In your opinion. Your opinion does not make it fact. I still say its extremely rude and I certainly hope he is confining it to nameless women protesting in Canada and not to members of this forum who happen to hold views and opinions contrary to yours and his. A bit of manners goes a long way, gentlemen.

They don't WANT to listen to common sense, HB. They just want to argue about any issue they can somehow turn into a reference about their own personal agenda. And they don't care who they stomp on in doing so... even if it means someone who is on their side.

Thats an extremely rude and very closed minded comment.

If the shoe fits, wear it. It reminds me of Jesse Jackson and black militants who can turn any discussion into a racial issue.

This may be bedlam, and the rules may be less strictly enforced, but they will be enforced. Please address other posters in a civil manner.

Disagreeing with someone's post doesn't mean it's necessary to be derogatory toward the poster or their opinion.

For those who are standing on their soap box, playing the moral high ground and saying that the others are not acting with common sense, you really should just look at the statistics. The vast majority of rapes happen indoors. Some of you are screaming "it's just common sense", well it isn't. It is actually just a load of nonsense.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the adjusted per-capita victimization rate of rape has declined from about 2.4 per 1000 people (age 12 and above) in 1980 to about 0.4 per 1000 people, a decline of about 85%.^[24] But other government surveys, such as the Sexual Victimization of College Women study, critique the NCVS on the basis it includes only those acts perceived as crimes by the victim, and report a higher victimization rate.^[25]

From 2000-2005, 59% of rapes were not reported to law enforcement.^[26][27] One factor relating to this is misconception that most rapes are committed by strangers.^[28] In reality, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 38% of victims were raped by a friend or acquaintance, 28% by "an intimate" and 7% by another relative, and 26% were committed by a stranger to the victim. About four out of ten sexual assaults take place at the victim's own home.^[29]

Drug use, especially alcohol, is frequently involved in rape. In 47% of rapes, both the victim and the perpetrator had been drinking. In 17%, only the perpetrator had been. 7% of the time, only the victim had been drinking. Rapes where neither the victim nor the perpetrator had been drinking were 29% of all rapes.^[30]

Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare. Over two thirds of all rapes occur in someone's home. 30.9% occur in the perpetrators' homes, 26.6% in the victims' homes and 10.1% in homes shared by the victim and perpetrator. 7.2% occur at parties, 7.2% in vehicles, 3.6% outdoors and 2.2% in bars.^[30]

So, 3.6%. That's a tiny proportion but still the high and mighty are saying that they are just using common sense when the factual statistics and data strongly suggest otherwise. Now lets take that 3.6% and ask how many of those were dressed 'sluttily'? We don't know do we? And of those that were dressed 'sluttily', how many were raped because of the way they were dressed? But still many are jumping to conclusions and using an argument for which they have absolutely no basis whatsoever.

Statistics have already been presented in this discussion but they have been ignored because it does not fit into some people's argument. I am introducing them again because some people are just plain getting under my skin and beginning to cast aspersions on other peoples' intelligence where the facts actually indicate that they are the ones in the wrong.

You can shove your *ahem* common sense where the sun don't shine because quite frankly it is a load of bull. Common sense can be demonstrated by facts and figures so if you want to continue preaching common sense and insinuating that other people are somehow slow to understand, present some figures of your own to counter the FACT that a tiny percentage of rapes even happen outside at all.

http://en.wikipedia....Rape_statistics

They don't WANT to listen to common sense, HB. They just want to argue about any issue they can somehow turn into a reference about their own personal agenda. And they don't care who they stomp on in doing so... even if it means someone who is on their side.

ian, I do want to listen, but when I try and debate certain issues, you do a runner stating 'I don't like you' or 'that you just leave threads when you are bored', but then you come back, on the back of others, really not the done thing, 'ole boy' in my best brit voice.

I have just gotta admit, the retreats on this thread have been on a par with the brilliant withdrawlal from the gates of Stalingrad by Manstein.

I don't dress for sexual provocation.

I dress for myself. Comfy clothes come into this argument.

I actually dress in a way and that is my way.

Whether men find that open to rape then that is their <deleted> problem. We do not live in the Maideval times. My auntie 30 years ago thought that women who didn't wear tights were hores. My mum put her right in two sentences. I think it was the one and only time i heard my mamma say the f word.

For those who are standing on their soap box, playing the moral high ground and saying that the others are not acting with common sense, you really should just look at the statistics. The vast majority of rapes happen indoors. Some of you are screaming "it's just common sense", well it isn't. It is actually just a load of nonsense.

No one has been saying that dress selection is the only criteria.

I agree that we are discussing only a small percentage of rapes, mostly in the 'date-rape' category.

But if attention to dress and using one's common sense reduces rape by just one incident, is it not worth it?

If it reduces rape by one incident in one town one one Saturday night in each of our respective countries, is it not worth it?

I agree that most rapes occur within the family, or with people known to the family. This is especially common in Thailand and SE Asia and is horrific. But the thread was started by the article about the 'slut-walk' demonstrations and the misunderstood Canadian policeman. And this is what some of us have been discussing throughout the thread. Others have tried to widen the thread to cover all rapes, but that is another subject which is more suited to OTB.

You might want to re-read the link posted, specifically this:

'Not only does this divert attention away from the real cause of the crime - the perpetrator - but it creates a culture where rape is OK, where it's allowed to happen... after all, she must have been asking for it, right?'

As far as preventing a very small number of rapes, which it probably wouldn't do, it would lead women to believe that they were safe as long as they are dressed like they were in 'Little House on the Prairie.' But they wouldn't be safe. Not any safer than the women who are fully covered in Islamic cultures.

As far as opening a different topic in OTB, I would suggest not.

But if attention to dress and using one's common sense reduces rape by just one incident, is it not worth it?

But why are people assuming that a person wearing skimpy clothes are more likely to be raped when that just is not the case?

Some people, myself included, would be more sexually attracted to a lady wearing a long figure hugging dress. If I were to be a rapist, that would be my catalyst, not a mini-skirt and boob tube. So we could then say that anything figure hugging should not be worn and then we are entering the realm of the burka. If it prevents just one incident of rape, would making women wear a burka not be worth it? Does this sound like common sense to you?

Rape is often not even about sex and has a much deeper psychology behind it. If we were to go down the route of "saves just one incident", then we could come up with a never-ending list of do's and dont's and women had might as well just stay behind locked doors.

There is no evidence to suggest that women are raped because of what they wear, nothing, nada, zilch. If there is then direct me to it and I'll <deleted>.

It IS NOT common sense at all. It is just an opinion that is based on absolutely nothing yet some on here seem to be belittling others who are not of that same unfounded opinion.

This may be bedlam, and the rules may be less strictly enforced, but they will be enforced. Please address other posters in a civil manner.

Disagreeing with someone's post doesn't mean it's necessary to be derogatory toward the poster or their opinion.

I don't think anyone is being derogatory towards any poster or their opinion here, Scott. At least I'm not. I think most of us are talking in generalities and people take it personal.

Mossy wants to debate minor issues with me and I'm not going to bite. And, I'll stand behind what I've said... even though others might ASSUME I mean something entirely different to what I wrote. Too often the wrong word or phrase is used and people like to jump on that like a dog with a bone.

There is no way to get inside the head of any rapist and their own specific reasons for committing such a crime. I'll agree with sbk and Moonrakers that it usually has little to do with sex and a lot to do with anger towards women in general. Or, a specific woman. Any rape is wrong and many can't be prevented for a variety of reasons. But, if there is ANYTHING a woman can do to cut down on the potential for a rape then by all means do it. That is all that any of us here ask.

I think the Canadian policeman chose an improper phrase in trying to help women and he is being unfairly castigated for it. But, that is only MY assumption. Maybe I am wrong and he actually DOES think that women are somehow at fault for some rapes.

[

Mossy wants to debate minor issues with me and I'm not going to bite.

Forbesy, they are not minor issues and I stand by what I have said previously, I back you into a corner and you do a runner, quoting some inane reason and then return later,

I have also said previously you are the self proclaimed master debator, this is great rhetoric,, it justs needs to be backed up, but again 'good ole Manstein' would be proud of this fighting retreat.

it was rude Ian & just another one of your back out tactics. you wont see that of course & will likely claim we are ganging up on you becuase we disagree with your lifestyle or don't like you. ho hum

But, if there is ANYTHING a woman can do to cut down on the potential for a rape then by all means do it. That is all that any of us here ask.

so where does it end, one thing women can do to prevent being raped out of doors is to stay home all day with the doors locked & curtains shut. another way they can prevent it is having a male relative chaperon them everywhere. another way is to start wearing a chastity belt so that if they do get attacked they cant be raped.

The whole line of thought is so misinformed & outdated, it's actually laughable. I'm sure you think you are being reasonable & helpful here but your not, only offering excuses for the behavior of the rapist & giving rapists justification for their actions.

You can shove your *ahem* common sense where the sun don't shine because quite frankly it is a load of bull.

If we are going to start a competition on who is the rudest, I think that sentence is leading by several lengths.

You can shove your *ahem* common sense where the sun don't shine because quite frankly it is a load of bull.

If we are going to start a competition on who is the rudest, I think that sentence is leading by several lengths.

It's a competition?

Goody gumdrops, where do we begin?

What about disagreeing with another persons opinion, would that be a good place to start?

They don't WANT to listen to common sense, HB. They just want to argue about any issue they can somehow turn into a reference about their own personal agenda. And they don't care who they stomp on in doing so... even if it means someone who is on their side.

Thats an extremely rude and very closed minded comment.

But unfortunately extremely true.

Hump, I have respect for a lot of what you say, I guess on this thread we are diametrically opposed and someone who has played premiership Rugby and in more likelihood played against the original great Moss Finn and it is on record that if we meet up, I will buy the beers and you will talk about your travails throughout the world and I will listen, but do you honestly believe that I am not listening to the counter-argument here?

Apart from that I agree, pick apart the dialogue, it is easy enough, and not degenerate into personal slanging matches, even if that is quite easy too.

it was rude Ian & just another one of your back out tactics. you wont see that of course & will likely claim we are ganging up on you becuase we disagree with your lifestyle or don't like you. ho hum

But, if there is ANYTHING a woman can do to cut down on the potential for a rape then by all means do it. That is all that any of us here ask.

so where does it end, one thing women can do to prevent being raped out of doors is to stay home all day with the doors locked & curtains shut. another way they can prevent it is having a male relative chaperon them everywhere. another way is to start wearing a chastity belt so that if they do get attacked they cant be raped.

The whole line of thought is so misinformed & outdated, it's actually laughable. I'm sure you think you are being reasonable & helpful here but your not, only offering excuses for the behavior of the rapist & giving rapists justification for their actions.

What's realy laughable are the extremes that you suggest in some sort of counter to the points put forward.

Women stay indoors or wear burqas all the time are silly suggestions.....although indeed would probably result in less rapes....and if you believe that it would result in fewer rapes, then you have actually conceded what we have been saying.......but you're caught up in the thought that the rapists are ultimately responsible (no argument from anyone about that) and that women have a right to wear what they want (again, no argument from anybody on that one).

Only one statement has been made from the people condeming the Canadian cop that actually makes sense, (to be fair) and that was Moonrakers "There is no evidence to suggest that women are raped because of what they wear, nothing, nada, zilch. If there is then direct me to it and I'll <deleted>.".

To be fair, I don't know of any stats like that.....it's more of a common sense thing....sort of like I have heard of men wanking during x-rated movies.....I believe the reports and I'm sure it happens, but there are no stats to prove it. I'm sure some men are aroused by skimpy attire, and I'm sure some of those men have little self-control, and I'm sure some of those men may have a perverted sense of "rights" or what machismo is or whatever it is that goes on in their heads.

I guess that there are stats for marital rape. I am sure those stats don't reflect the true incidence of marital rape. I'm sure (from a common sense angle, not from having stats or experience) that some marital rapes occur because the husband has a sense of "it's his right".

Only one statement has been made from the people condeming the Canadian cop that actually makes sense, (to be fair) and that was Moonrakers "There is no evidence to suggest that women are raped because of what they wear, nothing, nada, zilch. If there is then direct me to it and I'll <deleted>.".

I guess that there are stats for marital rape. I am sure those stats don't reflect the true incidence of marital rape. I'm sure (from a common sense angle, not from having stats or experience) that some marital rapes occur because the husband has a sense of "it's his right".

Harcourt, are you saying that my statements in this thread do not make sense?

And as for the second statement, in Uk law it was only recently repealed, ( if that is the right term ) between 10-20 years ago regarding marital rape, because the husband had supposed 'conjugal rights', the right to have sex whenever he wanted.

The whole line of thought is so misinformed & outdated, it's actually laughable. I'm sure you think you are being reasonable & helpful here but your not, only offering excuses for the behavior of the rapist & giving rapists justification for their actions.

Please point out where I have EVER made an excuse for a rapist. There IS no excuse for rape. And, I'm not backing away from anything. I've always pointed out that rape is usually a form of anger towards women. If a woman is in an abusive relationship then the obvious answer is to leave. Unfortunately, that is not always possible. But, telling me that women don't provoke men to anger is a blatant lie. Now, if that man also happens to be a neanderthal then it stands to reason that he might resort to rape as a means of getting back at the woman. That doesn't make it right, but it does happen.

We've also tried to separate the date rapes, and rapes within families, from the predators who stalk and attack women.

.

Many women do provoke men with their bodies as a form of controlling them. It has been happening since the dawn of time. Unfortunately, some men don't take no for an answer and the occasional one reacts in an abusive manner.

As for myself, I don't even want to be with a woman who doesn't want me. A simple "No" to me says goodbye and maybe I'll see you around sometime.

.

Many women do provoke men with their bodies as a form of controlling them. It has been happening since the dawn of time.

We are back to 'provoke' or 'provocative' please explain, as you didn't before.

For debating purposes, nothing else, if you explain, I might agree?

I have just gotta admit, the retreats on this thread have been on a par with the brilliant withdrawlal from the gates of Stalingrad by Manstein.

Bit harsh there Mossy.

Manstein led the attempt to relieve Stalingrad after being appointed to lead the army group Don. However he never quite made it to Stalingrad to relieve the 6th Army. He pulled back after Paulus

refused to attack from within the Russian ring ( he also refused to commit suicide ) and his Romanian, Italian and Hungarian allies on the wings got yet another kicking as his nose was blooded by the jolly Russki.

The Russians probably committed the greatest mass raping in history as they swarmed into Germany ( much like the Japanese in China ). Not sure the German ladies dress sense had a fat lot to do with it, more the male power thing which I believe to this day, is there in the weak willed of the male species.

.

Many women do provoke men with their bodies as a form of controlling them. It has been happening since the dawn of time.

We are back to 'provoke' or 'provocative' please explain, as you didn't before.

For debating purposes, nothing else, if you explain, I might agree?

I'm sure I speak for HB and Ian here..."provocative" in the sense of evocative, not "provoke" in the sense of deliberately taunt.

Only one statement has been made from the people condeming the Canadian cop that actually makes sense, (to be fair) and that was Moonrakers "There is no evidence to suggest that women are raped because of what they wear, nothing, nada, zilch. If there is then direct me to it and I'll <deleted>.".

I guess that there are stats for marital rape. I am sure those stats don't reflect the true incidence of marital rape. I'm sure (from a common sense angle, not from having stats or experience) that some marital rapes occur because the husband has a sense of "it's his right".

Harcourt, are you saying that my statements in this thread do not make sense?

And as for the second statement, in Uk law it was only recently repealed, ( if that is the right term ) between 10-20 years ago regarding marital rape, because the husband had supposed 'conjugal rights', the right to have sex whenever he wanted.

I haven't looked back more than a page, but your last 4 posts do not address the op at all but are comments on the posters themselves....in that sense, yes.

You (and the law) recognise that some men STILL think that they have a right. Outside of marriage, in a simmilar way (perhaps even supported in their minds by the "no means yes" myth), there are men that believe that they have a right to proceed if they had an initial invitation....some men may see flaunting as an invitation.

Except for Moonraker's comment about no supporting stats, it looks as though the comments against the cop are all emotive ones about sideline issues...... "woman should be able to dress the way they want" etc. Nobody is arguing that (for the umpteenth time).

Off topic posts removed.

The discussion isn't about whose rude and who isn't. It's also not about places where the sun doesn't shine.

Off topic posts removed.

The discussion isn't about whose rude and who isn't. It's also not about places where the sun doesn't shine.

Who mentioned Skegness ?

For those who are standing on their soap box, playing the moral high ground and saying that the others are not acting with common sense, you really should just look at the statistics. The vast majority of rapes happen indoors. Some of you are screaming "it's just common sense", well it isn't. It is actually just a load of nonsense.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the adjusted per-capita victimization rate of rape has declined from about 2.4 per 1000 people (age 12 and above) in 1980 to about 0.4 per 1000 people, a decline of about 85%.^[24] But other government surveys, such as the Sexual Victimization of College Women study, critique the NCVS on the basis it includes only those acts perceived as crimes by the victim, and report a higher victimization rate.^[25]

From 2000-2005, 59% of rapes were not reported to law enforcement.^[26][27] One factor relating to this is misconception that most rapes are committed by strangers.^[28] In reality, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 38% of victims were raped by a friend or acquaintance, 28% by "an intimate" and 7% by another relative, and 26% were committed by a stranger to the victim. About four out of ten sexual assaults take place at the victim's own home.^[29]

Drug use, especially alcohol, is frequently involved in rape. In 47% of rapes, both the victim and the perpetrator had been drinking. In 17%, only the perpetrator had been. 7% of the time, only the victim had been drinking. Rapes where neither the victim nor the perpetrator had been drinking were 29% of all rapes.^[30]

Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare. Over two thirds of all rapes occur in someone's home. 30.9% occur in the perpetrators' homes, 26.6% in the victims' homes and 10.1% in homes shared by the victim and perpetrator. 7.2% occur at parties, 7.2% in vehicles, 3.6% outdoors and 2.2% in bars.^[30]

So, 3.6%. That's a tiny proportion but still the high and mighty are saying that they are just using common sense when the factual statistics and data strongly suggest otherwise. Now lets take that 3.6% and ask how many of those were dressed 'sluttily'? We don't know do we? And of those that were dressed 'sluttily', how many were raped because of the way they were dressed? But still many are jumping to conclusions and using an argument for which they have absolutely no basis whatsoever.

Statistics have already been presented in this discussion but they have been ignored because it does not fit into some people's argument. I am introducing them again because some people are just plain getting under my skin and beginning to cast aspersions on other peoples' intelligence where the facts actually indicate that they are the ones in the wrong.

You can shove your *ahem* common sense where the sun don't shine because quite frankly it is a load of bull. Common sense can be demonstrated by facts and figures so if you want to continue preaching common sense and insinuating that other people are somehow slow to understand, present some figures of your own to counter the FACT that a tiny percentage of rapes even happen outside at all.

http://en.wikipedia....Rape_statistics

Okay, "common sense" parked for a minute.

From the same Wikipedia article -

a significant number of rapes go unreported even when they are included as reportable rapes, and a significant number of rapes reported to the police do not advance to prosecution

This fact is so commonly known it's not worth linking to any further sources - Google away. But we can all speculate as to why rapes go unreported. What if more indoor rapes are reported owing to a higher number of possible witnesses, lower numbers of possible assailants and therefore a higher chance of conviction and shorter traumatic experience for the victims when it comes to making a prosecution?

"Common sense" showing its face here - apologies in advance. But what if dress code ultimately reduced that 3.6% of reported rapes down to an even lower figure? Again, nobody has yet provided any conclusive arguments against attire being a factor in the assailants choice of victim when it comes to random attacks which happen on the streets.

And one final factor which appears to be massively overlooked throughout this debate. The guy who made the initial comments was a cop, apparently giving advice to women on how to protect themselves. Now here's a wacky idea for you all - what if he was speaking from some authority based on personal experience dealing with rape victims? And yet this is an observation which cannot be made owing to so called "equality" issues? If so, this would hardly be the first instance of bureaucracy hindering the interests of the many.

/edit -

But still many are jumping to conclusions and using an argument for which they have absolutely no basis whatsoever.

Read again - argument and reasoning has been provided several times. All what's been provided in defence is statistics. Statistics which are incredibly difficult to compile owing to the circumstances of the crime.

From the article that Rakers posted.

Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare. Over two thirds of all rapes occur in someone's home. 30.9% occur in the perpetrators' homes, 26.6% in the victims' homes and 10.1% in homes shared by the victim and perpetrator. 7.2% occur at parties, 7.2% in vehicles, 3.6% outdoors and 2.2% in bars

Ok, now this is just my opinion, but let me run with it for a second.

I would expect, given those numbers, that most incidents of rape are premeditated, the said rapist has been harbouring thoughts about it for some time, so the victim could be wearing a boiler suit and pit boots, and it was still one the cards.

The 3.6% that occur outdoors, to my mind, would probably be a spur of the moment thing, and there is every chance that the rapist and victim do not actually know each other and in those instances, wearing provocative clothing is a factor, and a very large one.

The policeman in the OP is on the receiving end of a lot of flack for basically stating the bleedin' obvious, all he is trying to do is reduce that 3.6% to 2.6% or 1.6% or less..... so why is there such an uproar, I know why, examples of it are scattered throughout this topic.

//edit/plus what insight just said

Off topic posts removed.

The discussion isn't about whose rude and who isn't. It's also not about places where the sun doesn't shine.

You forgot post 179.

"Common sense" showing its face here - apologies in advance. But what if dress code ultimately reduced that 3.6% of reported rapes down to an even lower figure? Again, nobody has yet provided any conclusive arguments against attire being a factor in the assailants choice of victim when it comes to random attacks which happen on the streets.

OK then

Why not give us a 'conclusive argument' that a boob tube and mini skirt would encourage a rape. And then, I'll ask for a conclusive argument that due to preference, a mini skirt and boob tube does not in fact discourage a rape.

The 3.6% that occur outdoors, to my mind, would probably be a spur of the moment thing, and there is every chance that the rapist and victim do not actually know each other and in those instances, wearing provocative clothing is a factor, and a very large one.

And you know that as fact do you?

Do you have anything to back this up Thad? Anything at all?