Seth wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:Seth wrote:Hermit wrote:Seth wrote:I merely want to point out that the simple solution for not being raped while drunk is not to get drunk.
Merely? I think you did a bit more than to point out that the simple solution for not being raped while drunk is not to get drunk. You also said "women wearing short skirts ARE "asking for it." They are flaunting their sexuality deliberately as an exercise of sexual power." That sounds much like something a Muslim would say. I provided an example
here.
But they are exploiting their sexuality, which means they are "asking for it."
Pronoun trouble.
Just because someone exploits their own sexuality doesn't mean they are asking for a penis in their vagina.
Sure they are, ultimately. That's what sexuality is all about. That they may be selective about WHICH penis is not really relevant.
This is incorrect. Women, people, often want to be looked at as sexually attractive without any intention of having sex at the time.
And, "which" penis is most certainly relevant. That's why consent to one man is not consent to all comers.
Seth wrote:
They may well just be asking for attention, looks, glances, an approach, a proposition, whatever. And, they may only be asking for something from a particular person, and not any person. There are as many things they may be asking for as there are people.
Nah, they all want sex. When, where and with whom is secondary to the purpose of sexual attraction.
That is, of course, not true. Women are quite capable of wanting to be looked at as sexually attractive without any intention on having sex. Some women like to tease or entice. Some women like to be desired but not obtainable.
Most women do want sex at some point with someone, but that applies to women who are wearing burlap sacks too. To say that most humans want sex is about as relevant to the question as to whether most humans want to take a shit. Sure, they do. But that doesn't mean they'll just drop trou and crap in the road, or that it is o.k. for you to pull their pants down (because you know that they will be doing so at some point anyway).
Seth wrote:
Why else would women wear short skirts other than to flaunt their sexuality?
Because it's cool, fashionable, pretty, or whatever. And, even if they flaunt their sexuality, that doesn't mean they want a cock in one or more orifices. Maybe they just want to tease? Maybe they are looking to attract one particular person? Maybe they like feeling pretty?
What is the purpose of "feeling pretty?" It's sexual attraction, plain and simple, complex and convoluted, overt or masked. That's why animals, including humans preen and display. There may be other motivations as well, but it's always about "asking for it" at the core.[/quote]
That is "a" purpose of "feeling pretty." Another purpose is to feed their own ego Another might be to increase their own self esteem. Another might be to make themselves feel more comfortable or confident in a given situation. Another might be tease a man, or men in general, have their interest aroused but unsated -- some women sometimes can get jollies from that. It's not necessarily sexual attraction. And, even if it happens to be that a woman dresses prettily to feel pretty to increase sexual attraction, that doesn't mean she's consenting to sex.
Seth wrote:
I'm not saying that it's wrong for them to do so, or that they don't have a right to be sexually attractive to others, I'm merely pointing out that wearing sexy clothing is about advertising one's sexuality...in other words "asking for it."
Those aren't synonymous expressions. Asking for WHAT? To be looked at with approval or desire? Or, to have a hand up the skirt? Or, to be bent over and ass fucked? What's the "it" that a woman is asking for by virtue of wearing a short skirt?
Sex, that's what. Maybe not with YOU, maybe not right now, but it's still about advertising for a sex partner, even if the woman isn't actively thinking about it at every moment.[/quote]
It's not ONLY advertising for a sex partner. Men dress nice too, to be handsome, to look nice in a formal gathering, to look better than other males, etc. It's sometimes to get a sex partner, but not always. Sometimes men want to be handsome and hot just to be more confident in a given situation. I'm a monogamous male, but I like looking good, and I like the attention of women. I'm not asking for it.
The same goes for women. They aren't necessarily asking for "it," if by "it" you mean sexual activity.
Seth wrote:
This is not to say that they are not in full control of whether they accept or reject a potential sex partner's interest, merely that they cannot argue that its somehow wrong for others to view them as potential sex partners while they are advertising their sexuality.
They can "argue" that anything is "wrong." Wrong and right is purely a matter of opinion, since it exists only as thoughts and judgments in the brains of human beings. They can, if they want, run around completely naked, and yet think it's "wrong" for men to have sexual interest in them.
And they can be told that they are ignorant cunts and society can say "if you run around naked, don't blame anyone else if you get raped." Not that it should, but it can.[/quote]
Society isn't a person. Individuals are people. Individuals can and do say lots of things, some of which are what you just quoted. They can say whatever they want.
However, the fact remains, that being naked or wearing sexy clothing is not consent to sex. And, it's not "asking for [sex]," necessarily.
Seth wrote:
I would agree that it's not very reasonable for women to dress sexily, and then object when men's interest is aroused. However, men are perfectly free to be interested in any woman in the world they want to be interested in. What they're not free to do is touch them without consent, or stalk them, etc. They have to abide by the law, and the mere wearing of sexy clothes is not consent to any old "it."
Well, yes, of course, depending on what you mean by "stalk" precisely.
I mean what the law says it is.
The point is, that wearing sexy clothes is not consent to any old "it." That was the point.
Seth wrote:
And, if they do not want to be viewed as sex objects, the obvious thing to do is not wear short skirts or flaunt their sexuality.
Certainly, if one doesn't want to be viewed as sexy, then one would be well-served not to be sexy. That seems axiomatic.
Seems to have escaped the Skepchicks though.[/quote]
I'm not defending the skepchicks. I'm opposing your nonsensical assertion.
Seth wrote:
The point is that you cannot blame men for responding to a woman's sexual advertisement in a sexual manner. It's a perfectly natural evolved behavior that has the purpose of perpetuating the species.
That has noting to do with anyone "asking for it." Whether one is asking for "it" depends on what the "it" is.
the "it" is sex. It always has been, and always will be sex. It's biology. It's how we're programmed. It's unavoidable.[/quote]
Clearly, just because a woman dresses sexily, that doesn't mean she is asking for sex (whether from a particular man or all comers). There are many reasons a person, male or female, will dress handsomely, prettily, or sexily that have nothing to do with sex, per se. That this seems to escape you is troubling. I mean, do you really think that a woman who goes to the beach in a bikini, say, or going somewhere with a belly shirt on, is "asking for [sex]?"
Or, are you making some reference that sexuality is at the root of the human desire to be sexy? I mean, if that's what you're saying, then nobody disagrees with you. That's completely different than "asking for it [sex]."
