19 August 2010

Provocatively Dressed Women and Rape...

It was with some interest that I read a story in The Jakarta Globe about the Head of West Aceh, Ramli Mansur. It seems that the Head of West Aceh has decided that scantily or provocatively dressed women are responsible for their own rape if they go out in public dressed inappropriately. I think more specifically, he said that these women were "asking to be raped!"

If you are shaking your head, then I do not blame you. I always shake my head when I hear this line of argument from anyone. It is an argument I have heard before in Australia. In fact, way back in 2006 an Imam based in Sydney during his Friday prayer sermon stated in unequivocal terms that women who wore make up, dressed provocatively, and went out in public were the equivalent of uncovered meat. Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali said:


"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?"


"The uncovered meat is the problem."


"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

As I said, been there and heard that!

The Sheik was born in Egypt and, the last I heard, he still calls Australia home.

Why is it that blokes making statements like Mansur and Hilali look like they have been hit by a bus? Let's face it, there is not a stud muffin amongst them! Some of these fellas would be lucky to get laid even if they offered to pay for it!

Back to Mansur and West Aceh. It is understandable that reaction to the misogynist opinions of a backward thinking, backward looking relic of ancient Islamic history has been roundly ridiculed in the Blogosphere, Twittersphere, Facebook, and other social networking places. It is high time that some of these people came and joined the rest of us in the modern world.

It is also high time that people, usually men, stopped making excuses for the bad (and criminal behaviour) of other men. There is nothing right or mitigating in circumstances where a man rapes a woman because she is not wearing the hijab or a burqa or she desires to leave her home and head out in public. Wearing a short skirt does not equate to wearing a sign around one's neck saying "hey, feel free to rape me because I am wearing a short skirt".

Respect and tolerance are not things to be enjoyed by, and among, men. Respect and tolerance extend to all, not just when you feel like it, but at all times. These are not Western values, these are human values.

These men make me want to puke!

(If you have not been able to tell yet from the tone of this rant, I have no time for fools like this!)

39 comments:

jacobian said...

well that's one thing to be reckon with when someone decided to live in aceh.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Jacobian...

Are you serious? So, are you suggesting it is OK? After all, it is just Aceh. And, people should know that if they move there then men may rape them for no other reason than they are not wearing a hijab?

Interesting...

ralph said...

I think you underestimate the problem Rob.

Indonesians generally dress modestly. Someone who wears truly sexy clothes will really stand out and be thought to be someone with a radically different set of morals. She may in fact be more permissive. It is therefore possible she might find herself in situations where she is forced to do something she might later regret, and therefore subsequently call "rape"

No?

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph...

Really? You think I underestimate the problem? Are you trying to patronise me?

Are you suggesting that I am underestimating it because I am not an Indonesian or I am not familiar with things in Indonesia? If you are, then you will have to do better than that!

So, your argument is, if the hat fits...Because a woman elects to wear clothes that do not fit someone else's moral standard then she can be fairly labeled as sexually permissive or promiscuous?

How are you forced to do something you will later regret? If she is forced then she is forced, assuming by forced you mean against her will. If so, then that is rape.

If she participates willingly in the sexual activity and then changes her mind after the fact then this is problematic for all concerned. But, that is not the point of the post here, is it?

If a woman wears a short skirt, it is your judgment that she is sexually promiscuous not necessarily a statement of fact. They are your prejudices and biases being projected onto the woman in the short skirt.

You have completely missed the point of the original post.

Yes?

ralph said...

I guess I am recalling the many issues that come up in rape trials; for man and woman. It is better to avoid the accusation, arrest and trial I would say. One way of doing this is to avoid drawing attention to oneself by wearing "sexy" clothing. I know this is a rather illiberal call but generally I think this is what women generally do here. They remain modest.

As for your post, perhaps I am off the point. I was just trying to flesh the matter out - to try to grey your argument, which seems to be almost a violent and somewhat unthinking reaction to the meat allusion.

I know you know a lot about this issue and I am not being patronising. If you were female Im not even sure if Id change my mind.

Im reminded of the term "jail bait" which I often heard women utter when I was young.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph...

I paused for a moment and seriously considered replying to your second comment. Then again, I am up for the challenge.

You are not greying my argument. There is nothing to be greyed. You are trying to change the emphasis of the arguments in the post to suit what you want to say, but that is amateurish at best.

Your arguments are bizarre. Mainly because you excuse the make behaviour on the basis that the women asked for it by dressing provocatively.

Not only are you not greying my arguments, you are not fleshing the matter out. You are adopting a standard misogynist argument that it is the women who are at fault for not dressing modestly.

Now, if a woman chooses to wear a burqa, a hijab, or a mini-skirt, that is a matter for them. I do not subscribe to the theory that all women who wear the veil are victims of violence or dominated by men. It is all about choice.

Violent and unthinking? You really should become a comedian. There is nothing violent in my comments nor are they unthinking. Seriously, reread them...

Jail bait is still uttered now, but what is your point? Jail bait is used to refer to girls below the age of consent. Jail bait is not used to describe women who dress provocatively. But, I guess that fits your argument, doesn't it?

Seriously, Ralph...you are wasting your time. And, I am wasting mine.

I think that it is wrong that some men think that raping a woman who dresses in a particular way can be mitigated by the very nature of her dress code. You, well, I am not sure what you think!

ralph said...

Again thanks. I do note a case I read where a female wearing tight jeans lost a rape case because the judge deemed that it would have been impossible for a man to rip them off without (her) assistance. Strange world we live in.

I thought you might see a contributory element to a woman's choice in clothing. I guess a man or woman can be provoked to murder but not to rape. That's where the law stands isnt it?

I am not being misogynist - I know myself. I would never condone rape in any form.

I do wonder if mmore women are raped when wearing sexy clothes than not? If this true, then what does it say about men? Would it not be wise for women to dress modestly if this were true?

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph...

As I said, I am obviously wasting your time, and you mine.

It is always good to cite the cases on which you rely. It makes it sound like there is a whole lot more gravitas to what you are saying / arguing.

So, now your argument is based on wearing sexy clothes reaches the same degree of provocation that can be found in murder cases?

You really do need to take a step back and have a moment to think about your argument.

So, conceivably under your logic, a bloke with a hijab fetish could claim provocation because the Muslim woman he raped was wearing one and he was so stimulated by the hijab that he could not control his urges; he was provoked.

Your argument is neither creative or novel. It reminds me of another perversion of justice that is allowed to be perpetrated in Israel, Rape by Deception.

Never condone rape in any form? Really? Then what is all this talk about provocation? So, it is all hypothetical and this just an exercise in time wasting? Oh, no, I get it...you do not condone the rape but you can understand how it happened.

The big question is should the rapist be punished or should s/he be let off because there is the mitigating factor of provocation?

Are you really asking what it says about men? Or are you "really" suggesting that women need to be more conservative about their choices in clothes because after all it is a man's world?

Come back with something solid next time, or let's just call it a draw...You believe what you believe, and I will believe what I believe.

jacobian said...

one thing you should know about aceh, I had lived there before.so I know one thing or two about aceh. first thing first, we can't save someone who doesn't want to be save.it's not for us to save acehnese from this madness of a bylaw. it's entirely up to the acehnese people to fight for their own free will.

the same like iran now,many iranian people are struggling to overthrow ahmadinajad because he uses too strict form of syariah law. hence I expect many acehnese especially the young one will realise soon enough that they must fight for their own good.

I live in bandung now, so whatever happen in aceh is something that's called an isolated incident.

ralph said...

So you are saying that rapists are sick men who will stike at any time and any place. Just like robbers (but clearly not murderers - how usually strike who they know). You also say that their crime is deplorable and indefensible.

Now back to the robber. Do you leave your front door open at night? Of course you don't Why? Because it might encourage a sicko robber.

I agree the rapist is sick. I think (sometimes)the woman who is raped is unwise, not complicit.

I thought that might be called commonsense


Remember the imam said the meat will attract flies (vermin or scum)... a pretty good analogy I would think?

You used to be more tolerant.

tikno said...

Hi Rob,

As you know that Aceh has applied the Islamic law. I understand if Ramli Mansur was trying to use a logical analogy as a justification for the rule of religion which he believed.

Actually a lot of religion's doctrines (I think all religions) that are difficult to be understood if you only use logical thinking, as like your amazement's argument. My logically thinking also difficult to accept Mansur Ramli's analogy, but I can understand that he was trying to remind Aceh women in order to comply with the Sharia rules.

Rob, a lot of religion's loopholes (in all religions) that can be disputed through logical thinking. The best way is to respect of what has been applied in there, even if you disagree.

I know your point is just opposes Ramli Mansur's statement. Is it as simple as that?

tikno said...

PS: I like to know your review towards my views about a country's independency at my latest post.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Jacobian...

I think that you are missing the point. The post was not about whether Acehnese should fight Qanun on secular grounds or even fight for their basic and universal human rights.

The post is, and was, a comment on the idea that there is a justification for rape. Some commenters here believe that there is, and they believe that if women dress provocatively then they should take whatever comes their way.

Maybe, you need to read the original post. The fact that I cite an earlier comparison highlights that this is not an isolated, nor uniquely Indonesian, experience.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph...

Despite wanting to resist the temptation in responding to your drivel, I just cannot do it.

Your drivel needs a response,and so does your assertion that I am not tolerant.

You are anonymous. Ralph is not your real name, and there is nothing linking to your pseudonym that would highlight where you have argued similar points. You are lacking in credibility.

You really do need to lay it all on the table. Your current behaviour resembles that of an internet troll.

For example, my post is not about robbing houses or burglary, or murder. It is about rape. It is not about false claims of rape or "he said, she said" scenarios. You are not clouding the issues in my post. If you think you are, then you are kidding yourself. But feel free to continue to live in your little fantasy world (wherever that might be).

If I am not mistaken, I asked you to come back with something solid, you didn't and obviously couldn't get your argument in the right order.

The rapist is sick? Really? Is this supposed to modify your view that women who wear provocative clothing and lack commonsense because of their clothing choice are unwise? It doesn't!

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If the rapist is a sicko then the rapist is a sicko. This in no way depends on what a woman wears or does not wear. You are still arguing that there are mitigating circumstances. In fact, you are arguing contributory negligence.

How so? You are arguing that the woman is contributing to her own rape by wearing clothes that you deem to be inappropriate. So, you are arguing complicity. Your early posts refer to the idea that women later change their minds and claim rape.

Still justifying the crimes.

I am aware of the criminal law and the arguing of rape cases.

As to tolerance. Well, perhaps guilty as charged. I do not tolerate rape. I have never tolerated rape.

So, stick to the content of the original post when you decide to comment.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph...

Despite wanting to resist the temptation in responding to your drivel, I just cannot do it.

Your drivel needs a response,and so does your assertion that I am not tolerant.

You are anonymous. Ralph is not your real name, and there is nothing linking to your pseudonym that would highlight where you have argued similar points. You are lacking in credibility.

You really do need to lay it all on the table. Your current behaviour resembles that of an internet troll.

For example, my post is not about robbing houses or burglary, or murder. It is about rape. It is not about false claims of rape or "he said, she said" scenarios. You are not clouding the issues in my post. If you think you are, then you are kidding yourself. But feel free to continue to live in your little fantasy world (wherever that might be).

If I am not mistaken, I asked you to come back with something solid, you didn't and obviously couldn't get your argument in the right order.

The rapist is sick? Really? Is this supposed to modify your view that women who wear provocative clothing and lack commonsense because of their clothing choice are unwise? It doesn't!

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph (Part 2)...

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If the rapist is a sicko then the rapist is a sicko. This in no way depends on what a woman wears or does not wear. You are still arguing that there are mitigating circumstances. In fact, you are arguing contributory negligence.

How so? You are arguing that the woman is contributing to her own rape by wearing clothes that you deem to be inappropriate. So, you are arguing complicity. Your early posts refer to the idea that women later change their minds and claim rape.

Still justifying the crimes.

I am aware of the criminal law and the arguing of rape cases.

As to tolerance. Well, perhaps, guilty as charged. I do not tolerate rape. I have never tolerated rape.

So, stick to the content of the original post when you decide to comment.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Tikno...

Not really about using logical thinking to look at religion or any loopholes that may or may not exist in them.

Seriously, this is not a post about whether the local Imam should allow a woman in a mini-skirt into a mosque. This applies equally for Christian and other Faiths. The post is not about whether Priests should allow women to wear tight-fitting and low cut jeans to Sunday services.

The post was about what I consider to be a very objectionable argument that women contribute to their own rape if they go out in public in clothes that do not meet the moral appropriateness standards of others. If that makes me intolerant, then so be it.

Tikno, it is not about respecting his right to hold an opinion, he can. This is where most people are missing the point, and reading things into the post that are not there.

I consider his opinion objectionable, I am not arguing that he cannot say it. I find Pauline Hanson and her views objectionable as well, but would argue for her right to say them.

To the contrary, the post is me saying to Ramli Mansur, "your views are wrong!"

The comment really goes to universal human values of respect and tolerance.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Tikno...

On your Independence Day post. I have read it and will comment later today (perhaps tonight)...

ralph the real said...

If we did a study of what % of rape cases which come to court in your land are not proven; and if we studied how these men defended themselves successfully, what would be find?

I guess we would find that the police could not prove the woman was taken by force (she was complicit)-that there was consent. I do wonder if we would also find that in some circumstances there was at least some enticement on the part of the woman, up to some point, which may have at least weakened the police's case. or if even in cases which were proven, if a lower sentence reflected these (contributory) factors.

I am of the opinion that our learned judges/juries might in the past have been swayed by this line of thought. If so, than the dear man in Aceh (and his ilk) are not totally alone in society.

You seem to believe that reasonable men are not exited or in any way less likely to be able to control themselves in all situations because of the nature of a woman's dress. I am not quite as sure as you of this fact. Im not a pervert by the way. Compared to you I am very new to debate such as this. Bear with it please.

By the way, you must be aware that Islamic scholars often argue that the rules of their faith are "designed" to protect women .... DO they no longer need this in 2010?

You can shake your head Rob, just like you are doing at the results of yesterday's election in your country. But it probably says that you, and others, can be "out of touch" more often than you think.

Thanks for sticking with me on this one.

What about the Perth judge who is making the islamic woman sttip to give evidence. What a lulu?

Anonymous said...

SWEDISH prosecutors have abruptly withdrew an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, saying the head of the website that has riled the Pentagon was no longer suspected of rape.

An investigation into a molestation charge however remained open against the 39-year-old Australian - whose whistleblower site is in coming weeeks set to unveil thousands more secret documents about the war in Afghanistan.

Assange and his aides claimed he was the victim of dirty tricks, with a Twitter message attributed to the former hacker saying: “The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing.”

“Chief prosecutor Eva Finne has come to the decision that Julian Assange is not suspected of rape,” said a statement on the Swedish prosecution service's own website, just hours after the warrant was issued.

It said that Assange was “no longer wanted.”

Whew .... close call....what was she wearing?

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph the Real...

Not sticking with you. The reality is you are a troll. You are not addressing any of the issues I raise in the original post. You are arguing different points that at best are tangentially related because they relate to rape generally.

Your comments have not related specifically to any of the original points raised.

What you have now are piss-weak personal pot shots at me questioning my tolerance and whether or not I am in touch. Grow a set my friend and come out of the anonymous troll closet.

On the tolerance front, you can clearly see that I am far more tolerant than you are giving me credit for! You come into my house, park yourself on my couch and the proceed to spit on the carpet like you own the place. I tolerate this in the name of free speech and the fact that I believe people can have differing opinions even if I find them objectionable to my very core.

I find you objectionable.

Onto your arguments.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph the Real (Part 2)...

The Perth judge and the stripping. I am guessing you are referring to a case where the question was whether a woman could give evidence in a jury trial wearing a nijab / niqab(this is the one where only the eyes are visible).

Making a ruling that prevent a nijab from being worn in a court of law is hardly asking the woman to strip and give her evidence naked.

Is it necessary, the judge thinks that it is...I find it interesting that you refer to your learned brothers and sisters when it suits, but lambast them when it does not.

Seriously, you have some serious problems. Is your argument that the police cannot prove their case so a rape cannot have occurred?

You are a very sad puppy with a very poor understanding of the ways of the world.

As I said in a previous comment, the post includes a reference to an Australian example. I am hardly suggesting this is something unique to Indonesia.

It would help you out immensely if you read the original post properly and then considered what it actually says before your fingers get into gear.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph the Real...

Oh yes, the old "Islamic scholars argure..." argument. Nice try, but if you go down this road then there are likely to be plenty of arguments that highlight how this is not so.

But, in its most simplest of forms; who died and decided that women need the protection of men? I suppose if we are to extend your arguments logically then it should not be too long before you would be considerate of ideas that remove any move to equality between the sexes.

Perhaps, what you really want to see is a return to the idea of women being barefoot and pregnant, and in the kitchen. Oh, I am off topic...I wonder who I learned that from!

Yes, I am shaking my head. But, I am only shaking it at you and your arguments. I find them neither challenging or enlightening. I do find them humourous though.

Am I shaking my head at the election results. Nope. I have not written about it because I have not been bothered. Nevertheless, those that I have talked to about it know much better than you. Surprisingly, I was on the money with how I thought it might go.

Mary, mother of Jesus! If I am out of touch about the idea that it is OK to rape women because of their attire, then pal, I am indeed out of touch. As I have said a number of times already, you really need to get a handle on your arguments, they sound so silly when you think about them.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Anonymous...

Interesting case the one against Julian Assange. Nevertheless, this is not a case in point to the original post or the original arguments that I made.

I have never argued that there is never a situation where a false rape claim is not made. They happen reasonably often.

I am not arguing about cases where consensual sex occurs and a woman later changes her mind. Although, I find the idea of rape by deception difficult to sustain on serious legal grounds.

Are you suggesting that the reason the Swedish prosecutors yanked the indictment was because the sex was consensual and that it occurred because Assange could not keep his penis in his pants after he saw a woman in a short skirt?

Maybe one day, you will be able to find a case in point that supports your arguments. Unfortunately, this is not it.

Ho hum...

ralph the real said...

If you chose to defend a rapist, as a lawyer, would you feel ok? Would you be able to make a case?

It seems you demand are prepared to lower your standard of proof when it comes to rape, are there any other crimes you would care to do that for? Perhaps you would like to make it strict liability? A bruised woman with some axe to grind and a semen enrusted leg would be all it took. And nO longer a sticky case!

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph the Real...

No need to answer the first question. If you bothered to read any of the posts here in this blog, you would find your answer.

Seriously, have you read my original post or any others in this blog? Where have I written anything about lowering the standard of proof in a rape case or in criminal trials more generally?

What is really sad is that you do not seem to be able to read and comprehend what I have written and argued. I am not sure that I can make it any simpler.

ralph the roger said...

Ok. I am trying to get at the basis of your argument viz. that rape bears no excuse - partial or absolute. I wonder if you would repeal offences against nudity on sydney's beaches? Or would you maintain these because oggling or leering is unjustisfied, but not as heinous as rape?

I agree that one's deportment and state of dress do not justify rape; but I would argue that it is not wise and could be a predisposing factor.

You do not agree obvoiulsy. It's taken me a while to see that. Sorry

I wish you would make comment on the Perth judge (a different matter) - surely there's a bit of "grey" in that decision??

I will read your segregated wagons piece soon - hope Ill be able to resist a comment (spit?)!!

Brett said...

Wow congratulations Rob, you have way more energy than me. I don't think that anyone honestly believes that a woman deserves to be raped because of what she wears, not even this troll that seems to be harassing you. The problem with this theory is that it ignores the reality of the crime of rape. Rape is an act of aggression. It doesn't matter if the victim is naked, provocatively dressed or in a burqa. Rape is rape and there is no "she's a slut" defence. That is the law here in Indonesia. Good luck to the troll if he can find one single Indonesian case where a rapist has got off on the basis of "she was asking for it".

ralph said...

Both you guys are so full of yourselves that you are blind. I dont believe my argument is so opaque. At no stage am I defending rape on any level.

I look forward to the book "The mind of the rapist" by either or both of you.

I will continue my study of rape cases while you guys pen what is obviously well installed in your mind about rapists. I will be begin by examining the situations where rape occurs (apart from war) - eg place, nature of victim, relationship of rapist to victim, victims dress and propensity to appear lewd. Ill report back if I get any hard evidence.

But i guess it will be too late for inclusion in your already written tome.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph...

Oh gee! I feel just so chastised!

You want to argue from the relative safety of anonymity that you think a pseudonym affords you.

You come into my house and cast aspersions left, right and center about my character. And, I am full of myself?

Mate, get a grip on reality here. If you had any character you would be writing under your own name and not a pseudonym.

Go back of your comments lad. You defend rape and rapists on so many levels. Your arguments are absurd. They are also full of logical fallacies. As you draw analogies that just do not hold water, your arguments are exposed for what they are. It is not about being opaque.

Your last paragraph is a hoot and a crock of the proverbial. Are you excluding rape because it does not fit your argument or is it that rape in war is somehow different from 'regular' rape in times of peace? But, in any event, the last paragraph highlights that your research is going to be skewed to uncovering only that which supports your assertion, namely:

Women who wear clothing that does not meet a certain modesty standard are complicit and negligent when it comes to being raped. Oh, and this a hypothesis for a time of peace.

Once you've done your research and written your 'tome' (does that mean book by any chance?) on this partially researched topic of yours, how will I know who you are if you do not reveal yourself now? Or are you going to publish it as "Ralph the Real"?

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph the "un"Real...

When you have something to say that is on topic and playing the ball and not the player, then you are welcome to come back.

If you post another comment here that speaks ill of other commenters then I am just going to delete you. The only time you can attack others is if you have the courage of your convictions to post under your real name.

Until then you are just another cowardly troll.

If I have ever met you in real life, or I know you well from a past life, I feel happy and comfortable with all I have written in this thread, and stand by it.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Brett...

I did not respond to your comment. I got caught up in responding to the Jolly Ralpher.

Based on the Ralpher's comment, I obviously just do not get it. I do not understand rape, the law, or the mind of a rapist. So, I now feel that I am not qualified to comment any further on the matter.

But a parting shot...Rape is not a crime of passion. It is a crime of power and sexual violence.

Perhaps, the Ralpher can start his research at the University of Minnesota - Duluth (http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html) and uncover some of the myths that surround the crime of rape.

Then again, he might just feel that I am "too set" in my ways.

ralph parsons said...

I am a troll. I am a troll. i guess I have to write that 100 times. It seems someone is not a troll if they have a blog which indentifies them and which contains loads of tightly defended viewpoints.

People like you would probably insist that only folk with such a blog should be able to vote, such is your high and mightly monopoly on who and how someone can understand and express a view.

I can deal with Mr Le Brett.

As for ad hominen you would have to fall into the holier than thou category. Par example

These men make me want to puke!

(If you have not been able to tell yet from the tone of this rant, I have no time for fools like this!)

Totally unprovoked I might add.

But then again, there's no such a thing as provocation is there??
You leave your door open every night to prove your point: Rape like life itself is just a random set of misdeeds....

Rob Baiton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph Parsons...

Deary deary me laddie! You really do have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?

One again, you are trying to twist what I have said to make yourself feel better about yourself. I think I was pretty clear that if you want to attack me, or others, then have the testicular fortitude to do it under your real name.

This actually has nothing to do with the points you make in support of your argument. This is an issue of credibility. You are a pseudonym who hides behind the veil of anonymity to cast aspersions here there and everywhere about the character and motivations of others, yet you do not have the courage of your convictions to step up to the plate and play under your own name...oh well.

Holier than thou :D Once again, I feel so very chastised be called "holier than thou" by a pseudonym.

Yes, my friend, men who argue that women cannot dress in any other way than the way they prescribe, and where they do, use this as a justification for rape or to mitigate its seriousness make me want to puke.

This, though, has nothing to do with what I may or may not do as a lawyer in a case where there was a claim of rape being prosecuted. I think this might be a little above you based on your previous comments.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph 'the troll" Parsons...

The post was never about provocation per se. But, hey, getting into provocation, would not words lead to a reaction and perhaps be provocation within the sense of a crime of passion? You really do not have a good handle on your own arguments do you Ralpher man?

Rape as a random set of misdeeds. Uh huh! I am not sure that I said this. But, in any event, take the time to read my latest tome, it involves a cut and paste that might help you in getting your research started.

In the mean time, if you haven't got anything positive to say, then do me and my readers a favour by limiting your comments to the substance of the post you are commenting on

ralph said...

I am not enjoying this any more. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding going on. I am happy to take responsibility for most if not all of it. I have to realise that in an exchange like this that words carry a lot of weight - when we cannot see the face of the other, and as you indicate as important, know the identity of the other - this makes it very important to choose words carefully and use them well.

I have read the link you posted and have found it illuminating and interesting. It seems that at least in the US context I am in error in the assessment of the nature and causes of rape.

i dont realy see that it would be any different in Indonesia in these times. Men are men, rapist are rapists no matter where they are.

For my part, I find it hard to adjust to the "rape" perspective that your link, and you, both seem to espouse. I dont think that is unusual in mere mortals. But I think I can get my head around the factors and eventually turn my thinking around.

I will have reservations no doubt, but I wiil come to shift my perspective significantly, thanks to your blog. I am not ashamed to admit this.

Sometimes extreme views such as those you report on in your blog have a ring of truth which can be very enticing to people (including me in this case) and which present real challenges to see through them. I am not sure why this is the case for me. Perhaps I have been brainwashed, perhaps I am old fashioned (out of date), perhaps I have a distorted understanding of human nature, perhaps living in Indonesia among quiet, relatively conservative folk has done it.

again thanks.

Rob Baiton said...

@ Ralph...

It seems I should have posted the link earlier.

On the link. If you are seriously going to do research on rape, then the article would certainly be a good jumping off point.

It does not necessarily have to be the be all and end all of the research done.

It is important to remember that there are exceptions to every rule. This why generalisations and stereotypes are so difficult to sustain. If you get enough exceptions to the rule, is the rule wrong or has the dominant discourse changed?

I am not asking you to change your mind or shift your opinion. I am asking you to get informed, educated if you will, on the things that you want to argue about, and argue passionately about.

The more informed you are the easier it is to construct your argument and sustain it for the long haul. This is true even for objectionable arguments.

The other thing to remember is that it is key to know your opponents arguments and the basis for them. Makes it easier to argue against them and undermine their arguments.

As to the rest of it, as I said, I rarely make comments that I am not prepared to stand by. What you say has consequences, if you cannot live with those consequences then one needs to think carefully before getting their mouth into gear.

www.caceres-3d.com said...

So, I do not really believe it will have effect.