Does a woman ever deserve to be raped?

[Sternenlied]

I agree with you Stern.

It doesn't make sense to me that people would get off easy when they can use things as an excuse to commit crime.

Being an alcoholic still isn't a crime, I'm sure you know this, but it reads like it is a crime, especially when comparing that with seeing a sexy woman walking down with a temptation that you MIGHT do it.

No, certainly not, don't get me wrong.

Being an alcoholic isn't a crime of course. It was merely an example, not an intent do "bash" alcoholics in any way and certainly not to compare them to rapists.

I just wanted to state that being tempted by something still doesn't give you an excuse if you actually act upon it.

There also is a difference between people thinking "what if ... ?" and actually doing it. Although I might see danger lurking when people tell me "I actually thought about it but I'd never do it" ... thinking about something is (fortunately) not a crime yet.

I suppose we all had things come to our minds that - if we actually DID do them - might get us into trouble or even be crimes. Still we did chose to (I hope ... ) restrain ourselves so no harm was actually done. No problem there.

[Sierra]

Originally Posted by ego

I believe that the word "rape" as it is defined by law means so many things and situations that a simple and totalizing statement like the above will inevitably be wrong and insufficient to describe many of the cases.

To put it simple, don't measure other people's corn by your own bushel.

.

Ego, with all due respect you have no idea what you're talking about. When you have been the victim of rape, come talk to me and see if we don't agree.

[ego]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

You're saying you would generally support a society in which nobody has to fear for their safety because of the way they dress, the roads they take, etc. (the victims in this case)?

Yes. And i'd be willing to put the fullstop after the word safety. Without because.

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

You're also saying you would like for other people to live without being tempted (the rapists in this case)?

Approximately yes. I'm not speaking about other people, i'm speaking about the same people. A right is a right for all society.

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

So you think without the temptation of the women in sexy clothes passing through the dark alley, the man being there at the same time wouldn't be tempted (by her looks and presence) to rape her and thus wouldn't become a rapists while she wouldn't become a victim?

I think that my statement "people have the right to live without being tempted" is so clear that allows no "soyouthink" questions. The conclusion above is yours, not mine.
If you want to analize it however:
Someone who IS or tends to be a rapist will commit a(nother) rape anyway; the presence, the behaviour or the clothes of the victim are only a pretense (dodgery?). For someone else, those things can be the cause. Without it, nothing would have happened.
Dont misunderstand me; i'm not saying that rapists are usually provoked, nor that if they are provoked they are not guilty. But i can see the difference between the cases and thus i cant accept the same definition for both of them. And if i want to protect society (a rape damages whole society besides the victim), i have to protect the women (as potential victims) and i have to protect weak people by not putting their weakness in a test.
Dont forget, i started this responding to your statement "People, justice systems, governments, whatever ... who decide to put blame on the victims - especially when based on clothing, walking route, etc. - are just sad and I despise this kind of thinking". It seems that those justice systems can see something that you fail to see: people are not perfect, they have weaknesses and pushing their buttons can have bad outcome; yet, even those weak people have the right to live.

But let me ask back...
Do you believe that people have the right to live without being tempted?
If yes, what should happen to those people who play and hurt others just to tickle their vanity, or use others as a morale booster when in need to feed their egomania?
What should we (society) do to that little cock teasers?
(to save your time: dont tell me what we shouldnt do; just what we should.

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Isn't that somewhat like blaming the beer for being there and tempting the alcoholic to drink it?

This pure example is evidential of a shallow approach on the subject. The alcoholic (rapist) is already an alcoholic; i care for them who are not.
And the beer is just a beer.
If the beer was wearing a cloth as big as a tie, mischievously was slidding from his chin to his chest, was whisperring love words while bitting his ear, was proposing to go to a more private place and finally declaring that she is to much of a beer to be drunk by him and that all happened because she wanted to make other drinkers jealous.... well this is not a common beer... yes, there might be some blame to put on that beer.


Speaking about alcohol.... a drunk woman is not able to give consent. In other words, she is not responsible for her actions. A man is (besides that, we are equal ). Meanning, that if she call me for a fuck, if she put her fingers in my mouth and say "i want we make love" today, but she change her mind tomorrow, that makes me a rapist. A rapist, do you conceive that? I am an evil criminal who (according to Sierra) reduced her to subhuman status, dehumanized her and destroyed her soul !!!
Sorry, my brains cant take that; i'll pass.

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

The man being "tempted" still has a choice to act on that temptation or not. If he gives in into the temptation presented, isn't it still his fault since it is ultimately his choice to do so?

He has a choice because he is given one. It seems we come to the beginning: no temptation, no choice needs to be done. It seems unfair to me to put people in a "fight" with themselves just because other people like to act sluttish. I'm not saying that he is innocent because was provoked, but i say that he is not the only guilty one. Giving in into temptation is one fault, being a temptation is another.

Would you lock an alcoholic into a bar hopping that he is strong enough to stay clean?

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

In my experience a man isn't that aboulic a being not able to resist. However if somebody "has it in them" to commit a rape it will happen anyway, sooner or later, tempted or not.

Agreed.
However... my car will eventually break down one day.... is that a reason to drive it through walls?

.
.
.
second thoughts: are you saying that because he either "has it" or "has it not" its fine to put him in temptation?

[ego]

Originally Posted by Sierra

Ego, with all due respect you have no idea what you're talking about. When you have been the victim of rape, come talk to me and see if we don't agree.

Sierra, it seems we come closer to the root of our disagreement. Respecting you and your personal experiences i'll say one thing only: If i had been raped, i might agree with you; this however wouldnt make me right, it would only narrow my ability to look from different angles.

[ChiTownHoney]

Originally Posted by ego

Sierra, it seems we come closer to the root of our disagreement. Respecting you and your personal experiences i'll say one thing only: If i had been raped, i might agree with you; this however wouldnt make me right, it would only narrow my ability to look from different angles.

Narrow your ability to be objective is what you are saying?

[ego]

Approximately. Not only. I dont want to say more about that in public.

[Sternenlied]

Yes. And i'd be willing to put the fullstop after the word safety. Without because.

Definitely, agreed. I merely but the "because" there because those were subject of the previous example.

Approximately yes. I'm not speaking about other people, i'm speaking about the same people. A right is a right for all society.

Yes, of course all people living in the same society should be given the same rights. I don't see how this should apply to the victim of a rape and a rapist however. A woman presenting a "temptation" simply be being there and a rapist attacking her surely don't make use of the same "right".

I think that my statement "people have the right to live without being tempted" is so clear that allows no "soyouthink" questions. The conclusion above is yours, not mine.

It was not my conclusion, I simply wanted to make sure I interpreted your statement correctly.

Someone who IS or tends to be a rapist will commit a(nother) rape anyway; the presence, the behaviour or the clothes of the victim are only a pretense (dodgery?). For someone else, those things can be the cause. Without it, nothing would have happened.
Dont misunderstand me; i'm not saying that rapists are usually provoked, nor that if they are provoked they are not guilty. But i can see the difference between the cases and thus i cant accept the same definition for both of them. And if i want to protect society (a rape damages whole society besides the victim), i have to protect the women (as potential victims) and i have to protect weak people by not putting their weakness in a test.
Dont forget, i started this responding to your statement "People, justice systems, governments, whatever ... who decide to put blame on the victims - especially when based on clothing, walking route, etc. - are just sad and I despise this kind of thinking". It seems that those justice systems can see something that you fail to see: people are not perfect, they have weaknesses and pushing their buttons can have bad outcome; yet, even those weak people have the right to live.

I agree. If the woman wouldn't have been there nothing would have happened. But what is it you want to achieve by making that statement? If the murder victim wouldn't have been home the murder wouldn't have taken place? Technically certainly true but I just don't consider this kind of cynical view a reasonable excuse or explanation for a criminal's behaviour.
I also agree - people are not perfect. What is that supposed to tell us, that's the only thing I apparently fail to see. We simply have to accept rapes taking place because "people aren't perfect"? Another - quite cynical as well by the way - opinion I am not willing to share. Pretty much like the "weak people". I sure as hell won't deny "weak" people their right to live I am however denying them the right to use "being weak" as a defense for attacking others. I have been in the courtroom often enough to have heard many variations of such statements. Sorry - personally and objectively - I reject all of them.

Do you believe that people have the right to live without being tempted?

If I have to answer generally: No.
Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, cheating, stealing, speeding ... there are so many temptations people might be subjected to every day. I expect people to be able to resist temptations and not blame those "temptations" for their own choices.

What should we (society) do to that little cock teasers?

Nothing.
Telling those "cock teasers" not to dress sexy, not to take certain roads, etc. certainly can't be the solution to settle with. What we should do is what we do: Tell those "tempted" men to suck it up, resist the "temptation" or otherwise go to jail.

This pure example is evidential of a shallow approach on the subject. The alcoholic (rapist) is already an alcoholic; i care for them who are not.

It is not. Like I said before already it was merely an example to clarify a point.
Perhaps "alcoholic" was a poor choice of words, I might as well have said "customer", "person", whatever ... the principle is still the same. You can't blame a temptation for a person acting upon it. Already being a rapist or not is beside the point.

Speaking about alcohol.... a drunk woman is not able to give consent. In other words, she is not responsible for her actions. A man is (besides that, we are equal ). Meanning, that if she call me for a fuck, if she put her fingers in my mouth and say "i want we make love" today, but she change her mind tomorrow, that makes me a rapist.

And that kind of action is something I do not condone at all.

He has a choice because he is given one. It seems we come to the beginning: no temptation, no choice needs to be done. It seems unfair to me to put people in a "fight" with themselves just because other people like to act sluttish. I'm not saying that he is innocent because was provoked, but i say that he is not the only guilty one. Giving in into temptation is one fault, being a temptation is another.

Yes indeed, we come back to the beginning ... men putting the blame on women.
Declaring men are just too weak to resist a sexy woman, they are put in a "fight" with themselves is such a sad statement offending every woman that has ever fallen prey to a rapist.
It is despicable beyond words.

Would you lock an alcoholic into a bar hopping that he is strong enough to stay clean?

An alcoholic? No.
But like you argued before ... you are talking about people who are not alcoholics.
And in that case: Yes.
I expect a man (every man) to resist raping a woman.

Agreed.
However... my car will eventually break down one day.... is that a reason to drive it through walls?

Now that is a shallow example.
Knowing your car will inevitably break down one day is not the same as purposely destroying it and has nothing to do with a man deciding to rape a woman. What is supposed to be the logic behind that? The man might rape the woman just now because eventually she is going to be raped someday anyway? Sorry but that's just crap.

second thoughts: are you saying that because he either "has it" or "has it not" its fine to put him in temptation?

I am saying presenting him with a "temptation" doesn't matter. A man who is willing to rape a woman will do so one day, with or without "temptation".

My second thoughts:
A woman is not a "temptation" to men, she is a human being and no man has the right to attack and rape her, no matter what she is wearing and where she is going!

[doggystylethatgirl]

Gr8 stuff

[theDarkOne]

VERY VERY well said Sternenlied!
Ego i went through your whole post and tried to understand what you were saying(out of respect)but give me a break.I don't care what a woman does,how slutty or stupid she acts,it's called being a man not a little bitch.No one can tempt you into doing something so horrible.Your attempt at justifying it is ,well,ridiculous.We live in 2008 not 1958.Being a man is not just about having a dick.Its about your actions.

if i have miss understood you then my bad but i don't think i have.

We as men have to take responsibility for are actions.No one can make us do something like that.

[AWDracer]

Originally Posted by theDarkOne

VERY VERY well said Sternenlied!
Ego i went through your whole post and tried to understand what you were saying(out of respect)but give me a break.I don't care what a woman does,how slutty or stupid she acts,it's called being a man not a little bitch.No one can tempt you into doing something so horrible.Your attempt at justifying it is ,well,ridiculous.We live in 2008 not 1958.Being a man is not just about having a dick.Its about your actions.

if i have miss understood you then my bad but i don't think i have.

We as men have to take responsibility for are actions.No one can make us do something like that.

Aww man don't say that! Now the girl won't feel hot and sexy after the "forced" sex.

Joking aside, I think Ego's trying to argue something that he'll never win in.

It's a well known fact that hardcore conservatives think that the woman is to be blamed for wearing something exotic in the middle of the night. Why? Can't she express her freedom to wear whatever she wants? It's none of the government's business! Maybe she just came back from a party!

[Sternenlied]

Is it the bargain sales season?
While i speak about presence, provocative behaviour and clothes and i give specific examples, you trying to reduce it to "her just being there"! Perhaps because its easy to defend it that way, while you know what provocative behaviour is and probably you feel its wrong although you dont want to admit it.
Well, i'm not that stupid to put blame on someone for "just being there".
Then, did i say that this is an excuse or explanation? I said that in some cases, it can be the cause. Did i say that he is not guilty? I dont think so. Quite the opposite. I put the blame of rapping on him, tempted or not. Plus, i put the blame of tempting on her, raped or not.
The one does not negate the other.

Yes, I realize what it is you're talking about but I am not trying to reduce it to anything. You just stated your thoughts about a woman's eventual behaviour, calling it provocative. I on the other hand simply don't see it that way. While - assuming a woman did everything in her power to "provoke" a man - you like to put blame on her I just don't. No matter how provocative (or maybe insulting) she might be it is still the man's (and only the man's) decision what exactly he is going to do.

You do well you're not sharing that opinion. But were you found it? Cos i am sure, i havent stated any such opinion... i havent asked to accept rapes. Nor i said that being weak is a defence to one's actions. I said that pushing people's buttons is wrong cos it may have a bad outcome; and then, there is more than one to blame.

Well ... "pushing people's buttons" is just another way of putting "provoking a man". I already stated my take on that one above.

Perhaps you should say as well in what capacity and for what reason you have been in the courtroom, it might explain a few things and make one think that perhaps shouldnt be in the same sentence with the word objectively...
Not to mention that lawyers and procurators know their job: cases like the ones that i talk about probably wont go in the court...

I have been testifying in the courtroom in my professional capacity and if that might make you think I can't be objective is of no concern to me since I know perfectly well it doesn't have an influence on my objectivity. In fact, if it was I wouldn't be good at my job and I wouldn't be called to testify. Are you going to try to play the women are too emotional about rape card next?
I am well aware how lawyers know their job (at least they should) just as well as I know mine. I don't see what the relevance is supposed to be. In Germany all rape cases (or alleged rape cases) - if they come to the law enforcement's attention - must be investigated and prosecuted. If any hypothetical case might or might not go to court doesn't really matter here since I was merely stating I have heard all kinds of "reasoning" why a rapist might have been pushed into raping a victim and telling you how false I consider all of them.

*lols*
Seriously, i have to thank you for that statment!
I believe that deep inside you, you know the truth; but there is a wall that doesnt allow you to reach it. Because:
*Alcohol is banned to some societies, denied to minors in the others. People who use it often are censurable by society. Officially reports in England consider alcohol the second most dangerous drug.
*Cigarettes: non acceptable in some societies, almost banned in America, banned from public places in EU, forced to write smoking can kill on packs.
*drugs:do i need to comment?
Yes i need, especially on that one. Because in that case the one who makes the action is considered a patient, while the temptation's provider is considered a drug dealer, one of the worst criminals.
*cheating: definitelly considered a "bad" action, censurable by most societies, incures penalties that reach execution to some of them.
*stealing ...well, that is a crime!
*speeding: allowed within limit. Low enough to say: but i'm not speeding right now!
Well, it seems that society does care about reducing and/or control temptations. Your answer however is No, people dont have the right to live without being tempted.

What is the point?
Rape is also illegal and still you want to but blame on the victim for offering "temptation". Now - by declaring my other examples are outlawed - you want to make the opposing point. What's it going to be?
Your conclusion those things are outlawed because of society's desire to control "temptations" is exactly that: your conclusion. Those "temptations" might be outlawed (to various degrees) in several countries for very different reasons, others are not at all or only to a very small degree. So obviously "society" (putting it in quotation marks since there is no one, single society) doesn't agree on what should be allowed and what shouldn't be.

And so, people who play and hurt others just to tickle their vanity, or use others as a morale booster when in need to feed their egomania are just fine?

Do I personally like such people? No.
Are they legally allowed to be arseholes? Yes.
Are they to blame of someone attacks them? No.
I am not sure what it is you're asking.

Nothing, which means what they do is fine?

See above.

And why cant it be?

Why should it be?

I noticed however that you skipped the behaviour of the beer... i mean ok, we agreed for him, he's a rapist.... what about that beer?

Again putting blame on the victim. I stated my opinion on that one already.

Sorry, which of the two are you talking about?
His action to give in in her call, or her action to change her mind?

Changing her mind.
Deciding - after sobering up - to call the man a rapist.

For 3rd time in this topic however: I put the blame of rapping on him, tempted or not. Plus, i put the blame of tempting on her, raped or not.

I am fully aware you do.
I consider this just as sad and despicable.

Personally, i find another thing offending for women: To reduce them in beer status (object anyway). To declare they can be blammed for nothing, they are not responsible for their behavior, their actions are not rated; what happens or happens not to them, is corollary of a man's decision....

Now you're just attempting to twist my words into something supporting your agenda.
To a rapist women are objects.
I didn't say women can't be blamed for anything, I said they can't be blamed for being raped.
I didn't say women aren't responsible for their own behaviour. I said they aren't responsible for other people's behaviour (in this case a rapist's).
I didn't say women's actions aren't rated. I said other people's actions aren't their fault.
I didn't say whatever may happen to them is only a man's decision. I said raping a woman is only a man's decision.

Agreed...besides, what to expect from a woman?

Lock every man up?
Shoot every man approaching her when she's alone in a dark alley or dressed sexy?
What's the purpose of this question?
Like I said several times already ... if you so desperately want to put blame on the victim feel free to do so but never expect me to agree.

Well, shallow waters, shallow sailling dear...

Indeed.
And with you I apparently have to sail in very shallow waters ... "dear".

Are you saying that because someone has it in them and thus he will commit a rape anyway, it is ok to provoke him to commit it now?

I am saying there is no "provoking" somebody into raping.

Off course it matters. 1st of all, he might get away with that based on a lawyer that knows how to benefit from those temptations.

Depends on the justice system, impossible to make a general statement here. I already stated how I feel about legal systems that support that kind of legal tactics by lawyers.

2nd, if not tempted to commit a rape today... many things may happen tomorrow. He might fail, or be caught or just die.

So?
He might fail. Means he still tried.
He might be caught. Means he still tried.
He dies. Schrödinger's cat.

Besides, (almost) every man is willing to fuck a woman; that is not enough to presenting him with a condom everyday!

That one you might want to elaborate on.

You have never tried to tempt a man you are into, nor you know 3.652 tricks to tempt a man?

No, I have never tried to tempt a man into doing something he didn't want to do.
If you're talking about sexually tempting a man - yes, if I want to I know of several ways to do so of course.
Doesn't mean a man is allowed to act upon that temptation if I don't want him to.

[Sternenlied]

I have no idea why my post is above yours ...

[ego]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

A woman presenting a "temptation" simply be being there

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

I agree. If the woman wouldn't have been there nothing would have happened. But what is it you want to achieve by making that statement? If the murder victim wouldn't have been home the murder wouldn't have taken place? Technically certainly true but I just don't consider this kind of cynical view a reasonable excuse or explanation for a criminal's behaviour.

Is it the bargain sales season?
While i speak about presence, provocative behaviour and clothes and i give specific examples, you trying to reduce it to "her just being there"! Perhaps because its easy to defend it that way, while you know what provocative behaviour is and probably you feel its wrong although you dont want to admit it.
Well, i'm not that stupid to put blame on someone for "just being there".
Then, did i say that this is an excuse or explanation? I said that in some cases, it can be the cause. Did i say that he is not guilty? I dont think so. Quite the opposite. I put the blame of rapping on him, tempted or not. Plus, i put the blame of tempting on her, raped or not.
The one does not negate the other.

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

I also agree - people are not perfect. What is that supposed to tell us, that's the only thing I apparently fail to see. We simply have to accept rapes taking place because "people aren't perfect"? Another - quite cynical as well by the way - opinion I am not willing to share. Pretty much like the "weak people". I sure as hell won't deny "weak" people their right to live I am however denying them the right to use "being weak" as a defense for attacking others. I have been in the courtroom often enough to have heard many variations of such statements. Sorry - personally and objectively - I reject all of them.

You do well you're not sharing that opinion. But were you found it? Cos i am sure, i havent stated any such opinion... i havent asked to accept rapes. Nor i said that being weak is a defence to one's actions. I said that pushing people's buttons is wrong cos it may have a bad outcome; and then, there is more than one to blame.
Perhaps you should say as well in what capacity and for what reason you have been in the courtroom, it might explain a few things and make one think that perhaps shouldnt be in the same sentence with the word objectively...
Not to mention that lawyers and procurators know their job: cases like the ones that i talk about probably wont go in the court...

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

If I have to answer generally: No.
Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, cheating, stealing, speeding ... there are so many temptations people might be subjected to every day. I expect people to be able to resist temptations and not blame those "temptations" for their own choices.

*lols*
Seriously, i have to thank you for that statment!
I believe that deep inside you, you know the truth; but there is a wall that doesnt allow you to reach it. Because:
*Alcohol is banned to some societies, denied to minors in the others. People who use it often are censurable by society. Officially reports in England consider alcohol the second most dangerous drug.
*Cigarettes: non acceptable in some societies, almost banned in America, banned from public places in EU, forced to write smoking can kill on packs.
*drugs:do i need to comment?
Yes i need, especially on that one. Because in that case the one who makes the action is considered a patient, while the temptation's provider is considered a drug dealer, one of the worst criminals.
*cheating: definitelly considered a "bad" action, censurable by most societies, incures penalties that reach execution to some of them.
*stealing ...well, that is a crime!
*speeding: allowed within limit. Low enough to say: but i'm not speeding right now!
Well, it seems that society does care about reducing and/or control temptations. Your answer however is No, people dont have the right to live without being tempted.
And so, people who play and hurt others just to tickle their vanity, or use others as a morale booster when in need to feed their egomania are just fine?

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Nothing.
Telling those "cock teasers" not to dress sexy, not to take certain roads, etc. certainly can't be the solution to settle with.

Nothing, which means what they do is fine?
And why cant it be?

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

What we should do is what we do: Tell those "tempted" men to suck it up, resist the "temptation" or otherwise go to jail.

Ah, the easy solution! After all, they are not people, they are only men! Sluts can do whatever they like and they have to resist or punished! Great!
Hopefully, society disagrees with you once again: most legal systems accept being provoked as extenuatory factor.
Btw, interesting choice to use "". Dont you believe that men can be tempted by women?

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

It is not. Like I said before already it was merely an example to clarify a point.
Perhaps "alcoholic" was a poor choice of words, I might as well have said "customer", "person", whatever ... the principle is still the same. You can't blame a temptation for a person acting upon it. Already being a rapist or not is beside the point.

It still is, because if you say "customer", "person", whatever, there is nothing wrong with drinking a beer. Anyway, for the economy of the conversation i will agree; besides, i have already agree that a rapist is to be blamed for his action, tempted or not.
I noticed however that you skipped the behaviour of the beer... i mean ok, we agreed for him, he's a rapist.... what about that beer?

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

And that kind of action is something I do not condone at all.

Sorry, which of the two are you talking about?
His action to give in in her call, or her action to change her mind?

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Yes indeed, we come back to the beginning ... men putting the blame on women.
Declaring men are just too weak to resist a sexy woman, they are put in a "fight" with themselves is such a sad statement offending every woman that has ever fallen prey to a rapist.
It is despicable beyond words.

Yes, the way you put it, it is.
For 3rd time in this topic however: I put the blame of rapping on him, tempted or not. Plus, i put the blame of tempting on her, raped or not.

Personally, i find another thing offending for women: To reduce them in beer status (object anyway). To declare they can be blammed for nothing, they are not responsible for their behavior, their actions are not rated; what happens or happens not to them, is corollary of a man's decision....

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

I expect a man (every man) to resist raping a woman.

Agreed...besides, what to expect from a woman?

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Now that is a shallow example.
Knowing your car will inevitably break down one day is not the same as purposely destroying it and has nothing to do with a man deciding to rape a woman. What is supposed to be the logic behind that? The man might rape the woman just now because eventually she is going to be raped someday anyway? Sorry but that's just crap.

Well, shallow waters, shallow sailling dear...
Since you didnt like the example (although you misunderstood it and turned it in side out), lets go to the original statement:

if somebody "has it in them" to commit a rape it will happen anyway, sooner or later, tempted or not.

Are you saying that because someone has it in them and thus he will commit a rape anyway, it is ok to provoke him to commit it now?

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

I am saying presenting him with a "temptation" doesn't matter. A man who is willing to rape a woman will do so one day, with or without "temptation".

Off course it matters. 1st of all, he might get away with that based on a lawyer that knows how to benefit from those temptations. 2nd, if not tempted to commit a rape today... many things may happen tomorrow. He might fail, or be caught or just die.
Besides, (almost) every man is willing to fuck a woman; that is not enough to presenting him with a condom everyday!

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

she is a human being and no man has the right to attack and rape her, no matter what she is wearing and where she is going!

Agreed.

But that?

A woman is not a "temptation" to men,

You have never tried to tempt a man you are into, nor you know 3.652 tricks to tempt a man?

[ego]

Ego i went through your whole post and tried to understand what you were saying(out of respect)but give me a break.

I thought what i'm saying was clear: i support the right of people to live without temptations.

I don't care what a woman does,

I do. I dont make sex discriminations.

No one can tempt you into doing something so horrible.

Agreed. This is why you are accused afterall.

Your attempt at justifying it is ,well,ridiculous.

This the reason i havent ignored you as -typically- i should have done. Someone reading it would understand that i justify rapists, and i dont.

We as men have to take responsibility for are actions.

I expect from humans generally to take responsibility for their actions. And tempting IS an action.

Joking aside, I think Ego's trying to argue something that he'll never win in.

On a personal level, there is nothing to win. I have an opinion, i stated and supported it. For half of it, it seems that everybody agrees; for the other half i saw no controvert so far, not even a comment. So, i guess i wont change.
On a society level, i have already won. Societies -each one to a degree- have developped their ways to keep temptations and "temptations" within lines. I'm not saying that those "defences", those written or unwritten laws are the best solution, but the fact there is a need for solutions means that temptations are diagnosed as a problem.

Can't she express her freedom to wear whatever she wants?

Its wrong to shrink a whole behaviour into the clothes, but to put it simple:
Yes she can, within lines. Taking whatever literally, no, she cant. She can do that in her home, not in public.
1st because that "whatever" does things on others. One's freedom ends where one other's freedom starts.
2nd because if she has the right to express her freedom anyhow, same right has anybody; those who spray the walls, those who run naked during games, those who dont let you sleep with their music, those...those...those....
Those exhibitionists with the gabbardine.
Really, why that is considered a vice and not "one's freedom expression through dressing choices" ??

No matter how provocative (or maybe insulting) she might be it is still the man's (and only the man's) decision what exactly he is going to do.

Right.
I go a step further: Who's decision is to go provocative (or maybe insulting) to someone else? Is this animadvertable?
I believe it is.

I have been testifying in the courtroom in my professional capacity and if that might make you think I can't be objective is of no concern to me since I know perfectly well it doesn't have an influence on my objectivity. In fact, if it was I wouldn't be good at my job and I wouldn't be called to testify.

My mistake, i thought they call you to the court to help them accuse him.
Here however:

I was merely stating I have heard all kinds of "reasoning" why a rapist might have been pushed into raping a victim and telling you how false I consider all of them.

i understood its a personal opinion.

What is the point?
Rape is also illegal and still you want to but blame on the victim for offering "temptation". Now - by declaring my other examples are outlawed - you want to make the opposing point. What's it going to be?
Your conclusion those things are outlawed because of society's desire to control "temptations" is exactly that: your conclusion.

The point is exactly what you miss, although your own examples indicate it:
People are expected to be able to resist, however societies help them,do not let them like that! They try to reduce their exposure!
Rape is not a temptation, its a crime.
To 3 of your six examples the temptation is banned, not the person who acts! To 5 (all actually, stealing is a crime), the temptation is targeted, considered a "bad" thing and punishable or an example to avoid!
You however, you used those examples to state that no, people dont need any right to live without being tempted !!!
I need to make no opposing point, you've done it on your own.

Do I personally like such people? No.
Are they legally allowed to be arseholes? Yes.

No need to have a law for everything. Laws are made when a society cant solve the problem "from within".

Again putting blame on the victim. I stated my opinion on that one already

Again, ignoring the situation just because him is there. He is the target, you care about what he did. The behaviour of the "beer" is beyond your criticism. At the moment she is acting, she is not a victim yet. And she should be critisized about her actions as much as anybody does.
What if there is no rape eventually?
Would you consider criticize her then?

Changing her mind.

Light at the end of the tunnel.

I consider this just as sad and despicable.

With all my honesty, i never expected that putting blame on someone for tempting others would be considered sad and despicable.

I didn't say women can't be blamed for anything, I said they can't be blamed for being raped.
I didn't say women aren't responsible for their own behaviour. I said they aren't responsible for other people's behaviour (in this case a rapist's).
I didn't say women's actions aren't rated. I said other people's actions aren't their fault.
I didn't say whatever may happen to them is only a man's decision. I said raping a woman is only a man's decision.

So far, you're fanatically deny to blame them for tempting. Rape comes later and nobody on this conversation blammed them for being raped.
I asked you to critisize their behaviour and you denied, cos you are to much focused in him.
You didnt said as well anything about her decisions. Your whole view begins and ends with him. You focus on him, you miss the situation.

if you so desperately want to put blame on the victim feel free to do so but never expect me to agree.

The point is not your agreement. The point is that you suggest we overlook the whole situation (including her prior behaviour) because she is a rape victim and although it seems absurd, i'm trying to find any element of reason before i reject the suggestion.

And with you I apparently have to sail in very shallow waters ... "dear".

Aw... i must have missed some developments! I'm not of your liking any more?

[ego]

So?
He might fail. Means he still tried.
He might be caught. Means he still tried.
He dies. Schrödinger's cat.

So?
So she isnt raped! Big difference dont you think !?
Perhaps you havent noticed that (that she isnt raped if...), becaused you've been focused on him. He failed, he tried, he get caught, he died.
What about her? Even if she goes unharmed, he wont get away from your furry, because "if he has it inside him, he'll commit a rape anyway".
Is that Judge Dredd typing those?

The experiment you refer to has to do with random events, and provoking someone is an action/decision, not a random event.Yet, even if so, only when the box is opened and an observation performed one can say about the cat's state. Never before

That one you might want to elaborate on.

Not really. I'm tired, its like banging my head on a wall..

A woman is not a "temptation" to men,

If you're talking about sexually tempting a man - yes, if I want to I know of several ways to do so of course.

Given that you are a woman, which of the above is correct?
Both are yours statements and you got me confused....she is, she is not or she can be but only if she wants?

[Sternenlied]

My mistake, i thought they call you to the court to help them accuse him.

No, the German judicial system is very different from the US American one (especially the one portrayed on TV).
In Germany the court itself (neither the prosecution nor defence) calls upon expert witnesses to make their statement. In my case for example I get called to do a psychological evaluation on the acused and afterwards I go to court testifying whatever I concluded, no matter where it leads.

The point is exactly what you miss, although your own examples indicate it:
People are expected to be able to resist, however societies help them,do not let them like that! They try to reduce their exposure!
Rape is not a temptation, its a crime.

Yes, my examples as well are outlawed. You however missed the point. I wasn't taking those examples to underline society's desire to protect people from any kind of temptation, I was merely stating those are other illegal (at least some of them) temptations people might be faced with. Why exactly they are illegal or to which degree I might compare them to rape wasn't anything I commented on.

Again, ignoring the situation just because him is there. He is the target, you care about what he did. The behaviour of the "beer" is beyond your criticism. At the moment she is acting, she is not a victim yet. And she should be critisized about her actions as much as anybody does.
What if there is no rape eventually?
Would you consider criticize her then?

Before going on at all maybe you should define whatever it is you consider "tempting behaviour". Obviously you think it is some sort of active act on the woman's part.
In the initial example - a women being raped when she's wearing sexy clothes and maybe taking a shortcut through an empty park or a dark alley - I don't see any active behaviour towards the rapist in question. She's simply there while he is the one attacking her. So if your whole point is pointing out that I focus on the assailant then yes, I do.
I am not criticizing her if a rape occurs so why would I if nothing happens?

With all my honesty, i never expected that putting blame on someone for tempting others would be considered sad and despicable.

See above.
Clarify your definition of "tempting".

So far, you're fanatically deny to blame them for tempting. Rape comes later and nobody on this conversation blammed them for being raped.
I asked you to critisize their behaviour and you denied, cos you are to much focused in him.
You didnt said as well anything about her decisions. Your whole view begins and ends with him. You focus on him, you miss the situation.

I don't miss the situation at all.
I already asked you to elaborate on what kind of "behaviour" you're talking about and I simply don't share your point of view on the victim's part of the blame.

The point is not your agreement. The point is that you suggest we overlook the whole situation (including her prior behaviour) because she is a rape victim and although it seems absurd, i'm trying to find any element of reason before i reject the suggestion.

I don't suggest overlooking the situation (neither do I actually do overlook it). I'm sorry you can't find an element of reason here. I didn't expect you to anyway.

So?
So she isnt raped! Big difference dont you think !?
Perhaps you havent noticed that (that she isnt raped if...), becaused you've been focused on him. He failed, he tried, he get caught, he died.
What about her? Even if she goes unharmed, he wont get away from your furry, because "if he has it inside him, he'll commit a rape anyway".
Is that Judge Dredd typing those?

In my case it would be Judge Anderson but that's beside the point ...
Yes, I am focused on him. And why not? Of course being raped or not would make a big difference ... for her. For him however ... not at all, he still attempted to rape her. There's a reason attempting to commit a crime is still a crime itself. His attempt at raping her being foiled in some way shouldn't let him get away with it.

The experiment you refer to has to do with random events, and provoking someone is an action/decision, not a random event.Yet, even if so, only when the box is opened and an observation performed one can say about the cat's state. Never before

Once again ... explain your definition of "provoking someone".

Not really. I'm tired, its like banging my head on a wall.

Ah ... so I suggest you better drop this entire issue then instead of repeating your arguments over and over again instead of actually delivering some serious ones.

Given that you are a woman, which of the above is correct?

They both are.
You obviously just fail to see the difference.
But why should I try explaining it to you? It would just be like banging my head against the wall ...

[ego]

Yes, my examples as well are outlawed. You however missed the point. I wasn't taking those examples to underline society's desire to protect people from any kind of temptation, I was merely stating those are other illegal (at least some of them) temptations people might be faced with.

What is the point i miss? In my statement that you quote, i state that "people are expected to be able to resist". That is your point, isnt it?

I understood what you was stating, but it wasnt everything i understood. Regardless of what you was taking those examples to, they indicate two things:
*quotes himself*

People are expected to be able to resist, however societies help them...

Orange = one thing i understood from Stern's examples
Green = another thing i understood from Stern's examples

Before going on at all maybe you should define whatever it is you consider "tempting behaviour". Obviously you think it is some sort of active act on the woman's part.
In the initial example - a women being raped when she's wearing sexy clothes and maybe taking a shortcut through an empty park or a dark alley - I don't see any active behaviour towards the rapist in question. She's simply there while he is the one attacking her. So if your whole point is pointing out that I focus on the assailant then yes, I do.

I have already adopt a stance regarding the initial example:
*quotes himself again*

Dont misunderstand me; i'm not saying that rapists are usually provoked, nor that if they are provoked they are not guilty.But i can see the difference between the cases and thus i cant accept the same definition for both of them.

If you can notice, there is a "but". And -to show the difference- i gave you an example. Which you ignored, why asking for definitions now? Maybe you saw some "active behaviour" to that one...
So, my whole point is pointing out that you focus only on the assailant, and regerdless of the situation.
You specialize.

I am not criticizing her if a rape occurs so why would I if nothing happens?

Thats what i ask as well, what is so special about her that puts her beyond your critisim?

Clarify your definition of "tempting".
I already asked you to elaborate on what kind of "behaviour" you're talking about and I simply don't share your point of view on the victim's part of the blame.
Once again ... explain your definition of "provoking someone".

Lets first agree that there has to be a line; then will be easier to decide where draw it.

I mean whats the point asking for definitions while you have stated that you have already decide to decline all of them?

Yes, I am focused on him. And why not? Of course being raped or not would make a big difference ... for her. For him however ... not at all, he still attempted to rape her.

Because your view on the situation is single sided... and you miss even the meanning of the things you say:

*looks back on the conversation*

I am saying presenting him with a "temptation" doesn't matter. A man who is willing to rape a woman will do so one day, with or without "temptation".

Off course it matters. ..2nd, if not tempted to commit a rape today... many things may happen tomorrow.


So?
He might fail. Means he still tried.
....


So?
So she isnt raped! Big difference dont you think !?


Of course being raped or not would make a big difference ... for her.

So, presenting him with a "temptation", makes some difference! It does matters! And -no matter how much you dont want see it- her decisions effects the result!

Yes i know, those are small print to you. Imortant is to get him and since he is caught.... mission accomplished.

Ah ... so I suggest you better drop this entire issue then instead of repeating your arguments over and over again instead of actually delivering some serious ones.

You know... due to the way you orbit in that vicious circle around him, the roads i show you are always behind you. If you want serious stuff you have to be able to turn around and look.. make a step further..

They both are.
You obviously just fail to see the difference.
But why should I try explaining it to you? It would just be like banging my head against the wall ...

I love it when you expose your nails!

I'm talking about this difference since the beginning. She can be provocative and she can be not; and this is her choice.
So, dont worry, i know the difference... i just wanted to make sure you know it as well.

[Sternenlied]

Well, since you claim to understand what I am talking about I have to assume you're simply just not willing to see what I am saying. Given that I also asked you not to repeat yourself all the time but actually progress your argument while you obviously refuse to clarify on those points I asked you about I see no reason to continue this any further.

[ego]

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Well, since you claim to understand what I am talking about I have to assume you're simply just not willing to see what I am saying.

I've seen what you're saying. I just believe its one-sided. I believe you see the subject from the point of an prosecutor, not as an external observer.

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

Given that I also asked you not to repeat yourself all the time

You know, i dont like repeatting myself, but you are so good in avoidding/ignorring the parts you cant answer...

Originally Posted by Sternenlied

but actually progress your argument while you obviously refuse to clarify on those points I asked you about I see no reason to continue this any further.

My argument? I dont argue, i state my views. I think its you who asks for definitions, clarifications and those "soyouthink" conclusions with the form of a question, trying to prove me wrong.
And i gave you a very clarified example; so, no refusion from my side. You however, you refuse to comment on it. Why asking for others? Just to give you the joy of trying reject them? Or to ignore them if you cant reject?

After all, if you wanted any clarifications you could ask in the beggining; then when you wasnt arguing yet and before you make absolut statements that your own words turned against.




Sorry doggy, your statement makes no sense. Please improve your maths.

[Uncle Al]

OMG, I was reading for a long time, but there's still not a final answer.