What happened to the "switch" part, Boaz?

>>Perilous bit hook line and sinker.. now moving from 'bait' to..'switch' :) Of course I sound like the 'dingbat' sheikh.. but here is how I see it.<<

You then proceed to repeat your position:

>>Women are advised "Slutty clothes could contribute to a marginally sane man thinking it is an invitation to come get it".. she ignores it..and is raped. Who's fault? go figure.<<

Precisely the same thinking as your beloved uncovered-meat man.

But maybe I'm missing something. Could you explain the difference between your view and his? At the moment it is far too subtle for me.

Because it seems clear that you are firmly of the same view, as you reiterate for anyone who hasn't been listening...

>>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.<<

Ummmm... "I am uncovered meat"?

You two really do have more in common that you care to believe, Boaz.

AGIR insults both women and men.

Sane men do not rape.

Scantily clad or inebriated people (male or female) do not 'deserve' to be violated.

Al
You called me 'dear'. My mum used to do that when I was naughty.

Women dress to attract men yes, but not as a signal that anything goes. Dress code does not absolve the concept of permission. Both a man and a woman must be attracted to have sex where there is mutual consent. Otherwise you are not better than Hilali's uncovered 'meat' analogy - men taking no responsibility for their actions. How does your God view the rapist?

Charles Darwin also talked about evolution in terms of civilisation and higher order thinking. Once we got out of the trees we didn't have to hang onto those 'primitive' aspects quite so diligently.:)

All this guff about clothing is just more excuses and turning a blind eye to criminal actions perhaps in some skewed interpretation of mateship. No wonder the justice system has gone to pot. And I make no excuses for false accusers, they are equally as abhorrent as the apologists for rape.

It is a big jump from how women dress, to men committing illegal acts.

There are a huge number of steps/stages missing.

It is ridiculous to suggest that any woman in hooker wear has lost the right to decide who to have sex with. However, no-one would be critical of a rape victim purely for wearing that type of clothing.

Rose C, I've just read your piece from 2004.
My thanks to you for having the courage and integrity to write that. No associated comments listed now, where there at the time?

I didn't recall the article, and when I looked I'd started posting in January 2005. Thanks for the link.

The article seems to fit well with Elizabeth's article. For those frustrated by David's determination to cling to a simplistic and deeply flawed view of the issue perhaps a read of Rose's earlier article (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2126) for something with depth and integrity.

R0bert