Women should dress modestly or expect to 'entice a rapist...'

[Asclepias]

Street whores have the highest vulnerability of rape, and they are NOT attractive. Also, there is no NEED to rape them, but yet, they are raped frequently, more so than other group. Why? Because they are vulnerable, not because they are attractive.

And available.

 

[Asclepias]

When you use POWER to overpower a person to take what you want, what would you call that? That is not "sexual gratification."

Thats a lie. I explained to you that younger women were more available than older women.

You didn't 'explain' anything. You made up a story that you couldn't back with evidence and didn't make the slightest sense. Women age 18 to 24 make up about 3% of the population but 21% of rape victims. Women over 50 make up 12.5% of the population but make up less than 3% of rape victims.

Meaning that a woman who is 18 to 21 is 25 times more likely to be raped than a woman over 50.

And women 18 to 21 aren't '25 times more available' than women over 50. Your entire argument is nonsense, backed by nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Nor can you explain why only ONE motivation can effect behavior. Why can't a rapist be into power.....and large breasted women? There's absolutely no reason that it can't both. Or more than just those two. A myriad of reasons could motivate any given rapist. And effect his behavior.

But you pretend that it can only be one motivation that influences behavior, ever. That's nonsense. There's no such mandate. There's absolutely no reason a rapist couldn't be motivated by more than one thing. You merely imagine a factually baseless cartoon character born of your imagination and assumption......and then demand that reality conform to it.

Um, no. As women 18 to 21 being 25 times more likely to be rape victims demonstrates, you playing pretend that sexual attraction plays no role in a rapist choosing his victim doesn't mean a thing. And protects no one.

Even if it does, that doesn't really mean anything. Like I said, some men find FEET attractive. A lot of rapists are probably more apt to go after the most VULNERABLE person, not the most attractive one.

Some men are into feet. Most aren't. We'r speaking of probability and risk. That A man is attracted to feet doesn't mean that most are.

And vulnerability surely plays a role. But as rape victims being the youngest on average of victims of any major violent crime, its not the only role. If it were then old folks homes would be a rapist hunting ground.

Why is it so hard to accept that sexual attraction would be one of the motivating factors in how a rapist chooses his victims? And why couldn't a rapist have more than one motivation? Why must it be ONE and only one that effects behavior? It isn't for virtually any other human activity. Why must it be for rape?

Its evident you dont understand power is the motivating factor no matter what way the results of that factor may manifest itself. Its pretty simple. "I want to force you. You cant stop me." Thats power not sex.

Its obvious you can't explain why a rapist can't be into power....and red heads. Why other motivations can't effect behavior. You assume that it can ONLY be power that influences behavior.....but you can't explain why. Or why it must be mutually exclusive.

You typing your assumptions. Assumptions backed by nothing. Not even an explanation. Let alone evidence to back it.

And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that women 18 to 21 are 25 times more 'available' than women over 50. Because they're 25 times more likely to be raped than women over 50.

I can explain that but thats not the point. The point is that rape is about power not red hair.

 

[Ravi]

Street whores have the highest vulnerability of rape, and they are NOT attractive. Also, there is no NEED to rape them, but yet, they are raped frequently, more so than other group. Why? Because they are vulnerable, not because they are attractive.

They probably don't press charges to a large extent, either.

 

[Skylar]

Not just the same root cause. But that one and only one motivation can ever effect behavior, regardless of the circumstances, person, or context. Always and every time without exception.

A rapist can't be sexually attracted to any woman, can't have any preferences, can't prefer anything. His sole motivation that effects behavior is his desire for power. Why motivations have to be perfectly pristine and absolute has never been explained. Why couldn't a rapist have a thing for power....and red heads?

There has never been a compelling reason to explain it. Worse, if rapists were genuinely void of any sexual attraction to related women to an almost ludicrous degree. With 21% of all rape victims being between 18 and 21 years of age. Those 3 years represent a full 1/5th of all rapes. While women over 50 make up less than 3%. All of them.

When asked to explain this wild contradiction to their assumptions......they've got nothing.

In no other context would we so glibly accept such cartoon caricatures and absolutist thinking as valid. But when it comes to rape, some people just shut down parts of their brain and embrace the cartoon. As if by pretending that rapists can possess only one possible motivation.....that they're magically bound to the stereotype.

Um, no. They're not. And pretending otherwise doesn't protect any woman.

Hello? I do believe I "had something" regarding the age. Young women get raped more often because they are more vulnerable. More likely to take risks, more likely to have lower confidence, more likely to find themselves in situations where they are acting stupidly.

Older women are far more vulnerable. Hell, if vulnerability were your standard....old folks homes would be a rapist hell hole. But they aren't. Rape is extremely rare there, despite a bonanza of your assumption of causation.

And if were merely vulnerability and bad decision making, then why aren't young women equally represented in all other major forms of violent crime? Why is rape *specifically* have victims of the youngest age on average? Murder, assault, robbery, all skew much older.

But rape skews young. If 'vulnerability' were the basis, then all other forms of violent crime would skew as young. But they don't.

You can keep making up elaborate and baseless narratives backed by jack shit to explain away the mountains of evidence contradicting you. Or you can acknowledge the obvious:

that sexual attraction plays a role in how rapists pick their victims.

Persons 18-24 are also the most vulnerable for homicide, as well as other crimes.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 off enders per 100,000.

Not just the same root cause. But that one and only one motivation can ever effect behavior, regardless of the circumstances, person, or context. Always and every time without exception.

A rapist can't be sexually attracted to any woman, can't have any preferences, can't prefer anything. His sole motivation that effects behavior is his desire for power. Why motivations have to be perfectly pristine and absolute has never been explained. Why couldn't a rapist have a thing for power....and red heads?

There has never been a compelling reason to explain it. Worse, if rapists were genuinely void of any sexual attraction to related women to an almost ludicrous degree. With 21% of all rape victims being between 18 and 21 years of age. Those 3 years represent a full 1/5th of all rapes. While women over 50 make up less than 3%. All of them.

When asked to explain this wild contradiction to their assumptions......they've got nothing.

In no other context would we so glibly accept such cartoon caricatures and absolutist thinking as valid. But when it comes to rape, some people just shut down parts of their brain and embrace the cartoon. As if by pretending that rapists can possess only one possible motivation.....that they're magically bound to the stereotype.

Um, no. They're not. And pretending otherwise doesn't protect any woman.

Hello? I do believe I "had something" regarding the age. Young women get raped more often because they are more vulnerable. More likely to take risks, more likely to have lower confidence, more likely to find themselves in situations where they are acting stupidly.

Older women are far more vulnerable. Hell, if vulnerability were your standard....old folks homes would be a rapist hell hole. But they aren't. Rape is extremely rare there, despite a bonanza of your assumption of causation.

And if were merely vulnerability and bad decision making, then why aren't young women equally represented in all other major forms of violent crime? Why is rape *specifically* have victims of the youngest age on average? Murder, assault, robbery, all skew much older.

But rape skews young. If 'vulnerability' were the basis, then all other forms of violent crime would skew as young. But they don't.

You can keep making up elaborate and baseless narratives backed by jack shit to explain away the mountains of evidence contradicting you. Or you can acknowledge the obvious:

that sexual attraction plays a role in how rapists pick their victims.

Persons 18-24 are also the most vulnerable for homicide, as well as other crimes.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 off enders per 100,000.

The average age of a murder victim is about 30. The average age of a rape victim is about 25. If 'vulnerability' were the only factor, then there would be little to no difference in these numbers.

25 to 30 really is NOT that much of a difference. MOST homicide victims and perpetrators are young people, under 30.

Statistically its an enormous difference. Rape victims skew younger on average than the victims of any other major violent crime. Younger than aggravated assault, younger than robbery, younger than muggings, younger than murders.

If 'vulnerability' or 'availability' were the sole factors, then they'd be just as susceptible to all other violent crimes at such a young age. But they're not.

 

[Asclepias]

Here we go again, the standard feminist narrative that all rape has the same root cause. You guys are closed minded, and a broken record.

Not just the same root cause. But that one and only one motivation can ever effect behavior, regardless of the circumstances, person, or context. Always and every time without exception.

A rapist can't be sexually attracted to any woman, can't have any preferences, can't prefer anything. His sole motivation that effects behavior is his desire for power. Why motivations have to be perfectly pristine and absolute has never been explained. Why couldn't a rapist have a thing for power....and red heads?

There has never been a compelling reason to explain it. Worse, if rapists were genuinely void of any sexual attraction to related women to an almost ludicrous degree. With 21% of all rape victims being between 18 and 21 years of age. Those 3 years represent a full 1/5th of all rapes. While women over 50 make up less than 3%. All of them.

When asked to explain this wild contradiction to their assumptions......they've got nothing.

In no other context would we so glibly accept such cartoon caricatures and absolutist thinking as valid. But when it comes to rape, some people just shut down parts of their brain and embrace the cartoon. As if by pretending that rapists can possess only one possible motivation.....that they're magically bound to the stereotype.

Um, no. They're not. And pretending otherwise doesn't protect any woman.

Hello? I do believe I "had something" regarding the age. Young women get raped more often because they are more vulnerable. More likely to take risks, more likely to have lower confidence, more likely to find themselves in situations where they are acting stupidly.

Older women are far more vulnerable. Hell, if vulnerability were your standard....old folks homes would be a rapist hell hole. But they aren't. Rape is extremely rare there, despite a bonanza of your assumption of causation.

And if were merely vulnerability and bad decision making, then why aren't young women equally represented in all other major forms of violent crime? Why is rape *specifically* have victims of the youngest age on average? Murder, assault, robbery, all skew much older.

But rape skews young. If 'vulnerability' were the basis, then all other forms of violent crime would skew as young. But they don't.

You can keep making up elaborate and baseless narratives backed by jack shit to explain away the mountains of evidence contradicting you. Or you can acknowledge the obvious:

that sexual attraction plays a role in how rapists pick their victims.

Persons 18-24 are also the most vulnerable for homicide, as well as other crimes.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 off enders per 100,000.

Here we go again, the standard feminist narrative that all rape has the same root cause. You guys are closed minded, and a broken record.

Not just the same root cause. But that one and only one motivation can ever effect behavior, regardless of the circumstances, person, or context. Always and every time without exception.

A rapist can't be sexually attracted to any woman, can't have any preferences, can't prefer anything. His sole motivation that effects behavior is his desire for power. Why motivations have to be perfectly pristine and absolute has never been explained. Why couldn't a rapist have a thing for power....and red heads?

There has never been a compelling reason to explain it. Worse, if rapists were genuinely void of any sexual attraction to related women to an almost ludicrous degree. With 21% of all rape victims being between 18 and 21 years of age. Those 3 years represent a full 1/5th of all rapes. While women over 50 make up less than 3%. All of them.

When asked to explain this wild contradiction to their assumptions......they've got nothing.

In no other context would we so glibly accept such cartoon caricatures and absolutist thinking as valid. But when it comes to rape, some people just shut down parts of their brain and embrace the cartoon. As if by pretending that rapists can possess only one possible motivation.....that they're magically bound to the stereotype.

Um, no. They're not. And pretending otherwise doesn't protect any woman.

Hello? I do believe I "had something" regarding the age. Young women get raped more often because they are more vulnerable. More likely to take risks, more likely to have lower confidence, more likely to find themselves in situations where they are acting stupidly.

Older women are far more vulnerable. Hell, if vulnerability were your standard....old folks homes would be a rapist hell hole. But they aren't. Rape is extremely rare there, despite a bonanza of your assumption of causation.

And if were merely vulnerability and bad decision making, then why aren't young women equally represented in all other major forms of violent crime? Why is rape *specifically* have victims of the youngest age on average? Murder, assault, robbery, all skew much older.

But rape skews young. If 'vulnerability' were the basis, then all other forms of violent crime would skew as young. But they don't.

You can keep making up elaborate and baseless narratives backed by jack shit to explain away the mountains of evidence contradicting you. Or you can acknowledge the obvious:

that sexual attraction plays a role in how rapists pick their victims.

Persons 18-24 are also the most vulnerable for homicide, as well as other crimes.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 off enders per 100,000.

The average age of a murder victim is about 30. The average age of a rape victim is about 25. If 'vulnerability' were the only factor, then there would be little to no difference in these numbers.

Murder is not the same as rape. Totally different crime. You are a victim of logical fallacies.

 

[ChrisL]

Hello? I do believe I "had something" regarding the age. Young women get raped more often because they are more vulnerable. More likely to take risks, more likely to have lower confidence, more likely to find themselves in situations where they are acting stupidly.

Older women are far more vulnerable. Hell, if vulnerability were your standard....old folks homes would be a rapist hell hole. But they aren't. Rape is extremely rare there, despite a bonanza of your assumption of causation.

And if were merely vulnerability and bad decision making, then why aren't young women equally represented in all other major forms of violent crime? Why is rape *specifically* have victims of the youngest age on average? Murder, assault, robbery, all skew much older.

But rape skews young. If 'vulnerability' were the basis, then all other forms of violent crime would skew as young. But they don't.

You can keep making up elaborate and baseless narratives backed by jack shit to explain away the mountains of evidence contradicting you. Or you can acknowledge the obvious:

that sexual attraction plays a role in how rapists pick their victims.

Persons 18-24 are also the most vulnerable for homicide, as well as other crimes.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 off enders per 100,000.

Hello? I do believe I "had something" regarding the age. Young women get raped more often because they are more vulnerable. More likely to take risks, more likely to have lower confidence, more likely to find themselves in situations where they are acting stupidly.

Older women are far more vulnerable. Hell, if vulnerability were your standard....old folks homes would be a rapist hell hole. But they aren't. Rape is extremely rare there, despite a bonanza of your assumption of causation.

And if were merely vulnerability and bad decision making, then why aren't young women equally represented in all other major forms of violent crime? Why is rape *specifically* have victims of the youngest age on average? Murder, assault, robbery, all skew much older.

But rape skews young. If 'vulnerability' were the basis, then all other forms of violent crime would skew as young. But they don't.

You can keep making up elaborate and baseless narratives backed by jack shit to explain away the mountains of evidence contradicting you. Or you can acknowledge the obvious:

that sexual attraction plays a role in how rapists pick their victims.

Persons 18-24 are also the most vulnerable for homicide, as well as other crimes.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 off enders per 100,000.

The average age of a murder victim is about 30. The average age of a rape victim is about 25. If 'vulnerability' were the only factor, then there would be little to no difference in these numbers.

25 to 30 really is NOT that much of a difference. MOST homicide victims and perpetrators are young people, under 30.

Statistically its an enormous difference. Rape victims skew younger on average than the victims of any other major violent crime. Younger than aggravated assault, younger than robbery, younger than muggings, younger than murders.

If 'vulnerability' or 'availability' were the sole factors, then they'd be just as susceptible to all other violent crimes at such a young age. But they're not.

No. Because most women after the age of 25 or so are usually married and having a family. They are at home and not out clubbing and stuff. They are at HOME with their husbands and not out with their friends getting drunk at bars. Once you have settled down and married, you are certainly not as much at risk. THINK about it.

 

[Skylar]

You didn't 'explain' anything. You made up a story that you couldn't back with evidence and didn't make the slightest sense. Women age 18 to 24 make up about 3% of the population but 21% of rape victims. Women over 50 make up 12.5% of the population but make up less than 3% of rape victims.

Meaning that a woman who is 18 to 21 is 25 times more likely to be raped than a woman over 50.

And women 18 to 21 aren't '25 times more available' than women over 50. Your entire argument is nonsense, backed by nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Nor can you explain why only ONE motivation can effect behavior. Why can't a rapist be into power.....and large breasted women? There's absolutely no reason that it can't both. Or more than just those two. A myriad of reasons could motivate any given rapist. And effect his behavior.

But you pretend that it can only be one motivation that influences behavior, ever. That's nonsense. There's no such mandate. There's absolutely no reason a rapist couldn't be motivated by more than one thing. You merely imagine a factually baseless cartoon character born of your imagination and assumption......and then demand that reality conform to it.

Um, no. As women 18 to 21 being 25 times more likely to be rape victims demonstrates, you playing pretend that sexual attraction plays no role in a rapist choosing his victim doesn't mean a thing. And protects no one.

Even if it does, that doesn't really mean anything. Like I said, some men find FEET attractive. A lot of rapists are probably more apt to go after the most VULNERABLE person, not the most attractive one.

Some men are into feet. Most aren't. We'r speaking of probability and risk. That A man is attracted to feet doesn't mean that most are.

And vulnerability surely plays a role. But as rape victims being the youngest on average of victims of any major violent crime, its not the only role. If it were then old folks homes would be a rapist hunting ground.

Why is it so hard to accept that sexual attraction would be one of the motivating factors in how a rapist chooses his victims? And why couldn't a rapist have more than one motivation? Why must it be ONE and only one that effects behavior? It isn't for virtually any other human activity. Why must it be for rape?

Its evident you dont understand power is the motivating factor no matter what way the results of that factor may manifest itself. Its pretty simple. "I want to force you. You cant stop me." Thats power not sex.

Its obvious you can't explain why a rapist can't be into power....and red heads. Why other motivations can't effect behavior. You assume that it can ONLY be power that influences behavior.....but you can't explain why. Or why it must be mutually exclusive.

You typing your assumptions. Assumptions backed by nothing. Not even an explanation. Let alone evidence to back it.

And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that women 18 to 21 are 25 times more 'available' than women over 50. Because they're 25 times more likely to be raped than women over 50.

I can explain that but thats not the point. The point is that rape is about power not red hair.

When selecting victims, it can be. Rapists can be sexually attracted to women before raping them. Rapists can have preferences. These attractions and preferences can motivate behavior.

You assume that they can't be sexually attracted, that they can't have preferences. That sexually they are a tabula rossa with no attraction to any woman, nor in possession of any motivation or possible motivation......save power.

But you can't explain why. And you certainly can't back that explanation with the slightest evidence. Worse, your assumptions are baseless. Worse still, they're contradicted by virtually every other huma experience where we have multiple motivations, some competing, some conflicting, some irrational.

You pretending rape is somehow unique in human experience and can only have the ONE motivation you've assigned your cartoon doesn't actually make it so. Nor does pretending protect any woman.

And I'm STILL waiting for you to show that women 18 to 21 are 25 times more 'available' than women over 50. We both know you can't your claim with evidence. Demonstrating elegantly that evidence isn't the basis of your assumptions.

 

[Contumacious]

How do you define rape?

Sexual penetration of a person against their will.

I don't think however that is what you really are asking.

If you're back to the claim again that rape is ALL about power over someone, then I'll just repeat what I've said over and over.

I think rape sometimes is about power over someone, as the root cause, and I think sometimes the motivating factor is from the desire of sexual gratification.

When you use POWER to overpower a person to take what you want, what would you call that? That is not "sexual gratification."

Here we go again, the standard feminist narrative that all rape has the same root cause. You guys are closed minded, and a broken record.

Not just the same root cause. But that one and only one motivation can ever effect behavior, regardless of the circumstances, person, or context. Always and every time without exception.

A rapist can't be sexually attracted to any woman, can't have any preferences, can't prefer anything. His sole motivation that effects behavior is his desire for power. Why motivations have to be perfectly pristine and absolute has never been explained. Why couldn't a rapist have a thing for power....and red heads?

There has never been a compelling reason to explain it. Worse, if rapists were genuinely void of any sexual attraction to related women to an almost ludicrous degree. With 21% of all rape victims being between 18 and 21 years of age. Those 3 years represent a full 1/5th of all rapes. While women over 50 make up less than 3%. All of them.

When asked to explain this wild contradiction to their assumptions......they've got nothing.

In no other context would we so glibly accept such cartoon caricatures and absolutist thinking as valid. But when it comes to rape, some people just shut down parts of their brain and embrace the cartoon. As if by pretending that rapists can possess only one possible motivation.....that they're magically bound to the stereotype.

Um, no. They're not. And pretending otherwise doesn't protect any woman.

Thats a lie. I explained to you that younger women were more available than older women.

You didn't 'explain' anything. You made up a story that you couldn't back with evidence and didn't make the slightest sense. Women age 18 to 24 make up about 3% of the population but 21% of rape victims. Women over 50 make up 12.5% of the population but make up less than 3% of rape victims.

Meaning that a woman who is 18 to 21 is 25 times more likely to be raped than a woman over 50.

And women 18 to 21 aren't '25 times more available' than women over 50. Your entire argument is nonsense, backed by nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Nor can you explain why only ONE motivation can effect behavior. Why can't a rapist be into power.....and large breasted women? There's absolutely no reason that it can't both. Or more than just those two. A myriad of reasons could motivate any given rapist. And effect his behavior.

But you pretend that it can only be one motivation that influences behavior, ever. That's nonsense. There's no such mandate. There's absolutely no reason a rapist couldn't be motivated by more than one thing. You merely imagine a factually baseless cartoon character born of your imagination and assumption......and then demand that reality conform to it.

Um, no. As women 18 to 21 being 25 times more likely to be rape victims demonstrates, you playing pretend that sexual attraction plays no role in a rapist choosing his victim doesn't mean a thing. And protects no one.

Even if it does, that doesn't really mean anything. Like I said, some men find FEET attractive. A lot of rapists are probably more apt to go after the most VULNERABLE person, not the most attractive one.

Some men are into feet. Most aren't. We'r speaking of probability and risk. That A man is attracted to feet doesn't mean that most are.

And vulnerability surely plays a role. But as rape victims being the youngest on average of victims of any major violent crime, its not the only role. If it were then old folks homes would be a rapist hunting ground.

Why is it so hard to accept that sexual attraction would be one of the motivating factors in how a rapist chooses his victims? And why couldn't a rapist have more than one motivation? Why must it be ONE and only one that effects behavior? It isn't for virtually any other human activity. Why must it be for rape?

You didn't 'explain' anything. You made up a story that you couldn't back with evidence and didn't make the slightest sense. Women age 18 to 24 make up about 3% of the population but 21% of rape victims. Women over 50 make up 12.5% of the population but make up less than 3% of rape victims.

Meaning that a woman who is 18 to 21 is 25 times more likely to be raped than a woman over 50.

And women 18 to 21 aren't '25 times more available' than women over 50. Your entire argument is nonsense, backed by nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Nor can you explain why only ONE motivation can effect behavior. Why can't a rapist be into power.....and large breasted women? There's absolutely no reason that it can't both. Or more than just those two. A myriad of reasons could motivate any given rapist. And effect his behavior.

But you pretend that it can only be one motivation that influences behavior, ever. That's nonsense. There's no such mandate. There's absolutely no reason a rapist couldn't be motivated by more than one thing. You merely imagine a factually baseless cartoon character born of your imagination and assumption......and then demand that reality conform to it.

Um, no. As women 18 to 21 being 25 times more likely to be rape victims demonstrates, you playing pretend that sexual attraction plays no role in a rapist choosing his victim doesn't mean a thing. And protects no one.

Even if it does, that doesn't really mean anything. Like I said, some men find FEET attractive. A lot of rapists are probably more apt to go after the most VULNERABLE person, not the most attractive one.

Some men are into feet. Most aren't. We'r speaking of probability and risk. That A man is attracted to feet doesn't mean that most are.

And vulnerability surely plays a role. But as rape victims being the youngest on average of victims of any major violent crime, its not the only role. If it were then old folks homes would be a rapist hunting ground.

Why is it so hard to accept that sexual attraction would be one of the motivating factors in how a rapist chooses his victims? And why couldn't a rapist have more than one motivation? Why must it be ONE and only one that effects behavior? It isn't for virtually any other human activity. Why must it be for rape?

Its evident you dont understand power is the motivating factor no matter what way the results of that factor may manifest itself. Its pretty simple. "I want to force you. You cant stop me." Thats power not sex.

Its obvious you can't explain why a rapist can't be into power....and red heads. Why other motivations can't effect behavior. You assume that it can ONLY be power that influences behavior.....but you can't explain why. Or why it must be mutually exclusive.

You typing your assumptions. Assumptions backed by nothing. Not even an explanation. Let alone evidence to back it.

And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that women 18 to 21 are 25 times more 'available' than women over 50. Because they're 25 times more likely to be raped than women over 50.

I can explain that but thats not the point. The point is that rape is about power not red hair.

HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT LIKE MECHANICAL OBJECTS.

DIFFERENT FACTORS MOTIVATE HUMAN BEINGS.

BUT AGAIN, FIREARMS EMPOWER WOMEN


Lawmakers in 10 states have introduced so-called campus carry bills, though some have made their claims about sexual assault and safety more explicit than others. As a sponsor of a Nevada bill allowing students to carry firearms, Republican Assemblywoman Michele Fiore told the Times, “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.”

 

[ChrisL]

Hey, you know, I'm sure some rapists have their "standards" and not all are going to rape an 80-year-old woman or a 10-year-old kid. However, the woman certainly does not have to be wearing sexy clothing. She just has to be "decent" and in a vulnerable situation. That is your biggest risk factor, being vulnerable and putting yourself into a situation where you may be vulnerable. I'm sorry, but sexy clothing does not equal being vulnerable. Not at ALL. Plenty of beautiful women dress sexy every day and are never raped.

 

[ChrisL]

Dressing conservatively certainly should never make you feel that you cannot be raped. That is just not the case. Clothing is very little issue next to the vulnerability factor.

 

[Asclepias]

Dressing conservatively certainly should never make you feel that you cannot be raped. That is just not the case. Clothing is very little issue next to the vulnerability factor.

Dressing conservatively certainly should never make you feel that you cannot be raped. That is just not the case. Clothing is very little issue next to the vulnerability factor.

Exactly. Thats a dangerously ignorant concept to try and tell people.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You know, in my younger years, i spent my share of time in strip clubs, in parked cars with my dates, even a nude beach. The sight of a nude, or semi-nude woman never motivated me to even THINK of rape. I did think of getting laid, but raping someone never occurred to me in my entire life. Yet, there are men here who think that erotica could motivate men to rape. This way of thinking is so foreign to me that I am blown away by it. Quite frankly, it tells me a whole lot about the men who hold that position. I hope to god that none of you know my daughter.

If she holds the same views that you post here, then I would be running in the opposite direction of your daughter.

And to your assertion that some of us here are evil, you and others here haven't the intelligence apparently to read and comprehend simple logic.

None of us are saying a woman "invites" a rapist to attack her by her choice of attire, or her actions.

What I think most of us are simply saying is the actions and choices a woman makes could contribute to drawing attention from someone who may be unable, or who do not wish to control themselves.

I would have thought this would be common sense, but apparently to you and some others it's rocket science that's beyond your ability to understand.

Ignored due immature personal insults.

 

[Skylar]

Rape is not about sexual gratification. Its about power.

Here we go again, the standard feminist narrative that all rape has the same root cause. You guys are closed minded, and a broken record.

Not just the same root cause. But that one and only one motivation can ever effect behavior, regardless of the circumstances, person, or context. Always and every time without exception.

A rapist can't be sexually attracted to any woman, can't have any preferences, can't prefer anything. His sole motivation that effects behavior is his desire for power. Why motivations have to be perfectly pristine and absolute has never been explained. Why couldn't a rapist have a thing for power....and red heads?

There has never been a compelling reason to explain it. Worse, if rapists were genuinely void of any sexual attraction to related women to an almost ludicrous degree. With 21% of all rape victims being between 18 and 21 years of age. Those 3 years represent a full 1/5th of all rapes. While women over 50 make up less than 3%. All of them.

When asked to explain this wild contradiction to their assumptions......they've got nothing.

In no other context would we so glibly accept such cartoon caricatures and absolutist thinking as valid. But when it comes to rape, some people just shut down parts of their brain and embrace the cartoon. As if by pretending that rapists can possess only one possible motivation.....that they're magically bound to the stereotype.

Um, no. They're not. And pretending otherwise doesn't protect any woman.

Hello? I do believe I "had something" regarding the age. Young women get raped more often because they are more vulnerable. More likely to take risks, more likely to have lower confidence, more likely to find themselves in situations where they are acting stupidly.

Older women are far more vulnerable. Hell, if vulnerability were your standard....old folks homes would be a rapist hell hole. But they aren't. Rape is extremely rare there, despite a bonanza of your assumption of causation.

And if were merely vulnerability and bad decision making, then why aren't young women equally represented in all other major forms of violent crime? Why is rape *specifically* have victims of the youngest age on average? Murder, assault, robbery, all skew much older.

But rape skews young. If 'vulnerability' were the basis, then all other forms of violent crime would skew as young. But they don't.

You can keep making up elaborate and baseless narratives backed by jack shit to explain away the mountains of evidence contradicting you. Or you can acknowledge the obvious:

that sexual attraction plays a role in how rapists pick their victims.

Bullshit. When's the last time you were in an old folks home? The vast majority of workers are FEMALE.

And I already showed you that ALL victims of violent crime skew young.

Rape victims skew youngest of any victims of major violent crime. With the average age of murder victims being 5 years older than the average age of rape victims.

And if 'vulnerability' were the sole basis of rape, why aren't nursing homes rife with rape?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Ok, there's a rapist in the room. You're wearing a very short skirt and sheer blouse that exposes a very sexy bra. You act flirty and are drinking.
There's another woman in the room with very conservative attire and is speaking and acting in a very conservative and modest fashion.

Both leave the room and go their separate ways.

Who is the rapist more likely to follow ?

A rapist would sometimes probably AVOID the loud-mouthed drunk girl who is making a scene. The quiet demure shy woman might be the bigger turn on for HIM. Rape is USUALLY a crime of opportunity. They really are NOT that choosy in most instances. They are seeking out a VICTIM.

The provocatively dressed woman will get more attention from someone seeking sexual gratification.

Rape is not about sexual gratification. Its about power.

Here we go again, the standard feminist narrative that all rape has the same root cause. You guys are closed minded, and a broken record.

Until you can prove otherwise you will be forced to listen to that same record. Can you prove the broken record is wrong?

Can you prove it's always about power and never about sex ?

 

[Skylar]

Dressing conservatively certainly should never make you feel that you cannot be raped. That is just not the case. Clothing is very little issue next to the vulnerability factor.

Dressing conservatively certainly should never make you feel that you cannot be raped. That is just not the case. Clothing is very little issue next to the vulnerability factor.

Exactly. Thats a dangerously ignorant concept to try and tell people.

Again, we're speaking of probab ility. Not absolutes. Putting on a seat belt doesn't make you immune to harm in a car accident. But it will definitely reduce the odds of serious injury. Per the logic being forwarded here, if a method of prevention doesn't have an absolute record of effectiveness, why bother?

Do we apply this logic *anywhere* else? Do we leave our car doors unlocked, our front door open because locks aren't fool proof? Of course not. Do we refuse to bring a cell phone because there may be somewhere where the signal doesn't work? Of course not.

You engage in the prevention you can to protect yourself and help sway the odds in your favor.

 

[Ravi]

Here we go again, the standard feminist narrative that all rape has the same root cause. You guys are closed minded, and a broken record.

Not just the same root cause. But that one and only one motivation can ever effect behavior, regardless of the circumstances, person, or context. Always and every time without exception.

A rapist can't be sexually attracted to any woman, can't have any preferences, can't prefer anything. His sole motivation that effects behavior is his desire for power. Why motivations have to be perfectly pristine and absolute has never been explained. Why couldn't a rapist have a thing for power....and red heads?

There has never been a compelling reason to explain it. Worse, if rapists were genuinely void of any sexual attraction to related women to an almost ludicrous degree. With 21% of all rape victims being between 18 and 21 years of age. Those 3 years represent a full 1/5th of all rapes. While women over 50 make up less than 3%. All of them.

When asked to explain this wild contradiction to their assumptions......they've got nothing.

In no other context would we so glibly accept such cartoon caricatures and absolutist thinking as valid. But when it comes to rape, some people just shut down parts of their brain and embrace the cartoon. As if by pretending that rapists can possess only one possible motivation.....that they're magically bound to the stereotype.

Um, no. They're not. And pretending otherwise doesn't protect any woman.

Hello? I do believe I "had something" regarding the age. Young women get raped more often because they are more vulnerable. More likely to take risks, more likely to have lower confidence, more likely to find themselves in situations where they are acting stupidly.

Older women are far more vulnerable. Hell, if vulnerability were your standard....old folks homes would be a rapist hell hole. But they aren't. Rape is extremely rare there, despite a bonanza of your assumption of causation.

And if were merely vulnerability and bad decision making, then why aren't young women equally represented in all other major forms of violent crime? Why is rape *specifically* have victims of the youngest age on average? Murder, assault, robbery, all skew much older.

But rape skews young. If 'vulnerability' were the basis, then all other forms of violent crime would skew as young. But they don't.

You can keep making up elaborate and baseless narratives backed by jack shit to explain away the mountains of evidence contradicting you. Or you can acknowledge the obvious:

that sexual attraction plays a role in how rapists pick their victims.

Bullshit. When's the last time you were in an old folks home? The vast majority of workers are FEMALE.

And I already showed you that ALL victims of violent crime skew young.

Rape victims skew youngest of any victims of major violent crime. With the average age of murder victims being 5 years older than the average age of rape victims.

And if 'vulnerability' were the sole basis of rape, why aren't nursing homes rife with rape?

Did you miss where I posted that most nursing home workers are women?

One category is always going to skew the youngest. The reason young women are more likely to be raped has been explained to you repeatedly.

 

[aaronleland]

"If I'm walking around in my underwear and I'm drunk. Who else's fault can it be?"

Is that why I keep getting raped?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Ok, there's a rapist in the room. You're wearing a very short skirt and sheer blouse that exposes a very sexy bra. You act flirty and are drinking.
There's another woman in the room with very conservative attire and is speaking and acting in a very conservative and modest fashion.

Both leave the room and go their separate ways.

Who is the rapist more likely to follow ?

A rapist would sometimes probably AVOID the loud-mouthed drunk girl who is making a scene. The quiet demure shy woman might be the bigger turn on for HIM. Rape is USUALLY a crime of opportunity. They really are NOT that choosy in most instances. They are seeking out a VICTIM.

The provocatively dressed woman will get more attention from someone seeking sexual gratification.

Rape is not about sexual gratification. Its about power.

Here we go again, the standard feminist narrative that all rape has the same root cause. You guys are closed minded, and a broken record.

What do you think it is when a man forces himself on a woman who does not want him? That IS about power. It doesn't diminish the act in any way, so I don't really understand your argument. Even if it was about sexual gratification, he is still using his superior strength to overpower the woman and TAKE what he wants, so the "power" element is still very much a factor.

But the root cause of his actions can also be the desire for sexual gratification. He wants to ejaculate inside of a female, she doesn't want that, he's unable to control himself so he overpowers her and continues until he reaches sexual satisfaction.
Yes he had power over her, but was that what he was seeking, or was it his sexual drive his original motivation ?

 

[ChrisL]

Dressing conservatively certainly should never make you feel that you cannot be raped. That is just not the case. Clothing is very little issue next to the vulnerability factor.

Dressing conservatively certainly should never make you feel that you cannot be raped. That is just not the case. Clothing is very little issue next to the vulnerability factor.

Exactly. Thats a dangerously ignorant concept to try and tell people.

Again, we're speaking of probab ility. Not absolutes. Putting on a seat belt doesn't make you immune to harm in a car accident. But it will definitely reduce the odds of serious injury. Per the logic being forwarded here, if a method of prevention doesn't have an absolute record of effectiveness, why bother?

Do we apply this logic *anywhere* else? Do we leave our car doors unlocked, our front door open because locks aren't fool proof? Of course not. Do we refuse to bring a cell phone because there may be somewhere where the signal doesn't work? Of course not.

You engage in the prevention you can to protect yourself and help sway the odds in your favor.

Sorry. Conservative clothing is not going to prevent a person from being raped, nor does it help the odds. That is a myth you are spreading and a dangerous one too. Women who dress conservatively are just as much at risk of being raped as anyone else. Vulnerability is the biggest factor. Like I said earlier, some may have their standards (if that's what you would call that), but that still does not mean clothing is any way a correlating factor. However, vulnerability and being unaware (such as drunk) is very MUCH a risk factor. Don't think if you dress conservatively that you are safe from rape.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Anybody can get laid, even if they have to pick up a prostitute. Rapists have a real need, as evidenced by the fact that they are risking imprisonment, and that need is not satisfied by having consensual sex. It is all about power and anger.