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.