Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

[Outrider]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

But the woman needs to assess risk to herself when it comes to sexual assault, just like she assesses risk when it comes to investments or eating spicy food.

Having raised a fine young lady there did come a time when I needed to have just that talk with her. It was appropriate that I did so. But in the context of this thread it is highly inappropriate to bring it up. 

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

A dressed up person at a bar or party etc is appropriately dressed for that occasion but standing alone at a bus stop or walking home at night in that same attire may make them look out of place and, as a result, vulnerable...like a light to a moth.

I hear this often and I often ask for a real life example of a woman getting raped due to her attire. Nobody ever gives me one. Would you like to be the first?

 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Having raised a fine young lady there did come a time when I needed to have just that talk with her. It was appropriate that I did so. But in the context of this thread it is highly inappropriate to bring it up. 

I hear this often and I often ask for a real life example of a woman getting raped due to her attire. Nobody ever gives me one. Would you like to be the first?

 

Nothing like getting personal. That's the problem with threads like this; too emotional.

[Outrider]

Just now, StringJunky said:

Nothing like getting personal. That's the problem with threads like this; too emotional.

Not at all it's just if women are being abused because of the clothes they wear I would like to see some proof.

By personal did you mean personal attack? I honestly have no idea why you would take it that way. 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And the propaganda technique also uses a "daily lives" backdrop while giving an extreme example, that's why it's insidious.

Agreed. But no one here is using it for propaganda. We are just trying to have a rational discussion, and so it might be best to assume the best interpretation of what is said, rather than the worst.

Quote

Where can a woman go to get away from the foul balls being hit at her in places where it isn't appropriate? 

Unfortunately there is no where to go to be completely safe. But that doesn't stop us from making decisions that reduce risk. If I should be safe anywhere it is in my home. But that doesn't stop me from locking the doors at night.

Quote

Why does she have to assume the risk at restaurants, movies, parks, sidewalks, etc?

Life is not fair. There are bad people everywhere. Let's not pretend that is not the case.

Quote

Are they always guilty if they look ravishing in public? 

And here is where you are misunderstanding the point being made. They are NEVER guilty, and neither StringJunky nor I were saying otherwise. 

Suggesting that there are risks out there, and that those risks should be considered when making decisions, is not being insensitive. It is being practical.

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I’d likely be more sympathetic to the Calcutta slum and baseball game arguments were the same things not also happening at the corporate office or restaurant kitchen or stop light intersection or park bench or grocery store or at any of the countless other places we’ve allowed women not to feel safe due merely to having boobs and vaginas and men to get away our actions due merely to... what exactly?

Due to people in power taking advantage of those not in power, mostly.

My argument was only that risks exist, and we shouldn't ignore them simply because it's not fair that we are exposed to them.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I am not sure about the relevance at all. If someone flashes money in a dangerous area and gets robbed. Does it mean that police won't prosecute the crime because he had it coming? I mean sure, folks could say that was stupid (though still different from a women visiting a bar) but I do not see it being dismissed outright. 

The police should prosecute, even though he was stupid for flashing the money. The point was just that he likely could have mitigated the risk.

Women have traditionally been treated like shit with respect to harassment and assault. That is one of the reasons they tend to avoid men who are known to harass. Most women avoid risky situations, but some still take an enhanced risk of drinking to excess at fraternity parties.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

The trouble is, the general belief seems to be that half the population has assumed some risk just by being female.

They haven't assumed risk by being female, but certainly they are more at risk due to being female.

Quote

But often their "behaviour" is just being female. How are they supposed to modify that?

They obviously can't. That is one of the things that is wrong and we must fix. But until that flaw in our system is fixed, let's not ignore that flaw just because it's not fair.

In the 19th century US you couldn't modify being black, so you mitigated that risk by not doing things that were likely you get you beaten or killed. You didn't just say "it's wrongI'm treated like that', and do whatever in the hell you wanted.

17 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Having raised a fine young lady there did come a time when I needed to have just that talk with her. It was appropriate that I did so. But in the context of this thread it is highly inappropriate to bring it up. 

Sorry, but you'll have to explain why you can talk about it there, but I've made some major blunder by bringing it up here. When have we ever shied away from discussing anything on this site?

21 minutes ago, Outrider said:

 

I hear this often and I often ask for a real life example of a woman getting raped due to her attire. Nobody ever gives me one. Would you like to be the first?

 

Are you married? Ask your wife if she's more likely to receive unwanted attention when showing skin and cleavage than she is when wearing sweat pants and a bulky sweatshirt. I imagine clothes have little to do with rape, but it certainly has something to do with harassment.

[iNow]

54 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Having raised a fine young lady there did come a time when I needed to have just that talk with her. It was appropriate that I did so.

I’ll be coming up on “the talk” myself in a few years, twice actually. Even more appropriate would be living in a world where we didn’t have to, or at least where we could narrow the scope to avoiding dark alleys and the like.  My hope is that active movements and discussions like these get us significantly closer to that ideal sooner rather than later. 

50 minutes ago, Outrider said:

By personal did you mean personal attack? I honestly have no idea why you would take it that way. 

FWIW, I didn’t take it that way at all. It’s a powerful question, and I’m unsurprised nobody’s been able to offer a satisfactory answer. 

44 minutes ago, zapatos said:

My argument was only that risks exist, and we shouldn't ignore them simply because it's not fair that we are exposed to them.

I understand, and also agree. That said, part of this discussion centers around (or at least needs to remain rooted in) minimizing and extinguishing those risks; changing our culture in such a way that they’re far less pervasive and less consistently unpunished. 

[Gees]

Swansont;

 

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Stupid-man shaming would be the police and others asking him why he had nice things to steal, and that he was asking to have them stolen. It would be people telling him that the burglar was a great guy, and asking why stupid-man is trying to ruin his reputation with these accusations (I mean, he never stole their stuff). It would be threats to sue stupid-man for the accusation. 

In a situation more relevant to the OP (as we were talking about powerful men), stupid-man would be ostracized at work or even fired, because the alleged burglar was higher up in the organization. He would be shut out of opportunities for promotion, or to work on the cool projects, because he's been labeled a troublemaker.

Those are the differences that others are focusing on.

Oh, stupid me. So you are telling me that I let my thread be high-jacked? Maybe I should tell a Moderator. Oh wait, some of the Moderators are already part of the thread.

Just for General Principals, I would like to make some predictions. Now that the balance of power has shifted, the Senators will stop "toppling". The government in Washington will not realistically change one whit with regard to Women's Rights. The "trickle down" effect of the new tax laws will not trickle down any more than they did in Reaganomics. Just like in Reaganomics, the effects will not really be felt and understood for another 20 years or so, but when they are felt, the crunch will be to the middle class and the poor. Obamacare will die a slow death because there is not enough money to fund it. The media will find something else to promote.

Trump was right about "fake news". The American people stop thinking when faced with emotional media glitz. We may deserve what we get.

 

Quote

You admit this, so how is it relevant? He was basically being convicted for being black.  

As men -- in this thread -- are guilty for being men.

 

Quote

Who has more power: the rich man, or the beautiful woman on his arm? 

You think this is a competition? Do you understand that equal does not mean the same?
 

Quote

 

I am not blaming the justice system. 

And to say you aren't blaming women flies in the face of a few posts you've made. Your tangent about custody issues, for example.

 

My "tangent" about custody issues is not about women, it is about the laws -- stupid LAWS. It is interesting to note that a person does not have to have any training in law in order to be voted into the Legislature. Sometimes is it like saying that my mechanic is very good at fixing things, so I think I will make him my doctor. Most people are not that stupid, but voting an untrained person into the Legislature so that they can make new laws, is very stupid.

Five hundred years ago a rich man could have his wife sent to an asylum or nunnery for life. A poor man could simply throw her into the street, out of HIS house and away from HIS children -- because he wanted to. Right now a woman can throw her husband out of HER house and away from HER children because she wants to -- especially with No-Fault divorce. If he does not pay for the privilege or gets angry, she can have him sent to jail. Which part of this do you think is an improvement? Change does not necessarily denote improvement.

Bad laws corrupt people, it does not matter if they are men or women -- they still are corruptible. Rights and responsibilities CAN NOT be divided.

 

Raider5678;

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

How many people do you know personally who were raped?

This question was not to me, but maybe it is time for me to state my position with regard to rape. I know probably 8 or 10 people, who were actually raped, myself included. I was 15 when it happened and terribly innocent. Twenty years later, I could still have panic attacks when being intimate with my husband, so I do have a clue about this subject. My door was the one that people came to when they were hurting or in trouble and my ear is the one they turned to when they needed someone to listen. It has always been this way, so maybe I have some experience worth listening to. My training in law has also helped me to understand that it can not solve this problem. Law can guide the situation, but society has to do the solving.

I have been fired for "assaulting a customer", who grabbed me; been to conventions and sales meetings where the boss thought that my hotel room was also his hotel room, so he had to be straightened out; and even had my ass pinched while walking with my Mother in the Vatican in Rome -- right in the church. It occurs to me that no one has grabbed my 66 year old ass in quite some time. Wonder why. (chuckle)

My point is that emotional rampaging, joining pity parties, and demanding changes in law are not effective. Changes in law can actually make things worse. It takes rational cool heads that are willing to look at the problems and find solutions.

 

Quote

1.My low upvote count is due to me being a conservative. The other participants(Ten_Oz, Swans, Charyon, Phi, Outrider) are capable of thinking too. They just didn't reach the same conclusion we did.

According to Phi it is because you think, but are not yet experienced -- so I am still right. (chuckle) I have no doubt that the members you mentioned have the ability to think as I have discussed things with most of them. The problem, as I see it, is that when the topic is emotionally charged, some people's ability to think rationally flies right out the window. Yours did not. There are other members in this thread who are also still rational.

 

Quote

2. I'd say there was more tragedy on the girls part. Firstly, the boy's used a knife, which is usually a pretty big red flag for the boy's my age. Additionally, I know good and well that raping someone is bad. Period. Granted, this is because it has been ingrained into my head by my "sexist bigoted evil Christian church" that rape is horrible and there is no excuse for men who do it, but I feel like most boy's have the general idea too. Rape = bad. 

Well, it looks like there is more tragedy on the girl's part, but we don't know how the boys fared in a prison environment. There is rape in prison and abuse, so we don't know how this affected the boys or what kind of men they will grow into. Our prison system does not have a good record for rehabilitating people. I am not saying that the boys are innocent, as I don't doubt their guilt and they needed to be stopped, but it is a tragedy for all. If the boy were your son or brother, you might see things a little differently; you might find him more stupid than evil.

I am not sure about the knife. Did they use it or just threaten with it, as the Law would make little distinction. Rape is not really a sex crime, it is more about intimidation, power, and control over another person -- it is more about violence and empowerment. A boy holding a knife may not intend to actually use it, but think it a grand way to get what he wants; a man would know the difference.

It is too bad that you were influenced by your "evil Christian church". May you never get over it. You are right: Rape = bad.

 

Quote

3. 14 year's old and drinking is bad, either way. However, poor life choices still don't lead to the right to blame someone for what others did to her. Ultimately, it was a bad situation. Although the risk factor of being raped was definitely higher.

I don't blame her, I blame the adults. Were the boys the homeowners, who threw this party? If not, then where were the homeowners? Where were her parents? Why the hell wasn't some adult paying attention? I think that sometimes people assume that at a certain age, children can be allowed more freedom. This is not necessarily true, teens must be watched more closely than 10 year olds much of the time. Ten year olds don't routinely sneak off to parties, are not as involved in drinking and drugs and sex and trying to be an adult.

 

Quote

 

You're immediately taking these questions as an attack on all women or something. Ultimately, it's what any normal person thinks.

What the hell were the parent's doing letting a 14-year-old girl go to a party with alcohol and no adult supervision? It is not her fault she got raped, but she was definitely in a bad situation would you not agree? The boy's raped her and that was terrible. It was entirely their fault.

But she was in a bad situation to begin with, and I'd like to point out her parent's did not do a good job keeping her out of it.

 

Yes. This was a child. Someone who is supposed to be protected and stopped from making bad decisions like deciding to put their finger in an electrical outlet or drink household cleaners. Just because the crime is an adult crime, it does not make her a woman.

 

Dimreepr;

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If I punched you, I couldn't cite your stupid question as a defense.

Sure you could. Happens all the time in bar room brawls.

 

Zapatos;

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

"the true test of another person's intelligence is how much he agrees with you"

This post was not to me, but I think I started the line of thinking that prompted it, so I will respond. When I stated that Raider can and does think, I was not talking about intelligence or agreement. It might be better if people read what I actually say, rather than what they think I mean. 

I was talking about someone who can take facts, evidence, training, and experience, and run those ideas around in their mind using logic and reason, then spit out something worth listening to. I define someone who can not, or does not, think as someone who takes speculation, assumption, imagining, biases or belief, then spits out something that is not worth listening to.

I don't always agree with someone just because they can and do think, but they are still worth listening to -- I may learn something.

Gee

[Gees]

iNow;

13 hours ago, iNow said:

I have to disagree with you here. There ARE better options.

For example, we can speak up, collectively say that enough is enough, and we find a way to reach critical mass and ultimately improve the world we live in. Hopefully, that’s what we’re experiencing now. 

The better option is to address and fix the problems and move past the status quo, it is NOT to sit back and accept things as they are or learn to find peace with an unjust present. 

What exactly do you think those "better options" are? Because people have been looking for ways to protect women for thousands of years. If you don't believe me, then go to Wiki and see what they have under "sexual harassment" then skim down to  "Ancient Rome". Yes. They were trying to pass laws to  protect women thousands of years ago, and I expect that those laws were as successful as the laws we have now.

The only thing that I have seen that is in any way effective in protecting women is the rules that regulate behavior and contact between men and women, and most of those rules are set down by religions.

Have you noticed that you are very much an idealist when in the Philosophy forums, but are a staunch defender of determinism in the Science section? Do you know what you get when you mix idealism with determinism? Think about it.

 

Phi for All;

13 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Absolutely. It would be a good first step to figure out why the victims in sexual assault aren't getting treated in court the same way the victims of a robberies are treated. Do robbery victims get the talk mistermack refers to, informing/dissuading them that this will be a long and brutal process, and that their personal lives will be under the microscope? Are they warned about their limited chances of getting a conviction? Most of the "compromises" he talks about seem weighted to benefit the accused, and then he claims it's the best option available. The more I think about it, it's the exact stance that has enabled us to ignore this injustice all along.

Wonderful. It is good to learn that someone wants to resolve these issues, so I think the first step would be for you to study law and Court procedures, then you could work for some insurance companies and learn about the denials and ways that people try to swindle insurance companies.

 

Strange;

12 hours ago, Strange said:

Why do they "have to" go through it? Do victims of other crimes have to be warned about what they will have to go through? Surely that is the problem? Do victims of burglary or other crimes get treated like that?

As with so many things, it isn't that simple. The very fact that people even mention "being in a place" is part of the problem. They are implicitly saying that it is wrong for women to be in certain places (or wear certain clothes, or drink) even if they don't go so far as to say, explicitly, that she into blame. They are still assigning some level of blame.

Maybe, or maybe they are assigning some level of stupidity. Stupidity is not against the law, but I remember thinking that it was definitely considered by the law when I was studying it. I can't remember the specifics of why I thought so, but am sure of it's relevance in many areas of law. I will try to remember something that I can give as a specific example.

 

Phi for All;

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This is very similar to the propaganda technique used by Ronald Reagan with the black Welfare Queen campaign. You point to an instance that embodies the worst aspects of your argument, and use that as a supposed baseline for judging behavior. It Begs the Question that the behavior is rampant and always at fault, and in Reagan's case, it unfairly cast several generations of black women in an unfair, stereotypical, and fabricated light.

Why are women in general who've been assaulted treated as though they walked through a Calcutta slum like some blinged-up rapper? It's a fairly automatic response from the current system. You argue that there's a time and place, but in the case of sexual assault, the times and places for women are a tiny fraction of those enjoyed by men in the same venues. Don't you think that needs to be corrected? If you want to change to a better course, you can't steer towards the danger or just leave the wheel where it is. I think we need to start holding men to a higher standard, and not accept that clothing is an excuse to forget those standards.

Ronald Reagan did many things that I don't like, but he did not cause the damage to black women that you think -- he just took advantage of a myth that already existed. If you read the arguments that were made regarding slavery in the United States, one of them was the argument that black women had babies much like animals with little or no trouble, unlike white women. This is a very old concept that in my opinion was caused by "The Doctor's Plague". I wrote about it in the thread, Split from Sam Harris, in the General Philosophy forum. It is still on the first page of the forum.

 

Swansont;

10 hours ago, swansont said:

This is what I don't understand. What a woman wears is not related to consent. Is there any evidence that this actually promotes rape, and not just used as an excuse to try and beat the rap?

Have you ever heard of Victoria's Secret? Do you know what the secret is? Sexy nightgowns, lingerie, underwear, etc. Ads that say, "If you want your man's attention, wear this". Most women know that if the hubby is unhappy with her, a new negligee may very well resolve the problem. Most women also know that you can go into a restaurant, order a banana or ice-cream cone, and eat it in a way that is suggestive and raise two erections out of ten any day of the week.

Men are sexually aroused visually. Most women know this. Little girls do not, which is why we will not allow them to wear certain clothing. When my youngest at 14 argued that the clothing was appropriate because Britney Spears wore it, I countered that Britney Spears has body guards, so when my daughter could afford her own body guards, she could wear that type of clothing.

Gee

[Evgenia]

On 18.12.2017 at 8:33 AM, Gees said:

That figure "76%" seems a little high to me. I could see 76% for some kinds of sexual harassment along with other forms of violent sexual assault, but am having a little trouble believing that three out of four women I know have been physically and violently assaulted. Where did you get your statistics?

 

The statistics in this area can be far from real, indeed. And is difficult to calculate as a lot of victims do not report about such incidents. The real percentage is even higher,i assume.

The story i can share will explain what is sexual harrasment from the women's point of view. When i was 22 years old i was proposed to be a lover. It was one of the Chief Executives of my company i am still working for. From his point of view it was a good deal because he could support me financially.He said it with a nice smile considering himself as a charming one. No matter,he was married. It was a difficult time for me as i was a only one working in my family and my salary was essential. He didn't insist as i said i had a bf but always paid attention to me since then. If my skirt is too short,why i came 10 minutes late from dinner, the quality of my reports....everything was a reason to shame me. I was afraid of going to the room where he was standing and  tried to hide myself each time heard his voice. This is an ordinary way of how it happens. A man is powerful,a girl is young and cute. Am sure,he never realised it was a crime. 

About your next point of why i didn't report: what could i say? And what for? Would it change his mind? Never. Would it cause i loose my job? Very possible.

You doubt the statistics cause you have rapes/violents only in your mind. But the situations like that is also the matter of statistics.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Gees said:

They were trying to pass laws to  protect women thousands of years ago

Sure. Maybe, but on balance the majority of laws these past thousand years have been detrimental to women and women’s rights. 

Most laws through history have negatively impacted women, and around the world many still do, but I suppose you’d like us all to ignore those since it cripples the foundation of your response.

We’ve come a very long way, yes, and... let’s be clear here... we’ve done so using the exact mechanisms, laws, and regulations you so happily dismiss in your post.

That said, we still have more to do, and that begins by each of us as individuals adjusting what we allow as acceptable and what we allow to persist. I don’t find the current status quo acceptable and it’s a real shame that you do. I’m not willing to join you in your defeatism.

http:// https://www.equalitynow.org/sites/default/files/nationality report graphs final.pdf

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by iNow

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, Gees said:

Dimreepr;

Sure you could. Happens all the time in bar room brawls.

1

Does it?

 

Quote

Provocation - People often claim self-defense when they are actually just provoked. In general, provocation is not a defense for an assault and battery. Provocation can lessen your sentence, but it will almost never dismiss the charges. For example, an aggravated assault can be lowered to a normal assault if heavy provocation of the accused is shown.

 

8 hours ago, Gees said:

Do you know what you get when you mix idealism with determinism? 

 

Yes, you get people that give up and blame victims because they should know better. 

Do you know what you get when you fail to understand that determinism doesn't exist? Think about it...

[Gees]

Strange;

When I wrote the words "level of stupidity" something triggered in my mind with relation to law. I could not think of what it was, because as far as I know, it is not actually written in law. There are no blatant references to stupidity, but it is considered in many areas of law, as is evidenced by protections and legal defenses for children, the mentally handicapped, diminished capacity, etc. In order to understand this, one really needs to understand law, and I can not teach enough in this thread to stop all of the denials this post will probably cause. So let me state up front that I am not going to respond to any yahoos, who want to argue about this, but have no clue as to what they are talking about.

I went to sleep thinking about this and woke up with an idea that may help you to understand why women seem to think they are blamed. I think the problem comes up in Contract Law. I am not saying that rape is a contract, so please bear with me -- I am trying to help people understand the limits of the law. 

The rules of Contract Law are kind of funny and often deal with stupidity. I found this very amusing when studying it. The problem is that one man's garbage can be another man's treasure, so how does one decide that the contract is valuable and acceptable by what is exchanged? We can't. Unless it is immoral, illegal, or maybe fraud, we can only determine if the parties, who made the contract, thought it valuable and acceptable. So if a very rich  man states that he would pay a million dollars for the air above Mount Arafat, because he would like to breath in the air that was touched by "God", and if another man said, "I will get it for you", they may have a contract. If, months later, the rich man decides that it was a stupid offer because air is always moving, so it is not the air touched by "God", he may decide not to pay. If the second man actually climbed Mount Arafat to get the "air", he is out costs and time, so he may sue for breach of contract. The Judge is going to look primarily for two things; was there a valid offer and a valid acceptance. If he finds a valid offer and acceptance, then there is a valid contract. The Judge may order the rich man to pay, or may mitigate his costs because the "air" does move, and at least compensate the second party for his costs. Contract Law is mostly about the offer and acceptance.

There is also something called a Bi-Lateral Contract. This contract is formed when one party makes an offer and the other party accepts by action. So if a man states that he will pay $100  to anyone who can swim all the way across a river and back, then another man does it, they may have a contract. The first party may be ordered to pay the $100. Again this is mostly about offer and acceptance.

In law, offer and acceptance denote agreement, so taking this idea to sexual assault and rape cases, we find that there is no crime if there is offer and acceptance. So when policemen, attorneys, and prosecutors are questioning a "victim", what they are trying to find out is whether or not there was an offer. She would state, "Of course not. No one asks to be raped." and be very offended, but the reality is that there are many ways to offer, as it is not always a verbal offer. I know that between my husband and myself, there was not always an offer, or even a verbal exchange -- sometimes there were no words spoken. I could give him that "look" or smile, or receive it from him, wear a negligee, or just tell him that we have a free evening and the kids are at the babysitters. He would know that it was an offer. If any of you are honest, you know that this is true.

A rape kit just proves an exchange and has no relevance to offer and acceptance. Bruises and screaming, "No." may or may not have relevance as porn sites and magazines featuring S&M are not a scarcity, and there is the best seller, 50 Shades of Grey. So successfully prosecuting a sexual assault case comes down to protection of children, nuns, the elderly and handicapped, and people with a great deal of credibility -- sometimes circumstances can help. It is a damned nightmare for prosecutors.

Or you could say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of law.

Gee

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, Gees said:

Strange;

When I wrote the words "level of stupidity" something triggered in my mind with relation to law. I could not think of what it was, because as far as I know, it is not actually written in law. There are no blatant references to stupidity, but it is considered in many areas of law, as is evidenced by protections and legal defenses for children, the mentally handicapped, diminished capacity, etc. In order to understand this, one really needs to understand law, and I can not teach enough in this thread to stop all of the denials this post will probably cause. So let me state up front that I am not going to respond to any yahoos, who want to argue about this, but have no clue as to what they are talking about.

I went to sleep thinking about this and woke up with an idea that may help you to understand why women seem to think they are blamed. I think the problem comes up in Contract Law. I am not saying that rape is a contract, so please bear with me -- I am trying to help people understand the limits of the law. 

The rules of Contract Law are kind of funny and often deal with stupidity. I found this very amusing when studying it. The problem is that one man's garbage can be another man's treasure, so how does one decide that the contract is valuable and acceptable by what is exchanged? We can't. Unless it is immoral, illegal, or maybe fraud, we can only determine if the parties, who made the contract, thought it valuable and acceptable. So if a very rich  man states that he would pay a million dollars for the air above Mount Arafat, because he would like to breath in the air that was touched by "God", and if another man said, "I will get it for you", they may have a contract. If, months later, the rich man decides that it was a stupid offer because air is always moving, so it is not the air touched by "God", he may decide not to pay. If the second man actually climbed Mount Arafat to get the "air", he is out costs and time, so he may sue for breach of contract. The Judge is going to look primarily for two things; was there a valid offer and a valid acceptance. If he finds a valid offer and acceptance, then there is a valid contract. The Judge may order the rich man to pay, or may mitigate his costs because the "air" does move, and at least compensate the second party for his costs. Contract Law is mostly about the offer and acceptance.

There is also something called a Bi-Lateral Contract. This contract is formed when one party makes an offer and the other party accepts by action. So if a man states that he will pay $100  to anyone who can swim all the way across a river and back, then another man does it, they may have a contract. The first party may be ordered to pay the $100. Again this is mostly about offer and acceptance.

In law, offer and acceptance denote agreement, so taking this idea to sexual assault and rape cases, we find that there is no crime if there is offer and acceptance. So when policemen, attorneys, and prosecutors are questioning a "victim", what they are trying to find out is whether or not there was an offer. She would state, "Of course not. No one asks to be raped." and be very offended, but the reality is that there are many ways to offer, as it is not always a verbal offer. I know that between my husband and myself, there was not always an offer, or even a verbal exchange -- sometimes there were no words spoken. I could give him that "look" or smile, or receive it from him, wear a negligee, or just tell him that we have a free evening and the kids are at the babysitters. He would know that it was an offer. If any of you are honest, you know that this is true.

11

Quite the loquacious strawman, married or not, come hither look or "come get it sailor" any, supposed, contract is null and void as soon as she/he says "stop" or "no".

13 hours ago, Gees said:

Or you could say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of law.

Whilst it's wise to teach people to avoid potential danger, there's no reason blame them for being attacked if they don't.

Edited December 23, 2017 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

46 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Whilst it's wise to teach people to avoid potential danger, there's no reason blame them for being attacked if they don't.

"Don't touch the kettle, it's hot"

Yells.

"Awww come here my love. Have you hurt your hand. Nasty kettle"

Who's to blame, an animate object? 

Not one of your finest posts.

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

"Don't touch the kettle, it's hot"

Yells.

"Awww come here my love. Have you hurt your hand. Nasty kettle"

Who's to blame, an animate object? 

1

Indeed, but the kettle doesn't attack.

Danger much like heat is a continuum; there's a vast difference between walking down a street where there happens to be a dangerous person and walking into a gang's home and shouting wankers.

Either way, the fault is the attacker, not the victim (A kettle has no choice how hot it is).

35 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Not one of your finest posts.

 

Maybe, but I notice you haven't addressed the other part of the same post. 

Edited December 23, 2017 by dimreepr

[CharonY]

On 12/21/2017 at 7:00 PM, zapatos said:

The police should prosecute, even though he was stupid for flashing the money. The point was just that he likely could have mitigated the risk.

Women have traditionally been treated like shit with respect to harassment and assault. That is one of the reasons they tend to avoid men who are known to harass. Most women avoid risky situations, but some still take an enhanced risk of drinking to excess at fraternity parties.

So we agree on the first part, which is the crux of the situation. Law enforcement seem to make judgement calls based on the morality of the victim (not just the behaviour at the specific incidence) to decide whether they prosecute. Second, while it is a good idea to mitigate risk in general, if it is being codified in law we will get into situations where burqas become the logical consequence. 

Also, since it has not come up, the large majority of rapes and sexual assaults are carried out by acquaintances which includes settings generally assumed to be safe(r). Thus, in many cases what is commonly perceived as risky behaviour does not actually increase chance of rape or sexual assault. Attire, for example has been shown to influence outcome of rape cases, but there is no evidence for a correlation with increased rape risk.

[John Cuthber]

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

So we agree on the first part, which is the crux of the situation. Law enforcement seem to make judgement calls based on the morality of the victim

Strictly, it's the imagined morality of the victim.

[seriously disabled]

It isn't much about power I think than it is about looks and money.

Good looks matter more to people and especially to women than they'll be willing to admit.

If you don't have the right looks then you have a snowballs chance in hell to get sex, love and affection from good-looking young girls.

And many articles I've read on the Internet support my view that people with good looks are treated much better by the opposite sex and by people in general than they're willing to admit.

The problem is that no one wants to admit that they're not good-looking or not physically attractive and this is what makes fighting looks-based discrimination and looks-based stereotypes very difficult.

https://www.livescience.com/58607-mens-looks-may-matter-more-than-personality.html

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/its-really-hard-legally-protect-people-beauty-bias-180950331/

 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

If you don't have the right looks then you have a snowballs chance in hell to get sex, love and affection from good-looking young girls.

How then do you explain Rupert Murdock and Sheldon Adelson and Larry Flint and our current president and essentially every other hideously unattractive yet powerful and rich man with super attractive women by their sides, in their beds, and joined in marriage?

Your point doesn’t hold up to even remedial scrutiny. Good looks are NOT all that matter.

 

[dimreepr]

53 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

It isn't much about power I think than it is about looks and money.

Good looks matter more to people and especially to women than they'll be willing to admit.

If you don't have the right looks then you have a snowballs chance in hell to get sex, love and affection from good-looking young girls.

And many articles I've read on the Internet support my view that people with good looks are treated much better by the opposite sex and by people in general than they're willing to admit.

The problem is that no one wants to admit that they're not good-looking or not physically attractive and this is what makes fighting looks-based discrimination and looks-based stereotypes very difficult.

https://www.livescience.com/58607-mens-looks-may-matter-more-than-personality.html

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/its-really-hard-legally-protect-people-beauty-bias-180950331/

 

good looks are merely a chattel, a prize to be displayed.

[mistermack]

Sex is such a complicated topic. Because our attitudes towards it are complicated.

It's illegal for a woman to walk about naked. Why? Not for her protection. But it may be partly that. But the same rule applies to a man. But a man can show his nipples, a woman can't. But in some places she can. But in other places, she must be thoroughly covered up, ostensibly for her "protection" which she hasn't asked for. 

Up to a point, we have a similar thing in the UK about crash helmets and seat belts. You have to wear them, for your own protection. You don't get a choice. The law says you must take those steps to protect yourself. The decency laws could be looked at as something similar. You are forced to protect yourself, whether you want to or not.

If another motorist crashes into you, and you are not wearing your seat belt, it doesn't absolve him of blame for his poor driving. But it does partly absolve him of blame for the injury you suffered. Because you didn't take the precautions that the law says you must. So the principle is already out there, in law, that you can be partly responsible for your own calamity by not taking reasonable precautions.  It doesn't in any way absolve the guilty party, but it is taken into account in law in those sorts of cases.

Like a lot of law, it hinges on what is considered "reasonable" behaviour. (at the time).

[iNow]

I’m unconvinced these puritanical laws you reference are intended to protect the person being punished for such behaviors. Instead, it seems more likely they’re implemented to protect the delicate sensitivities of the pious and to impose ones personal morality by force on to the rest of the populace. 

[Strange]

There is no specific law against walking down the road naked in the UK. One famous and persistent nude walker was arrested several times and jailed for other things like "causing a breach of the peace".

[John Cuthber]

The seat belt laws were introduced because the tax-payer got tired of picking up the medical bills of people who thought seal belts were not a good idea. There are other factor in play but it's irrelevant to the issue.

If a woman walks through town with no clothes on she will be stared at. However she shouldn't be assaulted.

Any assault is caused by the perpetrator's lack of self control and  empathy, not her lack of clothes (nor on what, if anything, she chose to wear).

Stop blaming victims.

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Stop blaming victims.

I do blame victims, and I think it's right to blame victims, when they take silly risks. If you dash across a zebra crossing without looking, you take a silly risk, even though you have the right of way. It doesn't absolve the driver who hits you, they should be ready to stop. But when you take an obvious risk, even though you have a right to do so, I think you are partly to blame. 

Like I said, a lot of law hinges on what's reasonable. It's not always black and white. 

A person is innocent till proven guilty. But if I knew that someone had just been acquitted on charges of paedophilia, and I allowed him to babysit my kids, and they got abused, I would blame myself, as well as the paedophile. Because the risk should have been obvious, and I ignored it. 

[seriously disabled]

On ‎25‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 7:10 PM, dimreepr said:

good looks are merely a chattel, a prize to be displayed.

I mostly disagree.

I think that looks are more important to good-looking young girls than most men realize.

Also if you are too short or too ugly or too poor or if you lack a sense of humor and you are too boring then it can be difficult for you to get what you want.

Take Elliot Rodger for example.

I think that Elliot Rodger couldn't get a girl because he was too short and he didn't have a good-paying job and these things can be critical if you want success with beautiful women.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by seriously disabled