It's not MY fault for dressing provocatively. It's YOUR fault for looking at me!

[MajinCry]

Here's a link to one set of stats. It's a more conservative "1 in 5" girls and doesn't say by whom they were assaulted, but still...

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics

Ooh! Statistics!

I'll shoe horn this one in here; 1 in 3 women will suffer physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures

Also, there are few Native American women that haven't been molested, and 1 in 3 will be raped during their lifetime. http://www.justice.gov/ovw/tribal-communities

 

[chipwitch]

29 so kinda on that, but wrong about privacy. I have a facebook that I check about once a year. No profile pic. I dont use twitter, or any other social media. I enjoy my privacy quite a bit actually.

I'm glad to hear that. It's becoming more of a problem with successive generations.

Now, about 100 kids a year are abducted by a stranger. That includes all age ranges of "kid". A family member can easily become obsessed and does not need pictures. If the argument is that a picture on social media can drive someone to focus on that child, then follow the logic.

I wasn't just talking about social media, nor was I talking solely about abduction. The profile is similar for sex abuse. Certainly, social media makes it much easier. These days, you don't personally have to be on social media for pictures of your kids to end up there. Someone you know, who you trust with pictures of your kids, is.

There are about 24 million kids in the US ages 0-5. About 75 million kids total. Take 75million kids and divide that by the 100, and you see how crazy it is to worry about abduction when there are so many other things far more likely to harm your child. A .00013% chance of something bad happening to your kid is a weird thing to worry about. It just does not seem important enough to worry about.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to frighten you. But, again, it isn't just about abduction... sex abuse destroys children's lives and it is quite common.

As for a teacher having the pic, it would only bother me if it were sexual. If it were sexual, then I would report it because its an indication that the teacher could represent a threat to a child, specifically mine. If it were a pic I gave the teacher because the teacher was a family friend, then no. I worry about my child's safety, and not what gets others off.

I was talking about the naked pictures because that was the discussion, no? Obviously you wouldn't pass pictures of you teenager around like that. But, what if a friend of a friend showed a "cute" naked picture of your four year old to the teacher and they made a copy. All I'm saying is keep it close.

Not the same thing by a long shot, but I remember in the early days of the internet, various people would give people free email accounts and such... all you had to do was turn over your address book to them. It used to really piss me off because then you'd start getting a bunch of spam. A trusted close friend, did something stupid, and now my mailbox is always full. Now, Google and everyone else does the same thing (more discreetly, though) and it's the norm so no one questions it.

 

[chipwitch]

Ooh! Statistics!

I'll shoe horn this one in here; 1 in 3 women will suffer physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures

Also, there are few Native American women that haven't been molested, and 1 in 3 will be raped during their lifetime. http://www.justice.gov/ovw/tribal-communities

Those statistics should be common knowledge. Surprising how few people are familiar with them. The idea that we are a "civilization" is just a grand illusion.

 

[realibrad]

I'm glad to hear that. It's becoming more of a problem with successive generations.


I wasn't just talking about social media, nor was I talking solely about abduction. The profile is similar for sex abuse. Certainly, social media makes it much easier. These days, you don't personally have to be on social media for pictures of your kids to end up there. Someone you know, who you trust with pictures of your kids, is.


Like I said, I wasn't trying to frighten you. But, again, it isn't just about abduction... sex abuse destroys children's lives and it is quite common.

I was talking about the naked pictures because that was the discussion, no? Obviously you wouldn't pass pictures of you teenager around like that. But, what if a friend of a friend showed a "cute" naked picture of your four year old to the teacher and they made a copy. All I'm saying is keep it close.

Not the same thing by a long shot, but I remember in the early days of the internet, various people would give people free email accounts and such... all you had to do was turn over your address book to them. It used to really piss me off because then you'd start getting a bunch of spam. A trusted close friend, did something stupid, and now my mailbox is always full. Now, Google and everyone else does the same thing (more discreetly, though) and it's the norm so no one questions it.

Most child sex abuse is done by someone who is a family member and has access to the child. Pictures online are not going to do much of anything in terms of increasing risk.

The argument I think you are making is that posting pictures increases the risk that someone may abuse a child. A picture is nothing to a family member who has access, so I choose to focus on strangers. A picture may arouse a stranger, and it may even drive that stranger to abuse. But, when you factor in that the odds are so small vs other things that are a danger, it seems to be little reason to worry about it.

The reason I would not pass around pictures of my hypothetical teenager is because the kid is establishing their sexual identity. They are starting to have control over their body, and me passing around pictures of them is usurping their right to their body. There are other reason, but none that I can think of that would increase the danger to the child.

 

[Shaun_Brannen]

So first, who is saying people should be able to touch others for how they dress?

Nobody, but you have to realize that it is what acutely on people's minds who are more concerned with a woman's right to express herself, than a man's (although really, this isn't gender specific in any way) right to break the ice or whatever.

I'd rather have a society where people were too afraid to interact with each other (today), than a society where we're constantly overstepping boundaries and influencing others into doing things that they are not comfortable with. I know that's not what you're arguing for, but that is of higher concern to me, than the way things are right now. I also prioritize a person's right to self-expression in the way they dress, over somebody that has self-control issues.

People need to also not be so afraid to stand up and say no to something they are uncomfortable with. I had a situation like this come up yesterday, where a 50-something year old guy was apparently illiterate in reading body language, and couldn't tell that the 20-something that he was hitting on (for god knows why -- go use a dating site for your weird, niche desires) was not interested in him, and wanted out of there. She eventually walked away, but could have been a bit more up front with him.

Still, I wonder what the fuck he was doing in the first place?

2nd, you are advocating people be killed for touching, but touching can be a lot of things. I dont see the need for the death penalty for an unwanted hug. You should not do it, but you should also not be put to death for it.

Hmm, I am not actually advocating that. I was more using it as a device to point out the seriousness of the matter.

3rd, you are now saying people should be shammed and socially reconditioned (I agree) but that is very different then killing them.

Which was my actual view on this, but obviously I didn't make that clear... and I kind of did so intentionally, just to see what weirdos (if any) I could expose.

 

[realibrad]

...
I'd rather have a society where people were too afraid to interact with each other (today), than a society where we're constantly overstepping boundaries and influencing others into doing things that they are not comfortable with. I know that's not what you're arguing for, but that is of higher concern to me, than the way things are right now. I also prioritize a person's right to self-expression in the way they dress, over somebody that has self-control issues...

Not sure if you are being hyperbolic here again, or if this is what you actually believe. It this is accurate, then you are a scary fuck and you want a scary world.

A world without interaction is an empty void. There can never be any meaningful relationships because people may be offended when flirting. Before I put any words into your mouth, can you dig a little deeper into what you mean?

 

[MajinCry]

Not sure if you are being hyperbolic here again, or if this is what you actually believe. It this is accurate, then you are a scary fuck and you want a scary world.

A world without interaction is an empty void. There can never be any meaningful relationships because people may be offended when flirting. Before I put any words into your mouth, can you dig a little deeper into what you mean?

It's rather obvious what he meant.

Rather than have a world where men are molesting and assaulting women because they show some skin, something that everybody has underneath our clothes, he would rather have a world where men are too hesitant to do such acts.

And I agree. If it's a toss-up between a world rife women suffering, and a world rife with men being somewhat paranoid, there is no contest; the latter is the morally white of the two.

 

[realibrad]

It's rather obvious what he meant.

Rather than have a world where men are molesting and assaulting women because they show some skin, something that everybody has underneath our clothes, he would rather have a world where men are too hesitant to do such acts.

And I agree. If it's a toss-up between a world rife women suffering, and a world rife with men being somewhat paranoid, there is no contest; the latter is the morally white of the two.

So, when have men molested women for showing skin? If you have something, you are going to have to go back pretty damn far in human history, or go to to the middle east.

I also like how inserted gender roles even though the person I was talking to did not. Its almost like you have a fully formed narrative that you want to espouse even if you have to jam that motherfucker in there.

 

[MajinCry]

So, when have men molested women for showing skin? If you have something, you are going to have to go back pretty damn far in human history, or go to to the middle east.

I also like how inserted gender roles even though the person I was talking to did not. Its almost like you have a fully formed narrative that you want to espouse even if you have to jam that motherfucker in there.

You did notice that he proposed a hypothetical ultimatum, right?

Sure, he didn't insert any "gender roles", as you called it. Might have gotten a bit lost when I was reading the thread.

But, eh, I still support his stance.

 

[alien42]

So, when have men molested women for showing skin? If you have something, you are going to have to go back pretty damn far in human history, or go to to the middle east.

every single woman i have ever seen crowd surf at a concert was molested, and they weren't even showing skin.

 

[waggy]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST>

this thread went so far off the rails its insane..

 

[realibrad]

every single woman i have ever seen crowd surf at a concert was molested, and they weren't even showing skin.

Yep, because people can be ass holes. Not to mention that you are likely talking about a much younger crowd. Youths can be assholes too.

Point is, all throughout history, people have suffered. A big chunk of it has been due to other humans. The flip-side is that some of the most amazing things involve people too. When you try and cut out bad human interaction, you often cut out the good too. It makes life very empty and depressing. If you want to live in a world where bad shit does not happen, but neither does good shit, then you are a sad soul. Maybe you dont personally agree, but that is the argument that seems to be put forth.

I think the problem is that people are wanting something good. I dont want a world where molestation happens either. The problem is that the solution will also cure the good parts too. Part of what makes the world so amazing is the dark and the light.

 

[realibrad]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST>

this thread went so far off the rails its insane..

Yeah, that was mainly my fault.

 

[chipwitch]

So, when have men molested women for showing skin? If you have something, you are going to have to go back pretty damn far in human history, or go to to the middle east.

Men who molest women do so because they're dicks. However, the conservative view several on this thread have espoused is that "skin" has an uncontrollable effect on men. I don't personally believe exposed skin causes molestation, but it seems there are more than a few here that seem to think that is the unavoidable logical conclusion.

 

[chipwitch]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST>

this thread went so far off the rails its insane..

It has evolved, but I think there's been some positive discussion here even if it's deviated from the OP.

 

[MajinCry]

That "Life ain't good if it ain't got the bad" lark is nonsense. Life without the bad is pretty freakin' sweet; which is why people strive for good schools, good hospitals, good communities, etc.

I'd happily live in a hunky-dory world where nobody molests, rapes, enslaves 'n' whatnot.

And I don't buy that the solution to stopping molestation would stop the good in life. To the contrary, it would give much to the (potential) victims of it.

 

[realibrad]

Men who molest women do so because they're dicks. However, the conservative view several on this thread have espoused is that "skin" has an uncontrollable effect on men. I don't personally believe exposed skin causes molestation, but it seems there are more than a few here that seem to think that is the unavoidable logical conclusion.

Well, that would seem to go against your original point about posting pics of your children. If skin does not cause someone to rape (I dont believe it does) then what is the harm of posting a kid?

But, I have seen that argument pop up on this forum, and its stupid. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard and respect people and their property. But, that would be tough when you realize that so much of our society is built around taking from others. When you give the option to seal and not get caught, many times people will do it. The majority wont, but many will.

 

[realibrad]

That "Life ain't good if it ain't got the bad" lark is nonsense. Life without the bad is pretty freakin' sweet; which is why people strive for good schools, good hospitals, good communities, etc.

I'd happily live in a hunky-dory world where nobody molests, rapes, enslaves 'n' whatnot.

And I don't buy that the solution to stopping molestation would stop the good in life. To the contrary, it would give much to the (potential) victims of it.

Again, if you could have a world without molestation, then I would like to see how it formed. If it is a product of people not being bastards, then great. The problem happens when we try and force morality onto people. The Middle East is not a cluster because people want to be the opposite of moral, but its inherently because they have a fucked up idea of morality.

I too want a world without things like rape, but the worry I have is how you get there. The person I responded to seemed to get there by reducing human interaction which would have the side effect of reducing the good interactions too. That is what I said was scary and sad.

So, how do you get to a world without those bad things, and not do away with the good too?

 

[waggy]

Again, if you could have a world without molestation, then I would like to see how it formed. If it is a product of people not being bastards, then great. The problem happens when we try and force morality onto people. The Middle East is not a cluster because people want to be the opposite of moral, but its inherently because they have a fucked up idea of morality.

I too want a world without things like rape, but the worry I have is how you get there. The person I responded to seemed to get there by reducing human interaction which would have the side effect of reducing the good interactions too. That is what I said was scary and sad.

So, how do you get to a world without those bad things, and not do away with the good too?

I agree to a point. I would love a world where we don't have to worry about rape or molestation. Though the answer is not to reduce the interaction between people.

Sadly it's something i don't think we are ever going to get past. Its also not a full on moral issue either. I do think some just have mental issues. That is the only answered i can come up with logically for a man to want to have sex with a infant.

 

[OutHouse]

this thread is now about WAFFLES!

 

[realibrad]

I agree to a point. I would love a world where we don't have to worry about rape or molestation. Though the answer is not to reduce the interaction between people.

Sadly it's something i don't think we are ever going to get past. Its also not a full on moral issue either. I do think some just have mental issues. That is the only answered i can come up with logically for a man to want to have sex with a infant.

A man having sex with an infant sure. A man date raping a woman is not the same. Both are rape, but its not sick to desire an adult. Its sick to rape the adult though.

I would say society is improving though. Bill Maher actually made this point. In the movie Animal House, there is a scene where a guy has sex with a girl who is passed out. At the time it was considered funny by most. Today, almost nobody would laugh at that scene. We have not accepted that rape in that case is actually rape and not a good time. I dont know that we will ever get to a society that does not rape, but its wayyyyyyyyyyy better than even 30 years ago.

 

[realibrad]

this thread is now about WAFFLES!

So there is a little cafe near where I work, and it has some amazing waffles. He mixes in a little banana to keep it moist, and puts nutella on top. Its awesome.

 

[LPCTech]

I have this amazing ability to glance at hot, provocatively dressed women and not lose my mind and continue on with what Im doing.

I dont see how it matters what someone is wearing.

 

[realibrad]

I have this amazing ability to glance at hot, provocatively dressed women and not lose my mind and continue on with what Im doing.

I dont see how it matters what someone is wearing.

Fuck you being an adult. You are triggering rapists!

 

[Wreckem]

This seems to be making its way around high schools again. Its seems it does so every other year.

This type of whining just leads to mandatory uniforms where its 100% conformity.

Younger generations have been brainwashed by media(and fashion industry) to think sexy/slutty is the same as "cute" and is acceptable in all environments. So now the feminists demand to dress however they please in all environments.

Dress Code issues such as these are easily squelched by mandatory uniforms. It boggles my mind that some districts have uniforms K-8 then ditch them at the high school level. If you wouldn't wear it to church, you shouldn't wear it to work or school.