Women & rape

[farouk]

PS:

Psalm 51 was written by David, not Bathsheba.

[JerryNumbers]

The woman that is dressed immodest is guilty of tempting all of the men she parades in front of, plus, it is a sin against God for a women to dress immodest. so, yes, she is at fault.

Yet, the man that commits the rape and or murder is at fault too, yet in certainty situations its not totally his fault, in some cases they both share the blame.

One thing for sure the woman coming home early in the morning, dressed immodestly, drunk, is asking for trouble. And doing this she has committed more than one sin against God, and where there is sin, there is fault.

[Annie]

The woman that is dressed immodest is guilty of tempting all of the men she parades in front of, plus, it is a sin against God for a women to dress immodest. so, yes, she is at fault.

Not according to James 1:14: "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." The woman is indeed "at fault" for dressing immodestly, but not for the assault.

Yet, the man that commits the rape and or murder is at fault too, yet in certainty situations its not totally his fault, in some cases they both share the blame.

I suppose this might be true in situations of prostitution.

[farouk]

Annie:

I still think issues of modesty which are real, and the 'blame the victim' (even if it's not called 'blame the victim') view, are rather separate.

But maybe I'm starting to go round in circles, so I should keep quiet for a bit.

[JerryNumbers]

Why do you think God tells women to dress modest? Would it be to keep from tempting men? If so, them she will share the blame.

Be assured, I am by no means trying to place all blame on the woman. and yes, many times such things happen when the woman is not dressed immodest.

I believe that any woman ought to have sense enough not to put there self in certain situations, yet the world helps with this, by saying that no matter how the woman is dressed, no matter where she is, or what time of day or night it is, and no matter if she is even drunk or drugged out, she shares no blame.

[Annie]

Why do you think God tells women to dress modest? Would it be to keep from tempting men? If so, them she will share the blame.

God never associates the two ideas in Scripture; He never draws the connection. There is the Proverbs passage about prostitution, but that's not what we're talking about. The onus is always on the man for rape/assault in Scripture, and never on the woman.

If you want to argue against what scripture says in James 1, that's your prerogative. Edited July 25, 2011 by Annie

[HappyChristian]

Rape is not usually about sexual lust, anyway. It is usually about power. Male power and dominance over the female. The two young ladies that I used to teach who were sodomized by a man were not in any way to blame - they were not immodestly dressed, but even if they were, it was not about him seeing them, being aroused and then raping. It was all about power. If it were not, he would not have raped at knife point, while the one not being raped was tied up and forced to watch (he did it that way to both of them).

There are times when a woman is raped because the couple has gone "too far" on a date, and she tries to call a halt, but he doesn't pay attention. That is a result of their equal sin of being involved pre-sexually when they shouldn't.

There are rapes that are caused due to stimulation from things like pornography - but, again, these are actions of power more than sexual thirst. This power is a lust, as well.

Immodest dress is wrong, and does not please the Lord. However, using that as an excuse to rape a woman is passing the buck.I think any man on here would have to admit that he has seen immodestly dressed women too much during his lifetime. Simply because that is so prevalent in our culture. But have any resorted to rape? I sincerely doubt it.

Job said that he made a covenant with his eyes to never look on a maid...and the women were much fuller clothed back then. Could it be that, rather than the onus being on the woman for what she wears, Job knew that it is on the man for allowing his lust (whether it be sexual lust or lust for power and dominance) to run amok.

There is no doubt that women need to dress more modestly. But when completely clothed grandmothers are being raped, the problem goes deeper than clothing....

[Salyan]

The poll question only asked if immodest clothing had an impact on being raped - not that it caused it or was responsible for it. The police acknowledge that it does have an impact - although our politically correct societies will not allow them to share this without severe repercussions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/dont-dress-like-a-slut-alleged-safety-tip-from-toronto-police-officer/article1911737/

I find it interesting how when this topic comes up, whether in the media or here on this board, the straw man of 'blaming the victim' is immediately raised and often prevents any sincere discussion or acceptance of the warning given. I don't believe this policeman was blaming the victim - he was trying to protect women from becoming victims. And our foolish society punished him for it.

I voted yes.

[Annie]

The way the poll question is phrased is ambiguous; that's why I didn't vote. Does "have an impact" mean "affect statistics in general" or is it talking about forming an opinion about specific situations? It seems that Jerry is arguing for blaming the victim.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Annie

[farouk]

Okay so, me again. I hadn't realized that the idea of referring negatively to blaming the victim was so controversial.

So I'm wondering at what point negative mention of blaming the victim becomes controversial, and where it's legit.

Blessings.

[Annie]

Okay so, me again. I hadn't realized that the idea of referring negatively to blaming the victim was so controversial.

So I'm wondering at what point negative mention of blaming the victim becomes controversial, and where it's legit.

Blessings.

IMO, "blaming the victim" is too loaded of a phrase to be of any use. People play that card like it should trump everything else. Emotional/radical people abuse that phrase to death. I'm only using it in the context of this thread, b/c I feel it's legitimate here. Edited July 25, 2011 by Annie

[farouk]

IMO, "blaming the victim" is too loaded of a phrase to be of any use. People play that card like it should trump everything else. Emotional people abuse that phrase to death. I'm only using it in the context of this thread, b/c I feel it's legitimate here.

Annie,

Okay so not very legit, but just a bit so, in this context.

What I guess I meant was, the supposed convenience of trying to make the recipient responsible for the action performed by someone else (I'm trying not to use the same words; maybe I'm not succeeding well here, either).

Blessings.

[Annie]

Annie,

Okay so not very legit, but just a bit so, in this context.

What I guess I meant was, the supposed convenience of trying to make the recipient responsible for the action performed by someone else (I'm trying not to use the same words; maybe I'm not succeeding well here, either).

Blessings.

Right...I know what you are talking about, and agree with you. I have no problem using the phrase in this thread, because that's exactly what Jerry's doing: blaming someone else for the sin of assault/rape, when the Scripture is clear that each person is "drawn away of his own lust" to sin. A man cannot blame his victim, in this case, for the sin of assaut/battery/rape. Assault/rape is charged to the man's account only. On the woman's end, the rapist cannot be blamed for her sin of dressing immodestly; that's her sin and her sin only, and only she will answer for it.

I think the reason I don't care for the phrase "blaming the victim" in general is that the phrase generates so much sympathy for the "victim" (the very word victim elicits only sympathy) that certain causative, "at risk" behaviors can be overlooked, which does the victim no favors, and actually increases the likelihood of suffering more abuse. In this scenario, immodest dressing could be considered "at risk behavior." But since we're all agreeing that dressing immodestly is a sin in and of itself, I don't think the phrase "blaming the victim" is being misused here. Edited July 25, 2011 by Annie

[farouk]

Right...I know what you are talking about, and agree with you. I have no problem using the phrase in this thread, because that's exactly what Jerry's doing: blaming someone else for the sin of assault/rape, when the Scripture is clear that each person is "drawn away of his own lust" to sin. A man cannot blame his victim, in this case, for the sin of assaut/battery/rape. Assault/rape is charged to the man's account only. On the woman's end, the rapist cannot be blamed for her sin of dressing immodestly; that's her sin and her sin only, and only she will answer for it.

I think the reason I don't care for the phrase "blaming the victim" in general is that the phrase generates so much sympathy for the "victim" (the very word victim elicits only sympathy) that certain causative, "at risk" behaviors can be overlooked, which does the victim no favors, and actually increases the likelihood of suffering more abuse. In this scenario, immodest dressing could be considered "at risk behavior." But since we're all agreeing that dressing immodestly is a sin in and of itself, I don't think the phrase "blaming the victim" is being misused here.

Annie:

Yes, agreed.

BTW: the victimhood thing. There was an article some place about the Monica / Clinton ... whatever it was, which, in a spoof way of writing, described Mr. Clinton as a 'victim of bad dating etiquette'. This was done just to show how extreme the whole victimhood manipulation talk can get.

But at the same time, there are real victims, and it's logically, grammatically and ethically distortive to make recipients responsible for the actions performed by someone else.

(The Monica event doesn't seem to have been like that, though. I shouldn't really even say too much about it, either.)

Blessings.

[Pastor Matt]

Yes it has an impact, but it is no excuse for the scumbag who raped/murdered the girl.