Al
A woman who wears slutting clothing (your terminology) may take a risk if other precautions are not followed (eg. not being alone at a trains station at night), but dress does not give permission for a man to rape based on the skewed idea that style of dress immediately absolves the criminal (the rapist) of his actions. I suspect even a woman clad from head to tie to satisfy your sense of female 'decency' might be at risk of being raped in a similar situation.

A person who leaves a bag on the table and it is stolen may have taken a risk, but they are not responsible for the criminal's act of theft. The theft is the crime, not the leaving the bag on the table. See the difference. A judge is not going to say "off you go mate, you are free, the bag was left unattended for a moment, you are not to blame, go and have a nice cup of tea with your gang mates". The bag 'leaver' is chastised and their sentence is suspended because it was the first time they were guilty of leaving property unattended...but don't do it again.

This is how silly this view is.

Can't really understand the perceptions of some of the comments on this forum. What ever happend to decency and taking responsibility for actions? It is much easier to blame the victim than acknowledge that some people do bad things.

This thread is more about false accusations, it is not about giving rapists a free pass on the basis of the fact the victim may have been drunk, showing a bit of cleavage or in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Hi Pelly

you say:

"but dress does not give permission" I don't recall saying it does dear.

But 'dress' does send a message. A low cut dress and lots of leg sends pretty much ONE message. U can guess what that is.

Let me run it by you :)

1/ I dress very provocativly because I want to attract a man.
(this is how a bloke sees it)

2/ If I get lucky and find a suitable one.. he will also get lucky.

3/ If some toad comes along...I'll abuse him and tell him POQ or I'll call the cops. (who are not within cooeee of the location)

4/ "HE"... after 'receiving' the message is now very annoyed and his self esteem is wounded because she rejected him,..and he might resort to a violent attempt to restore his 'esteem' by bullying the chick.

But if it begins with a modestly conservatively dressed girl who is not showing off 80% of her pins and 60% of her boobs....It's unlikely that bloke will approach her..because she is not sending out the "I'm in season" message.

Golly .. you know how it works in nature for crying out loud. Baboon rear ends go RED when the female is available. Did Charles darwin teach you nothing ? :) After all..in the absense of the Creator and His standards.. we are just smart animals surviving in the "struggle of life" are we not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

Of course.. I hold to special Creation of man..so such thinking is not part of my own world view.

Doug the Bear - the quote/extract was from Algoreisrich not myself!

Why do you think I wrote "God our Father please forgive this man, for he knows not what he is talking about at all"!!

Great article Elizabeth, you obviously have a much better idea of how the world actually works, than many of our posters. Unlike them you are obviously aware that there are many more young women running around trying to "score" footballers, than the other way around.

The footballers don't have to run around looking for what piles up on their door step. Young footballers are trained by in how to behave, by these young women.

I wonder if many of you know how important football is to many people. In many country towns those playing in the local team are pretty exalted.

By country town standards, I was a pretty good footballer at high school. Our seniors team was coached by the captain/coach of the district team, [the high school teams results were that important], so I & a couple of others were used to fill in a few times when the top players were missing.

What I saw going on on the team bus, coming back from away games did not sit too well with what my mother had taught me about how to treat a lady. What surprised me even more was just who the ladies were, as much as the behaviour.

My life would probably have been somewhat different, if I had not had those eye opening experiences. It certainly taught me some new ways to treat a "lady"

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2011/02/09/of-mark-sanchez-and-the-pratfalls-of-teenaged-romance/

<Ultimately, there may well have been a predator in the case of the pro quarterback and his high school paramour.

The shocking part? The predator may well have been the teenage girl.

Human sexual behaviour is something that our society continues to struggle with enormously.

It is a mine field, get it wrong and it can blow up in your face big time.

Even now in the day and age of socalled equal rights, many feminists are much more interested in persecuting men for the consequences of female behaviour.

There is a huge degree of denial about covert human behaviour that is used to signal the possibility of sexual encounters.

There is an old victorian/puritan idea that women were not responsible for their behaviour or really that interested in sex. Feminists would appear to still be stuck in the victorian era, with victorian/puritan ideas.

Therefore it is much easier to transfer such responsibility onto men.

Don't blame the victim, effectively stops any investigation of the behaviour of the victim and circumstances preceding the event.

Could you imagine the same rules applying to car accidents. Don't blame the victim in car accidents, so therefore the behaviour and circumstances leading up to the accident will never be investigated.

So the understanding of how and why car accidents happen would remain in the dark ages.

If both people are having sex whilst drunk, then are not both committing an offense.

The feminist blockade on examining human sexual behaviour surrounding alleged offences, means that we remain in the dark ages. Remaining in the dark ages serves such feminists well.