MuthaFunka said:

How fucking ridiculous of you. They could be raped in any situation. you'd probably punk up any chick who got raped because of your warped ass views placing responsibility and blame on a woman for an act a man commits.

MuthaFunka said:

Yes she is accountable for the action of wearing lingerie.

NO, she is in NO WAY accountable for the action of being raped. Dressing provactively does not make a woman accountable (or responsible) for being raped.

How about discussing the fact that regardless of what time it is, where you are, how long you have known someone, how you are dressed, or any other myriad of reasons a rape victim is NOT ACCOUNTABLE for the action of being raped?

MuthaFunka said:

you disappoint me

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

And that's exactly why your logic fails you. And if you ever get into that situation and something nefarious like that happens to you, remember this thread, bruh. For real.

The ONLY thing that matters is that she got raped?

Yes

How about discussing the PREVENTABLE ACTIONS NEXT TIME TO LESSEN THE CHANCE OF BEING RAPED?

Wtf does that have to do with women??? This is a man's problem, and we should not be looked at for a solution or be personally responsible in any way to prevent rape.

To think that we should be responsible in any way to prevent rape is utterly ridiculous and downright terrifying.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Yeah, like being raped while crossing the street, right? Brilliant example, bruh. . Again, don't get all pissy at me simply because you feel she bears NO RESPONSIBILITY in what may or may not have happened that night. It is what it is.

MuthaFunka said:

I never used that as an argument.

MuthaFunka said:

You just don't get it.

MuthaFunka said:

You still have not answered my hypothetical question:

You meet a woman, and after knowing her for only a few hours, the two of you go somewhere more private (hotel, apartment, wherever). She rapes you. Are you hypothetically responsible (or accountable) for being raped?


.
[Edited 4/23/09 18:03pm]

jone70 said:

And this is where the whole "I can wear what I want to wear because I have that right to" defense comes in...BUT IS IT WISE? That's the whole COMMON SENSE issue here. And again, no one wants to look at it from that angle.

I'd love to wear sweats and a t-shirt to work, but I can't. Why? Because there are consequences and repercussions I have to deal with. It would certainly be my choice, but if I got fired because of it I can't sit there and say "My boss was the ONLY person that bears responsibility for me being fired." The real world doesn't work that way.

JustErin said:

You sure about that?

emm said:

I think the argument Mutha is making is that she wasn't raped in the first place, not that a rape victim is at fault once a rape does happen.

emm said:

That's entirely your fault, not mine.

JustErin said:

WOW! So you think preventing rape IS ONLY A MAN'S JOB? WOW! Jesus H. Christ! I don' read it all now. WOW.

jone70 said:

I did answer. You just didn't like my answer. That's on you.

paintedlady said:

Uh, that second part is totally where it has gone because if you notice he would tell his raped cousin basically she deserved to be raped because she went to a man's room at 3 AM! It has gone way way WAY beyond the Mike Tyson case and totally into his general philosophy on women's "responsibility" and "accountability" when it comes to MEN'S ACTIONS.

I haven't flipped out like this in a while

.
[Edited 4/23/09 18:08pm]

MuthaFunka said:

Your example is faulty because you know before going to work (presumable because you have an employee handbook that addresses the office dress code) what the consequences are if you wear something that is not "allowed."

But in the United States -- unless you are maybe part of some particular religious sect (e.g. Hasidic Jew, Amish) -- there are no rules governing what people in the USA can wear in their "free time" (e.g. not at work, in school, etc.). So who decides what is "wise" to wear and what isn't, and how does everyone else know those rules? Impossible.

paintedlady said:

No, my argument is - She shouldn't have gone over there in the first place. That was her biggest and most crucial mistake. Had she not done that dumb act, she wouldn't have been raped. She wouldn't have given up her POWER to begin with. The moment she went over there, she relenquished her power and gave it ALL to Mike. Not a smart thing to do, because now you're entrusting a headcase, vilent boxer to "keep you safe". How'd that work out for her?

MuthaFunka said:

No, you avoided the answer by saying you wouldn't go anywhere. Hypothetically, that was not an option.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

-----
The same man who has admitted beating the crap out of Robyn Gibbons and raping her when they were married.

jone70 said:

Handbook or not, it's STILL my decision, right? That's the point. Hell, are you saying you ALWAYS drive the speed limit? You have posted signs that serve as your "handbook" yet you still CHOOSE to go above the speed limit, don't you? Yep.

Ya'll are REALLY tripping me out.

When you drive, you wear a seatbelt to prevent dying in a car accident.

When you fuck, you wear a condom to prevent getting pregnant or an STD.

So, how does someone fail to apply the same concepts of common sense, safety, precaution, and self-preservation when it comes to going to the hotel room of a strange man with a violent history. (But like I said in THIS case I think she had consensual sex.)

Mutha hasn't said anywhere that any woman is at fault for being raped, however, if you place yourself in an unsafe situation why the surprise and outrage when some unsafe shit happens to you. Sure, anything can happen anywhere but when you knowingly put yourself in a risky situation you do hold some responsibility for being there in the first place when you KNEW there were risks.

I guess all you guys blame the white tiger for chomping down Roy's ass when he was just being a tiger.

jone70 said:

Exactly. Like I said, I gave you an answer...you just didn't like it because it shut down your hypothetical at that point.

MuthaFunka said:

Actually, I don't drive much. (I live in NYC.) But when I visit my parents and have to drive, I don't speed. I'm kinda square like that.

Oh, and that's not the same as choosing what to wear anyway because speed limits are laws; whereas what people choose to wear is not governed by federal, state, or municipal laws as far as I know.

Nice try though.

.
[Edited 4/23/09 18:13pm]

MuthaFunka said:

The only way it can be linked to a woman is in the way she raises her son. That is it.

Anyone that thinks a woman needs to prevent rape in any other way is absolutely 100% wrong, wrong, wrong and their attitude is actually contributing towards this kind of violence towards women.

laurarichardson said:

But according to some here...that shouldn't have mattered. She gets a pass for not using logic.

SCNDLS said:

PREACH THAT SHIT!

It's funny how some here are cool with Desiree not using sound judgment but have NO PROBLEM AT ALL jumping on Mike for not doing THE EXACT SAME THING. Now THAT'S some hypocritical shit if I've EVER seen it.

laurarichardson said:

Ahhh the congresswoman has arrived Some women are gullible enough to believe a man who denies he's an abuser. and his admission still is no pass for him to rape her if he did.

MuthaFunka said:

I stand corrected...

but yes in theory a woman should always be able to say stop and the man should stop, but that only works in theory... this is why date rapes happen in the first place.

It is better to not put yourself in harm's way.

jone70 said:

No, I'm sure you've went above the speed limit a few times. It's inevitable, especially when there aren't posted speed signs yet there is an actual speed limit you're supposed to adhere to. So I certainly don't buy that .

And you were the one that brought up "handbooks" and that's the same as "law" as far as the workplace goes. So you can't try and slide outta this one, missy.