What has happened to that old notion of self-responsibility?
It seems that it's been lost somewhere along the way, perhaps due to the litigious habits of the Americans?
Nowadays it would appear that no matter WHAT happens the automatic assumption is always that someone ELSE is always at fault, we need someone to BLAME!
If I get drunk and climb into a car and hit someone, it's MY fault, not that of the guy I hit, surely?
If I climb out onto a high building ledge and do the Charleston I can hardly blame the buildings owner, or the rescue services, if I fall, can I?
In this 21st century it appears I CAN!
Rape is a classic case in point.
These days it is common practice to blame the rapist, NO MATTER what lead to the situation. Now, in principle I agree, rape should NEVER happen, and the rapist deserves whatever punishment he gets.
BUT, surely if a woman dresses provocatively, goes out and gets drunk she is quite simply ignoring the very real dangers she's flirting with?
By indulging in risky behaviour and going to known danger spots any person is putting their life and/or general weal on the line, gambling with safety in effect. WHY is such behaviour NOT taken into account?
WHY do so many appear to think that no matter WHAT a woman does she should be as safe as if she was hiding in a police station? Sorry people, the world just isn't like that, the danger is real and provocation can and does produce results, usually unpleasant ones.
In an ideal world there would be no rape, nor any other crime, but this is NOT an ideal world, far from it indeed, and any person who behaves as if it IS is quite simply an idiot and IS "asking for it".
When I get on a motorcycle or climb a cliff, or jump out of an airplane, I'm putting MY life on the line, I'M taking risks and have to cop it sweet if my gamble fails, WHY are women seemingly exempt?

".....but this is NOT an ideal world, far from it indeed, and any person who behaves as if it IS is quite simply an idiot and IS "asking for it"."

Absolutely, Bruce.

And if you dress in a hoody and jeans and slink along the footpath looking a bit drunk and dodgy late at night on the mean streets, then I would have every right to do what comes naturally (if I was so disposed)and to come and sock you in the gob....merely for dressing like a hoodlum and "going to known danger spots".

And it would be down to you for having the misfortune to turn up in front of me "asking for it".

You would claim a "right" to commit assault?
Are YOU saying that rapists have a "right" to do so?
I certainly didn't, did I?
If I behaved in the manner you describe the only "right" you would have is to be wary, after that it's up to you, if you commit an assault you face the law, the same as rapists do, and as I said, they, and YOU, would deserve whatever you got, and more besides.
What I'm asking is why risky behaviour seen as a factor in all circumstances, EXCEPT rape, why, for no apparent logical reason, the "rules" are turned on their head, why women seem to believe that they have NO responsibility for THEIR OWN SAFETY, it's not only indefensible and illogical, it's idiotic!
Ideals are one thing, something to aim for, work towards, to hopefully bring about a world where women ARE safe no matter what, but that is far in the future as yet, the world WE live in is a very nasty place and pre-copralite HAPPENS, often, behaving as if it doesn't is delusional, put simply.
Enforcing that delusion in court is contemptable, a denial of reality, and it promotes the very behaviour that puts women in harms way, almost guaranteeing further victims, further pain, suffering and occasionally death.
The Womens Libbers, and the Law, have long pushed for "men" to "take responsibility for their own behaviour/actions/attitudes", to "own" the problems old fashioned masculinity creates, yet any suggestion that women do EXACTLY the same thing is howled down as discriminatory, unfair, "different".
WHY?
A simple question, really, isn't it?

Bruce,

Okay...semantics, if you wish.

I was talking subjectively - as in the sort of person who would commit violence on another with no provocation, may well believe it's his/her "right" to act in that manner simply because their victim was there in a situation and location that was "risky"....and they thought the victim was "asking for it".

"What I'm asking is why risky behaviour seen as a factor in all circumstances, EXCEPT rape, why, for no apparent logical reason, the "rules" are turned on their head, why women seem to believe that they have NO responsibility for THEIR OWN SAFETY, it's not only indefensible and illogical, it's idiotic!"

Do GBH offenders have their sentences reduced because their victims are deemed to have been taking a risk?

No they don't.

Why do you say it's different for rape victims?

Sorry P, but the fact is that if an assailant commits GBH upon an innocent and unsuspecting victim then he gets a longer sentence than if he and the victim were fighting each other, were drunk and or provoking each other, it's all taken into account upon sentencing, the victim is deemed to have contributed to the situation.
Every court has a broad spectrum available in sentencing and mitigating factors are always considered, including the behaviour of the victim prior to the offence.
Rape IS different there, there is NO consideration of mitigating factors.
As I see it there is no possible justification for rape, ever, but that doesn't mean that there should be special exclusive laws for it, ones that deny the perpetrator the same rights and allowances available to other criminals.
Nor, especially, does it give carte blanche to women to ignore their own safety, by somehow loading the entire onus for it onto any and all men. Men are expected to shoulder the burden of personal responsibilty for their actions and risky behaviour, equality surely demands that women do the same?

"Sorry P, but the fact is that if an assailant commits GBH upon an innocent and unsuspecting victim then he gets a longer sentence than if he and the victim were fighting each other, were drunk and or provoking each other, it's all taken into account upon sentencing, the victim is deemed to have contributed to the situation."

Oh right....so you are equating "....a woman dresses provocatively, goes out and gets drunk....and going to known danger spots..." with people " fighting each other.... drunk and or provoking each other..."

I agree that as a woman, I would choose not to put myself at risk.

But lets paste "blame" for sexual assault where it lies - and that is with the perpetrator.

Are you saying that a woman who is dressed a certain way and is walking or interacting in a certain area is being as provocative as a couple of blokes who are goading and then fighting with each other?

If anything, she's being unwise. How is that "asking for it"?

Dear Poirot,

Of course it's the woman's fault.
And she should accept the responsibility.

These are the facts as some men see them :

1)She should not be
provocatively dressed.
2)She may be a "loose"
woman and if she consented to having sex
with the man before. She must be willing
on other occasions as well.
3)Most women enjoy
being raped after all.
4)She's the one who gets him sexually excited.
5)Or she says she's going to have sex with him and
then changes her mind.
6)We all know that when
a woman says "no" to sexual advances she
doesn't really mean it.

7)Most women are sly and manipulating when they want to
attract a man.
8) A woman will only respect a man who will
lay down the law to her.
9)And after all a Man's got to show
the woman who's boss right from the start of he'll
end up being henpecked.
10)And additionally many females
who've been forced into sex against their will don't
perceive the act as rape anyway - just because a dating
partner was the perpetrator.
11)Besides we all know that
rape is an expression of unrestrained, impulsive
sexual desire. It's a crime of passion, (not violence) -
right?

There you go. How on earth can a man be blamed for not being
able to control himself - when the woman is so irrestible.
Shifting the burden of guilt from the accused to the victim -
is what defense lawyers do. And its a great tactic.

I wonder if a well-dressed man stepping from an expensive
limo would ever be accused of tempting someone to mug him?

Foxy,

"I wonder if a well-dressed man stepping from an expensive
limo would ever be accused of tempting someone to mug him?"

He'd be asking for it...

Dear Poirot,

Sounds fair!

And there we see clearly the difficulty of discussing this and related subjects, it gets personal almost immediately, attitudes are ascribed without evidence, straw-men abound etc etc.
You've ignored everything I offered as my personal opinion about rape and rapists and gone for the throat with the old b/s yet again.
I'll just reiterate, women who ignore the harsh reality and behave as if they're immune to danger are idiots, plain and simple, exactly the same as a m/c rider without a helmet or a drunk-driver, they put themselves in harms way willfully. There is and can be NO justification or excuse for rape, full stop, and I believe the penalties are too light when convicted. But I DO object to the language and treatment of such cases in law and the media, it's discriminatory and promotes dangerous attitudes, dangerous for other women.
Tell me do, do YOU believe a woman is entitled to dress provocatively, behave drunkenly and go to dangerous situations and STILL not bear any responsibility for her own safety?
WHY?
If you leave your car in the street with the keys in it you are partially responsible for a theft, ask your insurance company if they'll pay out in that situation. If you leave wads of cash laying around in public view and it gets stolen it is obviously stupid and it's your responsibility for doing so, see where I'm going with this?
Taking risks means you are responsible for any detrimental outcomes, that's the nature of the beast, so why does that change when it's women taking the risk?

What is amusing here is that it is women, not men, who are forever remarking on the (alleged) 'revealing' and inappropriate clothing and behaviour of other women. Or maybe that is only their competitiveness coming out. Because it always seems to be the young, attractive women whose dress and behaviour attracts the censorious comments.

Got to say though that the dinosaur feminists of last Millenium would have to be the world's worst for laying into other women. Mean as, all sour grapes and spite and jealous of youth.

Although Tyrannosaurus (now Gummy) Greer did prove that feminists can be generous to a fault when giving other women a spray. Just ask ex-PM Julia Whatshername (you know, the one with the $2million bungalow) about her caboose.

G'dayBruce,

You might be interested in this,
http://www.traveller.com.au/cathay-pacific-female-uniform-too-revealing-says-union-37tez

Dear Bruce,

Allright. Enough of being facitious.
Now to get serious.

As I stated in my earlier post the fear
of rape touches virtually all women,
instilling in them a wariness of male
strangers and an apprehension about
walking alone at night or being in deserted
places and so on. Of course, most women I know
(including myself - and my young nieces)
do take care and behave responsibly.
As do most men I know - towards women.

However lets get rid of a few myths ...

Contrary to popular belief, most rapes are
actually committed by an acquaintance of the
victim not by a stranger - by
a family friend, a neighbour, a teacher,
an employer, an ex-lover, a new dating partner.
Also victims of "date rape" are particularly reluctant
to report the crime, for they are afraid that
other people - including family, friends, and
jurors - will suspect they did something to
"ask for it."

Many people still regard rape as an
expression of unrestrained, impulsive sexual desire.
Research in recent years has proven this view to be
a myth.

Rape is a crime of violence, not of passion. It is a
ritual of power and humiliation. All the evidence
indicates that the sexual aspect of rape is of
secondary importance.

What is of a concern today to most women
is that there still exists an attempt to shift the
responsibility for the control of male advances, to
the female. This line of defense seems to be unique to the
crime of rape. "She was provocatively dressed and was therefore
at fault," et cetera.

It would seem that in this day and age -
that argument should be well and truly out-moded.
But apparently not for some men - who I suspect
are in their twilight years.

Thanks Foxy, I'll attempt to reply in kind.
First, let me point out that I have NOT blamed women for being raped, and I hope I've made my personal opinion of the crime and it's punishment clear enough.
However, I dispute that furphy about rape being motivated by power, that's a conclusion reached by those with a feminist bent. Women in that situation commonly feel powerless, but to then translate that feeling across to mean it's about the power for the assailant is simply wrong, it's shaping your conclusion to satisfy your own feelings, always an error.
I feel that many today DO underestimate the power of sex in the human male, it's an imperative drive that surfaces readily, and with the slightest easing of our civil and/or moral restraints, from whatever cause, well, women pay the price.
Men of lesser intellect and/or with social/mental/emotional disorders are the most common offenders, and in any sort of war the restraints on even ordinary men often fail under the pressure, that's why it's so common in conflict situations.
I don't doubt that there ARE some rapists for whom power is an element of the act but I doubt it's the main driver even then. Only a male can understand the way sexual frustration can warp his emotions and mind, believe me, it's VERY real for us poor sods, add alcohol or such to that tempest and it becomes far worse.
Most of us survive it, our ingrained morality means we won't give in to animalistic urges but it can be a very fine line indeed for many men, one that becomes even finer when confronted by seemingly provocative women. Just like those women, men too can misinterpret situations and signals and once aroused, some few of us lose all control and become rapists, unfortunately.
There are others, truly evil men, and others too, too many to consider every situation so please don't blame me if I seem to be over simplifying or making excuses, as I said, there are NONE!
But there ARE factors, and women themselves are one of them.

You need help mate!

If a woman dresses in a manner designed to be sexually provocative and she succeeds in her endeavours then what has she to complain about?

Obviously it was money well spent.

Thanks for the offer Mikk but I'm fine the way I am.
I may not be as obsequiously PC as some but I AM a realist, and that's stood me in good stead all my life, why should I try to change now?

Dear Bruce,

It's a question of changing attitudes.

We need to treat each other with respect,
and admire nurturant rather than aggressive
traits.

In rape as in other aspects of human behaviour, the
conduct of the individual is influenced by the norms
of the surrounding society.

Some men still see women as actual or potential sexual
property - that is, as sex objects. And many men,
it seems, are convinced that any normal woman will
be flattered by sexual attention in any form.

It's interesting though that lust seems to have remarkably
little to do with rape; a high proportion of rapists are
completely impotent, and many more become sexually
aroused only when they have sufficiently terrified and
debased their victim through verbal and physical abuse.

Rape is also not a result of any lack of alternative
sexual outlets: many rapists are married, many have
other sexual partners, and most could easily afford a
prostitute.

All the evidence indicates that the sexual aspect of rape
is of secondary importance. The primary object seems to
be to humiliate and subjugate the woman, and thus to
bolster the aggressor's feelings of power, superiority,
and masculinity.

We need to change our attitudes in society, I fully agree
with that - but we need to include both sexes in this -
and not only requiring comparatively little self-control by
the men, or expecting only the women to manage the situation.
People do need to be held responsible for their conduct -
and as I stated in my earlier post - blame shifting in
today's society should be - out-moded
and no longer acceptable.

Should women, who generally are the physically weaker sex, be legally allowed to have some form of protection against rapists?

You know, a bit of equality.

Yes Ls Mise, I agree, in fact I'd encourage it, not only will it help to protect women but if a few potential rapists get shot, zapped or otherwise painfully put off, if not killed, then just perhaps it might in future give another pause for thought!

Foxy, just WHO gathered this "evidence" of which you speak? Who interpreted it? I'd suggest they were guilty of preconceived assumptions that they set out to "prove", and I'd bet they used that most adaptable of tools, statistics, right?
You make a lot of assertions as to what men think/feel etc, on what do you base these? They are largely stereotypes promulgated by those with a feministic/PC agenda and have little relevance to reality.
I see you also discount our genetic heritage too, do you truly believe our Primate genetics don't give rise to "uncivilised" motivations or impulses?
I am NOT making excuses for rapists, nor am I blaming the victim, what I AM trying to do is put it all in perspective AND suggest various levels of "causation", contributing factors if you will.
Education can and does trump these primal reactions, the vast majority of men are NOT rapists so the empirical evidence is clear on that.
It has long been known that the human male is visually orientated for sexual stimulation, we react to females based on what we SEE basically, it's the basis for many things today, fashion, advertising, pornography etc, so how women dress and behave is crucial to the whole question, those nasty monkey genes yet again.
We need to design a political/social/educational system that actually takes those genes into account and finds ways to harness or circumvent them if we want a safer more equitable world, rather than simply blaming men in general and seeking to enforce discriminatory mores and laws that deny reality and promote idealistic delusions.

Dear Bruce,

Where do I get my information about men from
you ask? From views expressed by psychologists,
anthropologists,medical scientists. Through the
study of Sociology that covers the nature of human
sexuality and society and from various Bibliographies
on the subject, from Googling, and so on.

We're told that for centuries, the societies of
the Western World have shrouded sexuality in myth,
taboo, and ignorance. Even sociologists, supposedly
dedicated to studying social behaviour regardless
of the prejudices and obstacles in the way, did not
accept human sexuality as a legitimate field of
research until after World War II.

Sexuality we're told is a significant ingredient of individual
personality. Much of our leisure time is occupied
with sexual acts, thoughts, feelings, and sometimes
fears.

The experts tell us that to most people nothing
seems more natural
or even more "instinctive," than their particular
sexual preferences. But this popular view is simply
wrong, for unlike sexual behaviour of most other
animals, our sexual responses are not dictated by
genes.

Human sexual behaviour and feelings are primarily learned
through the socialisation process and
generally conform to the prevailing norms
of the society concerned.

Ideas about what is sexually appropriate or inappropirate,
moral or immoral, erotic or offensive, are purely social
in origin.

Kingsley Davis, one of the first sociologists to study
sexual behaviour, states flatly that "like other forms
of behaviour, sexual activity must be learned.
Without socialisation, human beings would not even know
how to copulate."

Alfred Kinsey, a zoologist wrote decades ago that
"It is not so difficult to explain why a human animal
does a particular thing sexually. It is more difficult
to explain why each and every individual is not
involved in every type of activity."
Similar views have been expressed by others.

Therefore this all goes back again to attitudes and
learning sexual conduct. We start with a basic,
undirected drive and learn through the socialisation process
to recognise some stimuli as nonsexual, some as sexual
and appropriate, and some as potentially sexual but
inappropriate or even taboo.

Obviously, Is Mise, Onthebeach and G'day Bruce are amongst the few Neanderthals left who still feel that women 'ask' to be raped by the way they dress or act, or that men are 'naturally' not able to control their sexual urges when such women are about.

What if a violent predatory gay male rapist was out there raping drunk men who had made the fatal mistake of 'asking' to be anally raped by other men, simply because they were in a darkened street at night, wearing tight trousers, no shirt, and whatever else attracts gay men?

Would you boys feel the same way about those raped men?

Good afternoon everybody...

This topic has again raised it's head once more, under to caption of 'Self-Responsibility'.

I'm sorry there G'DAYBRUCE in law involving sexual assault, there's no provision for 'provocation' being raised as a defence in these crimes. In issues of 'Risk Management' protocols, a woman 'should' be aware of trying to manage or minimise 'risk' per se, in her daily activities. That includes issues of sobriety, revealing attire, vocalisation, body language, environmental considerations, and several other factors that may increase a woman's personal risk.

These considerations are in no way propounding ANY fault, or shifting ANY responsibility to a woman, in matters of unlawful male behaviour. In reality many an inexperienced defence counsel, at their great professional peril, have tried to argue 'provocation' as a defence for their client, and failed miserably ?

Rather these measures are merely just another method or strategy if you like, for women to manage and subsequently reduce their levels of personal risk, from unlawful and predatory male behaviour. Believe me my friends, there are some real bastards out there, roaming our streets and lingering in or about our public places.

We all must accept, both women and men have these undeniable rights within the law. That includes being alone, in or near any public street or place, at anytime of the day or night, dressed in whatever attire they so wish. Therefore it's incumbent on others (both males & females), to behave towards that individual in a lawful , respectful manner, and to permit her/him to do whatever she/he wishes to do, provided it's within the law. End of story !

'Risk Management' is just that, and it really has nothing to do with the law per se.

Kinsey and Davis are largely ignored in the field these days, they're approaching Freud as more an archeological exhibit rather than a serious authority.
Psychology is a creative art rather than a science, there are so many "experts" in the field with conflicting views, it's continuously "evolving" yet seems to always follow the latest trendy-think in it's expression, and even after nearly a century it cannot ever produce reliable results, nor can even first principles be clearly defined let alone be tested scientifically.
Since Psychology and "Women's Issues" have so very neatly dove-tailed over the last 50 years there has been a clear trend to promote PC rationialisations, basically a self-justifying effort to seek further funding.
Recent studies and rigorous scientific research on the other hand is showing that far more than we think is controlled or guided by genetics, and they've barely begun to explore the field.
This data is produced by solid scientific method, as adverse to vague questions about dimly remembered childhoods and assigning problems to your mother sucking your toes as a baby.
The rest of the above responses are just the usual abuse and standard rants, unhelpful and unenlightening.

Suse,

"Would you boys feel the same way about those raped men?"

Yes, if they dressed so as to be provocative to predatory homosexual men.
I would say that they had succeeded in what they had set out to do, the only difference is that they would not have had to spend as much money on dress.

Dear Bruce,

Kinsey and Davis? It should have been quite clear
that they provided the early research that opened
the doors to further studies. I did point out
that sociologists, supposedly dedicated to
studying social behaviour regardless of the prejudices
and obstacles in the way, did not accept human
sexuality as a legitimate field of research until
after World War II.

It actually might be worth your time to go and do
some current research. That might help towards
dispelling some of your outmoded assumptions.

@Suseonline, Saturday, 20 September 2014 2:40:26 PM

Where did I say any of that? More lies.

@Foxy, Saturday, 20 September 2014 2:12:05 PM

Why fudge unless you know that your source is highly contested and questionable?

You have studiously refuse to use quotes and acknowledge the source of your mantra concerning men who rape, thge question from G'dayBruce refers ( G'dayBruce, Saturday, 20 September 2014 12:15:58 PM). Then again, perhaps you do not know yourself and are merely parroting the feminist mantras fom the previous Millenium and nearly forty years ago.

However since your memory seems to be continually failing you, allow me to remind you that the bollocks you quote came from a journalist who became an author, Susan Brownmiller. See here,

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

and here,

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

Let me help you out answering the further questions implied by G'dayBruse,

Q: Did Ms Brownmiller ever have any relevant professional expertise or qualifications?
A: No

and,

Q: Did Ms Brownmiller apply any rigor to her 'research' or ever survey the rapists for their motivation?
A: No. As a radical feminist Ms Brownmiller felt (?!) free to bring to her research her own intuition and opinion, for which she found supporting 'evidence' (but of course!).

cont'd ...

Dear Bruce,

It may help you to go to your regional or state
library and get a librarian to assist you.
There are quite a few scientific magazines that
have articles on the subject of human sexual
behaviour and whether this behaviour is
dictated by genes. There are also data bases that
can be accessed for these sort of searches.

I'm sure that you're familiar with magazines like -
American Scientist, Scientific American, New Scientist,
to name just a few. There are also magazines on
Genetics .

I hope this helps.

Cheers.

True, in a library G'dayBruce will easily find books by the real academics and real researchers, who immediately dismissed that theory (it is kind calling her rant a theory) by academically unqualified radical feminist, Ms Susan Brownmiller, whom Foxy relies upon for her claims about the motivation for rape, viz., that,

(quoting Foxy) "Rape is a crime of violence, not of passion. It is a ritual of power and humiliation. All the evidence indicates that the sexual aspect of rape is of secondary importance."

While most reputable researchers and academics will not usually criticise bumpf like Ms Brownmiller's theory for fear that doing so might unintentionally lend some credence to it, some such as Professor Camille Paglia did and their comments on it are easily found from the links I gave earlier. Here is an example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Natural_History_of_Rape

Since Ms Brownmiller's theory was thoroughly debunked forty years ago, the credibility and motivation of feminists who continue to quote her theory as proven fact must be regarded as highly questionable indeed. Where they don't even quote her as their source but pretend it is from other credible sources, that is totally unprincipled and unethical.

Of course the feminist dinosaurs of the previous Millenium hope that a lie repeated often will be accepted as fact, and that the mob is easily led, being comprised of useful idiots. For many feminists, feminism and Marxism go hand in glove.

otb,

Rape is certainly a violent act - and a sexual act.

It's both.

Why are you going to so much trouble to the negate the violent aspect of that crime.

It's impossible to rape someone without resorting to violence.

Dear Poirot,

More to the point - why is otb crediting to me sources
that I have not either read or used?

No on second
thoughts I don't need an answer to that. It seems that
no matter what I say - this man has decided to attack
me no matter what.

I get accused of "cherry-picking"
when I do give sources. Then my sources are found to
be "unacceptable," if their content doesn't
agree with his point of view, then when I speak in broad
terms - I get accused of not providing sources despite
the fact that the scientific evidence can be easily
obtained. And now I've even been accredited with someone
I have neither read nor used in this discussion.

cont'd ...

All I can do is blow otb a great big raspberry,
give him the middle-finger, and continue to
ignore him!

"....And now I've even been accredited with someone
I have neither read nor used in this discussion."

Lol!...Foxy...is that so?!

otb, is a doozy when he gets on a roll...but that's a new one!

Dear Poirot,

Yeah, Susan Brownmiller - who the hell is she?

Never heard of her.

But there you go - supposedly I'm using her in my
discussion according to otb.

To use your word - "Sheeeeesh!"

Foxy:
I'm sorry I'm not "trendy" enough for you, but that's exactly my point, isn't it?
FYI, I do read a lot of research, in this and many other real scientific areas, but as I said, Psychology is NOT a science, it's still little more than "witch-doctoring", and it's entirely corrupted by the biases and agenda's of it's practitioners.
Poirot:
If you truly believe that violence is an essential element of rape then you are sadly misinformed, ever heard of Rohypnol?
Then of course there's all those "morning after" accusations, and let's not forget blackmail, simple and/or emotional, and the list goes on.
To be cynical, one could almost make a case that unless the woman initiated it, enjoyed it, and didn't regret it...EVER, then it's rape!
Obviously that's an exaggeration but uses the same logic as that used by Foxy et. al. to define/explain rape/rapists.
The facts are that for over 50 years psychology has been attempting to deal with human sexuality and it's perversions, and has NOT succeeded in any way shape or form, ever, and I would suggest that the simple reason for that failure is the basic delusions, agendas, and biases inherent in the "art".
To offer an illustration, they're basically trying to repair an electrical fault in a car by furiously fiddling with the fuel-filter!

Poirot, "Rape is certainly a violent act - and a sexual act"

Yes it is a sexual act. Did you learn that from those links I provided? -Just as well you read them then. For goodness sakes get Foxy to do the same.

Poirot, "It's impossible to rape someone without resorting to violence".

Nonsense. Are you for real? Rape can involve duress outside of violence. For years feminists rightly challenged your achaic view and succeeded. Good for them!

It is very foolish of you to return to the expectation that a rape must have occasioned violence - leaving the hapless victim in the situation of having to show injury or explain why s/he didn't resist.

I'm with o sung wu on this one...

Existence is a daily exercise in 'risk management' and the best of our laws assist in minimising the risk though often at the cost of not minimising the management.

"What has happened to that old notion of self-responsibility?"

You mean, like the self-responsibility of not raping anyone and never putting youself in any situation where your lack of self-responsibility potentially puts you at risk of raping someone?

Sounds like a good idea... don't know how you hope to implement it, though.

Dear Bruce,

This isn't a question of whether you're "trendy"
enough or not. It's a question of why should
sexuality be something that is categorised in a
fixed way (determined by our genes). I find that
rather difficult to accept. We're after all in our
behaviour influenced by a variety of things
from our culture, our environment, our tastes,
our values, et cetera. We're more than
the sum of our genes. Humans sexual expression is a
variation among people as many other complex traits.

However, as I suggested to you earlier
doing a bit more research might help.

Foxy, I'm sorry you can't get your head around the idea of our genes predisposing us to certain behaviours or causing certain responses to particular stimuli, I wonder, do you accept that that happens with every other living creature on the planet?
Because that's what science has been saying for a long time.
Why are humans any different? Or are you, unbelievably, one of those who believe in the essentially angelic nature of humanity? That we are somehow better than, different to, every other creature?
Our self-awareness and intelligence is not unique, just more developed than others, in fact there's little to separate us from other primates other than language and mental complexity. Research has revealed that chimps even indulge in basic politics, have moods and use tools, recognise the pattern there?
If human males aren't rigged for visual sexual stimulation how do you explain the prevalence and history of pornography?
I would like to offer you a counter-suggestion, that you read more widely, include the hard sciences and authors you disagree with, add some depth to your knowledge and opinions.
WmTrevor:
The fact that some males some times commit rape is a fact, a woman's responsibility is to try to protect herself from this, by whatever means available. The man's responsibility is as you say, to NOT commit rape, but to say that this therefore means women can abrogate their own is nonsensical, it flies in the face of the facts.
Neither cancels the other, a woman behaving stupidly DOES still have the right to expect men to behave properly, but obviously if she bets her well-being on that fact then she's a fool by definition, pre-copralite HAPPENS.

G'dayBruce, you do the vast majority of your fellow males no favour if you are suggesting that because they are 'naturally' hard-wired for 'visual sexual stimulation', they just can't possibly help from raping a woman if she dares to dress/behave in a way that excites him?

Are you for real?
If so, you are a sick man.

Rapes do not only occur against young 'visually stimulating' women.
Women of all ages and in all environments suffer this indignity from disgusting criminals.
What could possibly have 'stimulated' a young man to rape an elderly woman in her own home ? Obviously there is more than sex involved here.

As far as violence goes, just because, in some cases, a frightened woman does not put up a fight if a man holds her down and rapes her, does not mean she isn't being violated.
Anyone who doesn't understand that concept needs to take a look at their own humanity.
Rape remains a criminal offence no matter what the circumstances.

Suseonline, "As far as violence goes, just because, in some cases, a frightened woman does not put up a fight if a man holds her down and rapes her, does not mean she isn't being violated"

You are being very unfair. G'dayBruce did not say that at all. In fact he was on the front foot to challenge the poster who wanted to roll back rape victims to the Dark Age. You should apologise to G'dayBruce and correct your attribution of the offensive comment (Poirot).

Dear Bruce,

It's not a question of my getting my head around
things - it's what the scientific evidence says.
And that is that unlike the sexual
behaviour of most other animals human sexual
responses are not dictated by genes. Human sexual
behaviour and feelings are primarily learned
through the socialisation process and generally
conform to the prevailing norms of the society
concerned.

Do your research on this subject. The evidence
is available - and if you need help - go to a library
as I suggested to you earlier.

See you on another discussion. For me this one
has now run its cour

Foxy,

However you still haven't come up with the evidence to back up your often repeated assertion that, "Rape is a crime of violence, not of passion. It is a ritual of power and humiliation"

otb,

"Nonsense. Are you for real? Rape can involve duress outside of violence..."

Are you for real?

And what sort of duress other than physically overwhelming the victim (ie "violence) are you suggesting?

Cessation of chocolate rations?

Dill.....

@Poirot, Sunday, 21 September 2014 10:35:53 PM

You really don't get it, do you?

It is closet reactionaries like you who would roll back the clock a hundred years.

Are you sure you are a woman? It is a question that has been directed at you before.

otb,

"It is closet reactionaries like you who would roll back the clock a hundred years."

What's that supposed to mean?

Rape is rape....a brutish escapade which isn't defined (or its machinations altered) by historical epochs.

"Are you sure you are a woman? It is a question that has been directed at you before."

Lol!

I'm a Belgian detective with and mincing gate and magnificent moustaches.....

(Time to get off your bandwagon..it's heading down a dead end gully)

"gait"

(Grrrr....)

Poirot,

OK, since you are intent on playing the reactionary fool and I have no patience for your pages of tit-for tat where you introduce irrelevancies, I will leave it up to any women interested (and they should be) to set you right.

Poirot,

The definition of rape is broad and varies from country to country; an example of non-violent rape is Rape by Deception

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

another is by continuation of sexual intercourse after being asked to stop.
There was often confusion between "Stop don't!" and "Don't stop" depending on the state of play and the audio perception of the addressee.

Is Mise,

Yes, no doubt there are aberrations.

But on this thread, Bruce was waxing lyrical on women putting themselves in "risky" situations where they might be attacked - and drawing the conclusion that in doing so they are "asking for it".

"BUT, surely if a woman dresses provocatively, goes out and gets drunk she is quite simply ignoring the very real dangers she's flirting with?
By indulging in risky behaviour and going to known danger spots any person is putting their life and/or general weal on the line, gambling with safety in effect...."

That was the subject of his opening post, and that's what I've been addressing.

Keeping in mind that Bruce was referring to women being attacked for being in risky places and situations, it's somewhat fascinating that some of you are negating the violent aspect of this crime. How can someone force themselves sexually onto another person without overpowering them with physical might...resorting to violence by any other name?

I'll also add, for otb's benefit.

In that he appears to think that rape is only a sexual crime, I say that sexual gratification is the "objective". However the means to that gratification (in the terms Bruce has suggested) is violently subduing the victim.

Just as in robbery with violence, the objective is to get hold of somebody's wallet (or whatever) but the means is to violently subdue the victim in order to get to the objective - the wallet.

You would say, in the case of robbery with violence, that the crime is merely one of enrichment at another's expense. You wouldn't negate the violent aspect of the assault.

Poirot, "In that he appears to think that rape is only a sexual crime"

That is a deliberate, twisted fabrication to try to turn it back on your critic, me. As is very obvious from the posts, I was challenged a view that it was solely violence and domination and the rest of the sorry radical feminist fabrications that go with it.

Predictably, you horned in to challenge what I was saying, although you would have it different now. You are on the defensive, Poirot and so you should be. This is your post, Poirot and a damned wrong and shabby view it was,

Poirot, "It's impossible to rape someone without resorting to violence".
Poirot, Sunday, 21 September 2014 10:35:53 PM

Earlier, I was challenging Foxy's (and Lexi's, since Foxy has been regurgitating this trashy 'research' for years) almost direct quoting from the book by radical feminist Susan Brownmiller, that underpins much of feminists' very negative stereotyping of men and boys. I referred to and gave the links and my argument. Foxy denied it all, saying she was not even aware of Brownmiller and her book, which if true, leaves her very ignorant of the driving forces behind feminism and of the unreliable 'research' that ultimately saw the demise of the feminist dinosaurs of the previous Millenium. Apparently Poirot also shares Foxy's ignorance of Brownmiller, which again is odd, but not as questionable as Poirot's opinion on rape.

Any wonder your negative little games of tit-for-tat, where you continually shift the goal posts and introduce irrelevancies, and fudge as you have done here, exasperates all except for Shadow Minister, who deserves a medal for his dogged perseverance.

otb,

"Poirot, "It's impossible to rape someone without resorting to violence".

Nonsense. Are you for real? Rape can involve duress outside of violence. For years feminists rightly challenged your achaic view and succeeded. Good for them!

It is very foolish of you to return to the expectation that a rape must have occasioned violence..."

Rape doesn't "usually" involve duress "outside" violence.

And in the context of G'dayBruce's opening post, it would seem that he is saying that should violence be visited upon "a woman [who] dresses provocatively, [and] goes out and gets drunk" - then she is "asking for it".

Fair enough if you want to go all pedantic and feign outrage because I challenge your diddling about on this thread attempting to make out rape is something not usually accompanied by violence, that's up to you...but don't start shrieking "That is a deliberate, twisted fabrication" and reach for the smelling salts because I challenge your argument.

I was addressing the sentiments in the opening post - and attempting to keep abreast of your confected tangent.

Poirot,

You are digging a deeper hole for yourself. The posting record is there for all to read.

G'dayBruce and I crossed posts as both of us criticised your statement.

You asserted,

<Poirot, "It's impossible to rape someone without resorting to violence">

To which I replied,

<Nonsense. Are you for real? Rape can involve duress outside of violence. For years feminists rightly challenged your achaic view and succeeded. Good for them!

It is very foolish of you to return to the expectation that a rape must have occasioned violence - leaving the hapless victim in the situation of having to show injury or explain why s/he didn't resist.>
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 21 September 2014 12:15:46 PM

For someone who regularly claims to be a woman (always too much information) and a feminist, your view is quite remarkable and callous to rape victims (for the obvious reasons I outlined).

Hence the question, are you the woman you say you are? Accepting that very few men would agree with your opinion either.

otb,

"For someone who regularly claims to be a woman (always too much information) and a feminist..."

You are so full of it.

I have "never" (that's "never") claimed to be a"feminist" on this forum.

(Why don't you choof along and find a post where I have...Lol!)

And I'm sooo sorry that I regularly claim to "a woman".. Seeing that I am a woman, it's kinda hard not mention it occasionally.

"... your view is quite remarkable and callous to rape victims..."

Oh Gawd, he's at it again...reeling in compassion for the wronged with his faux feminism.

Give it a rest mate, you can't wait to put the boot into feminists/women - and every now and then you claim to be defending their honour. (Guffaw!)

"Hence the question, are you the woman you say you are?"

Only on Tuesdays....

Oh come on OTB, you are just getting hysterical now.
Of course any rape involves some form of violence, depending on what your definition of violence is.

You and the other good ol' boys are always quick to point out all the other forms of violence against men by women in the domestic violence scenario, so what is different here?

If a man indicates he is going to have sex with a women, and she has already declined, then usually she can't physically stop him. Emotionally and physically, she is being raped though.

Even if there are no obvious other injuries on her body if she has been too scared to try and fight him off, there is almost always internal tears etc.
Even if there are no obvious injuries, the emotional/mental violence against her is often worse...

Suseonline,

Then you have changed your mind, because this is what you said before when you wrongly attributed Poirot's remark to G'dayBruce,

Suseonline, "As far as violence goes, just because, in some cases, a frightened woman does not put up a fight if a man holds her down and rapes her, does not mean she isn't being violated.
Anyone who doesn't understand that concept needs to take a look at their own humanity"
Posted by Sunday, 21 September 2014 7:19:14 PM

I don't believe there would be many women who would agree with either of you, and are desirous of returning to last century where the rape victim was required to show injury or justify lack of defence against violence.

That is what you and Poirot are saying, and to quote Poirot again,

<Poirot, "It's impossible to rape someone without resorting to violence".>

You are bother either very callous to rape victims, or you'd say anything to win an argument.

As I have explained earlier, duress can be present without violence.

Suse,

What about 'rape by fraud'?

No violence is used, in fact usually the exact opposite and if a man tells a woman that he is a Lord of the Realm and she believes him and has intercourse with him because she wants to have it off with a nobleman, is she not responsible?

Bye the way, do you believe that women should legally be allowed to have something to protect themselves against violent rape or the threat of such?

Feminist Suseonline and 'I-never-called-myself-a-feminist' Poirot have set the clock back a very long time, with their insistence that rape always involves violence.

Minor details lack of consent are an irrelevancy to Suseonline and Poirot, "Show evidence of violence or get out!".

Any wonder victims are reticent to report rape and other sexual offences committed against them, especially where children are involved.

Onthebeach, I never realised you were so slow at understanding the written word.

In no way does the sentence you quoted from me above suggest I believe "...the rape victim was required to show injury or justify lack of defence against violence"

I stand by my assertion that rape always involves a form of violence, just like domestic violence does. It may not always be physical violence, but it is always violence.

You are just arguing for arguments sake, and you know it.

Is Mise, of course rape is not involved if a woman agrees to have sex.
I would have thought that was obvious.
Yes, I think women should be able to carry pepper sprays.

Suseonline, "I stand by my assertion that rape always involves a form of violence, just like domestic violence does. It may not always be physical violence, but it is always violence"

You are doing backflips. Massaging the definition of violence now it appears.

However that is still intolerable and a backslide to a dreadful past where victims of rape and other sex crimes were unfairly and cruelly required to show evidence of violence or realistic threat of violence, and explain themselves where such evidence was not in evidence to the satisfaction of police and a court.

Some rapes and sex crimes involve violence but others do not. Read the papers.

otb,

I see you've slipped into puppy-on-trouser-hem mode - and we all know how irritating you can be when when you won't let go.

"However that is still intolerable and a backslide to a dreadful past where victims of rape and other sex crimes were unfairly and cruelly required to show evidence of violence or realistic threat of violence, and explain themselves where such evidence was not in evidence to the satisfaction of police and a court."

Btw, when you're not pretending to be outraged on behalf of "whatever" (a favourite ploy of yours in debate) perhaps you can show us all the posts of Poirot claiming to be a feminist.

Go ahead, there's a good beach....you wouldn't want us to think you were just shooting your mouth off with nothing to back it up - would you?

Suse,

"Is Mise, of course rape is not involved if a woman agrees to have sex.
I would have thought that was obvious...."

It is obvious to people who think but not apparently all of the time, especially in Western Australia where a man was gaoled for some years because he didn't stop consensual intercourse when he was asked to do so.

His wife had arranged for him to have a friendly session with her girl friend who entered into the romp with evident glee, then at or near a crucial moment asked/told him to stop.
He didn't, so she charged him with rape and he was convicted and spent some years in gaol.

"....Yes, I think women should be able to carry pepper sprays."

What if the spray doesn't work, or if he knows all about such sprays and is wearing goggles?

Is Mise, there will always be false accusations for crimes of course, but I think we can safely assume that there are far more rape cases brought to court that were unable to be 'proved' , and the rapist got away with it, than the other way round.

Yes, I believe the pepper spray remains illegal to carry because it can be used against the woman in a struggle. I still would prefer to carry it if I could.

Mind you, if I was carrying it then a court may assume I expected to meet a rapist and thus may have been asking for rape...so maybe not.

Suseonline, "I believe the pepper spray remains illegal to carry because it can be used against the woman in a struggle"

Do you really believe that or is it convenient to say so (win/lose orientation)?

The spray is prohibited under Weapons Acts in all states and territories because leftist 'Progressives' such as yourself do not believe a private citizen should have the right to defend herself and loved ones if in doing so any harm might be occasioned to her assailant.

That is easily seen if the policy in the broad and the direction of policy under Labor administrations are taken into account. Excepting for NSW* , the private citizen who is required to defend herself and in so doing injures her assailant can be charged and will be required to satisfy the very unfair reversed standard of proof.

*(successful recent law amendment in NSW that was OPPOSED by Labor and Greens)

However you already know all that because it has been described in depth for you many times before in other threads on this forum. Hence one supposes your rather coy, "I believe the pepper spray remains illegal to carry because it can be used against the woman in a struggle". As usual, you continue to deny male victims of crime any means of personal defence.

Suse,

"Is Mise, there will always be false accusations for crimes of course, but I think we can safely assume that there are far more rape cases brought to court that were unable to be 'proved' , and the rapist got away with it, than the other way round."

But that case was not a false accusation at all, it was an accusation that was true under WA law, he was having consensual sexual intercourse with her when she told him to stop, he didn't instantly comply so was found guilty of rape.

So may we accept the fact that all rape is not violent, at least in WA, if not the rest of Australia?

OTB, I would prefer to be considered progressive, than oppressive like yourself.

Did I or did I not say I would prefer to be able to carry a pepper spray, but that I realise it is not legal?
You really are grasping at straws again aren't you?

Is Mise, I believe that guy was let off the charge?
So obviously it wasn't rape according to the law, so no violence was involved.

You guys are just looking to drag out this thread now, but I can see it is dying.
See you all on another thread.

Suseonline,

As I said earlier,

<Feminist Suseonline and 'I-never-called-myself-a-feminist' Poirot have set the clock back a very long time, with their insistence that rape always involves violence.

Minor details like lack of consent are an irrelevancy to Suseonline and Poirot, "Show evidence of violence or get out!".

Any wonder victims are reticent to report rape and other sexual offences committed against them, especially where children are involved.>

Suse,

"Is Mise, I believe that guy was let off the charge?
So obviously it wasn't rape according to the law, so no violence was involved."

False belief; he was convicted and did time, he was later released on appeal, however that doesn't change the law under which he was convicted.

Note this: "25. Sexual Offences....The offence includes the continuation of sexual intercourse after penetration inorder to address cases where consent has subsequently been withdrawn."
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/25.%20Sexual%20Offences/%E2%80%98rape%E2%80%99-penetrative-sexual-offence

May we now take it that all rapes do not include violence or the apprehension of violence and may also include consent of the 'victim'?

"Feminist Suseonline and 'I-never-called-myself-a-feminist' Poirot have set the clock back a very long time, with their insistence that rape always involves violence."

Lol!....here goes 'I-make-blanket-statements-and-can't-back-them-up-with-evidence' otb.

Cough up the posts of Poirot claiming to be a feminist, onthebackfoot.

Yer all wind and water, deary

Poirot,

Anything to divert attention away from your reactionary and callous insistence that rape always involves violence.

You are rooted in the 1920s and that makes all of the difference. That is unfortunate for the rape victims you would again require to prove the existence of violence resisted by them, or forget lodging the complaint.

Of course you can be whatever you want to be and your preference in your respect has already been acknowledged, viz.,'I-never-called-myself-a-feminist' Poirot. No-one could say better than that (to misquote Arthur from The Minder). It can't all be about you and your ego, however needy you always are for the limelight.

"Anything to divert attention away from your reactionary and callous insistence that rape always involves violence."

Lol!....it's always fascinating to watch otb construct his argument using his own confected derailment as mortar.

Carry on, mate....

As I mentioned, "onthebeach" is sooo apt.

Wind and Water is all.

Poirot, "It's impossible to rape someone without resorting to violence".

Callous insistence that rape always involves violence. You are rooted in the 1920s and that makes all of the difference. That is unfortunate for the rape victims you would again require to prove the existence of violence resisted by them, or forget lodging the complaint.

You are beyond contempt Poirot for your antiquated concept of rape and for such frivolous disregard for rape and sex crimes that you would reduce this thread to just another of your idiotic time-wasting and unfair 'tit-for-tat' parlour games.

You can scoff as you wish and as your personality dictates. However, as a husband, father, brother, son and Australian citizen I require that Australian law be applied to all and without favour. "No" really does mean "NO!", and consent should never be taken for granted.

"You are beyond contempt Poirot for your antiquated concept of rape and for such frivolous disregard for rape and sex crimes that you would reduce this thread to just another of your idiotic time-wasting and unfair 'tit-for-tat' parlour games."

Lol!...settle down there, beach.

You're the one who's banging on, dear.

I've got a house to unpack - haven't got time to waste on your neurotic rantings.