society to it's absolute limit at times - there is no way to completely prevent danger and problems in society, as the number of civil protectors in comparison to people are simply too out of touch in ratio, and too expensive to keep raising those numbers.
If you want your rights, you must be prepared to live, fight, and die for them. That is the true essence of what it is to be a right, and it is a principle that society once revered, only now to have fallen back into a line where they believe it is best for society to protect everyone - which is logistically impossible.
I think from a highly pragmatic point of view. Therefore your idealistic attempt to challenge what I'm saying is irrelevant.
There is a time where logic and rationality must prevail. Where pragmatism has it's day.
Life is dangerous, and unless you are wealthy and in a highly closed off, well accounted for area - you are at a higher rate of risk by default. You can never really predict the reasoning and the intentions of others. The saying we all learned as kids not to trust strangers - it still holds true even as we are adults.
In short. Those who will not defend their rights and will throw themselves at someone to protect those rights for them..... Unfortunately do not deserve them.
People throw around the word "rights" too lightly and forget that ultimately rights are defended upon the premise that one will devote themselves to the protection of their rights. It was a line of thought most prevalent in America for the longest time. People had the right to defend themselves because rights are precious and not something to be thrown around without consideration. As much as we want to drive civil society to it's absolute limit at times - there is no way to completely prevent danger and problems in society, as the number of civil protectors in comparison to people are simply too out of touch in ratio, and too expensive to keep raising those numbers.
If you want your rights, you must be prepared to live, fight, and die for them. That is the true essence of what it is to be a right, and it is a principle that society once revered, only now to have fallen back into a line where they believe it is best for society to protect everyone - which is logistically impossible.
I think from a highly pragmatic point of view. Therefore your idealistic attempt to challenge what I'm saying is irrelevant.
There is a time where logic and rationality must prevail. Where pragmatism has it's day.
Life is dangerous, and unless you are wealthy and in a highly closed off, well accounted for area - you are at a higher rate of risk by default. You can never really predict the reasoning and the intentions of others. The saying we all learned as kids not to trust strangers - it still holds true even as we are adults.
In short. Those who will not defend their rights and will throw themselves at someone to protect those rights for them..... Unfortunately do not deserve them.
Ok, let's take this a step further then. Suppose all women dresses provocatively. Then they should all carry guns, no? Then what about men? Surely they should all carry guns as well, there's no reason not to. Then you have a bunch of people running around with guns. What does that change? And is that truly better?
Self defence . I agree with that 100%.
I have three more things to add in this debate. And i am done.
A woman in a long skirt is just as easy to force sex on than a woman in a short skirt, as is a woman in baggy jeans vs hot pants, as is a woman in a t-shirt vs a low-cut top.
The clothes women wear do not make them less able to defend against an assault, nor do they prevent them from taking other, more realistic safety precautions such as not being alone while out at night.
Second, all this rhetoric goes on the baseless assumption that the more attractively a woman dresses, the more likely it is a rapist will target her.
This is simply not true.
Rape is about power and is most often done when it is convenient, as most victims are raped by people they know or who already have some sort of power over them.
Third, everyone seems to be forgetting that sometimes women dress provocatively because the DO want to attract attention – of the consentual kind.
Blaming the woman for wanting to look attractive is like blaming a store owner for having such nice and expensive things in his store, after the store is subject to an armed robbery. Clearly the owner should cover up and hide all the nice things so no one wants to steal them.
And i leave you two. To continue ..with love <3
I have three more things to add in this debate. And i am done.
A woman in a long skirt is just as easy to force sex on than a woman in a short skirt, as is a woman in baggy jeans vs hot pants, as is a woman in a t-shirt vs a low-cut top.
The clothes women wear do not make them less able to defend against an assault, nor do they prevent them from taking other, more realistic safety precautions such as not being alone while out at night.
Second, all this rhetoric goes on the baseless assumption that the more attractively a woman dresses, the more likely it is a rapist will target her.
This is simply not true.
Rape is about power and is most often done when it is convenient, as most victims are raped by people they know or who already have some sort of power over them.
Third, everyone seems to be forgetting that sometimes women dress provocatively because the DO want to attract attention – of the consentual kind.
Blaming the woman for wanting to look attractive is like blaming a store owner for having such nice and expensive things in his store, after the store is subject to an armed robbery. Clearly the owner should cover up and hide all the nice things so no one wants to steal them.
And i leave you two. To continue ..with love <3
Referencing the 1930's the rate of sporadic, violent crime was significantly lower due to everyone and their mother being armed.
It however led to an increased rise in the potential of organized crime - which was more geared toward fighting each other than harming citizens outside of their battles, and it often engaged in battles with police. The risk factors change completely when you factor in everyone is armed, as that means you can die at any point if you are attempting a crime, making said crime completely worthless and without gain.
More or less you exchange one type of crime for another. I'd prefer organized crime being battled by police over sporadic crime which can happen at any moment in an unpredictable fashion. I'm currently seeking references to push the point, as I remembered learning about this in history class.
It however led to an increased rise in the potential of organized crime - which was more geared toward fighting each other than harming citizens outside of their battles, and it often engaged in battles with police. The risk factors change completely when you factor in everyone is armed, as that means you can die at any point if you are attempting a crime, making said crime completely worthless and without gain.
More or less you exchange one type of crime for another. I'd prefer organized crime being battled by police over sporadic crime which can happen at any moment in an unpredictable fashion. I'm currently seeking references to push the point, as I remembered learning about this in history class.
