shortie_689
Member
BUSTED OH YOU ARE SO BUSTED WAT ON EARTH ARE U DOIN HERE U CRAZY HOOLIGANzahid said:
-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Muslim cleric: women incite men's lust with 'satanic dress' (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jennylim
- Start date
OS
Banned
jennylim said:
Well, in contradiction to what this guy says, I actually think that Islam's restraint on sexuality (not even allowing brief exchange of eye contact between an unrelated male and female) is actaully more conductive to such negative sexual expression as rape and assualt. I think seeing every female covered head to toe would be most aggravating to a man's ''carnal nature''. This would be even worse for Muslim males living in Western society.........
OS
Banned
zahid said:
Yeeeeeeeeessssssss..........
Generator - ''Actually, no it isn't. Nice of you to think that the majority believe that the victim is at fault, though (as you implicitly suggested by stating that they wouldn't feel as sorry for an 'immodest' girl as they would for a 'nice' girl).''
Read my post again. I didn't say the majority think the victim is at fault. I said the majority would feel more sorry for the modest girl. Not because the other one is at fault, but because she didn't take those precautions.
Read my post again. I didn't say the majority think the victim is at fault. I said the majority would feel more sorry for the modest girl. Not because the other one is at fault, but because she didn't take those precautions.
''Well you can't have the cake and eat it too. You can't raise an issue and expect me not to raise a justification for why it's there. You raised the concern about sexual motivation, I noted that it is wrong to suggest that all sexual assaults are motivated by sex, many theorists would argue there is a concern of psychodynamic manifestation, where the male seeks to overpower the female in the situation and sexual assault is one of those ways, the motivation on that account is open for discussion.''
Yes ofcourse not ALL rapes are sexually motivated. However, when society makes laws, they make them generally or for the majority of situations. So my arguments are based on the notion that the majority of rapes r sexually motivated. And as for the ''psychodynamic manifestation'', I see their point. But in my opinion, in general, if the girls were covered up, they wouldn't be excercising this power over females (as in like not via sexual assault). Also, I dont think u could blame ''psychodynamic manifestation'' alone, for rape. Sure that would contribute, but I think sexual motivation would also play a part (generally).
''To the best of my knowledge provocation is partial defence all round unless legislation otherwise suggests.''
Oh ok, well im practically positive it isn't a complete or partial defence for assault.
''You can't be guilty of not taking precautions, these are acts against a person, this is not Workers Compensation cases we are dealing with where an employer needs to take precautions. The fact is if you dress indecently and expose too much, then you are offending, however if your dress is not an indecent exposure, then you are fine in the eyes of the law. You can't be provoked by something that tempts you only. If a girl walks past a guy and she is wearing a mini-skirt and he attacks her, she has not provoked him. A provocation would be she would go up to him and make a comment or approach that would offend or the lik''
Ofcourse u can be guilty of not taking precautions. So ur telling me that if an attractive girl walked into a bikie bar naked and sat right in the middle of the bar strutting her stuff and the guys sexually assaulted her, she wouldn't be guilty of failing to take precautions? Now, obviously this is an extreme situation. But if u say, yes, she is guilty of not taking those precautions, then the issue becomes - to what extent can a girl reveal herself for her not to be guilty of not taking precautions. You may say that the law draws the line as to what extent a girl can reveal herself for her not to become guilty of not taking precautions (ie. through laws about indecent exposure), but chances are, the law is wrong (I realize this is subjective btw). And if u say no she's not guilty, then sorry to say but ur quite lost. Also, in this case, I think most of us would agree that she has infact provoked these men. It's a matter of common sense.
''Perhaps. But if the latter girl was gang-raped and humiliated and even vilified based on race, then the community would tend to feel sorry for her more. The situation here is the offender themselves.''
Yes ofcourse in that situation the community would feel sorry for her more. And no ur wrong, its not the offender, it's the offence. They would feel more sorry for her because the crime committed against her was much more heinous than just a single man rape. So going back to my hypothetical...I was talking in terms of like if the exact same offence was committed to both these women. The offence is the same, but the offendee (I dont think thats a word lol but anyway) differs and as a result the emotional response evoked in many of us would differ for the reasons mentioned before.
''How can you suggest restricting what people wear, because some people who lack self control, have encompassed poor-child rearing, and have been with their offending mates most of their lives, decide to prey on an innocent person. Innocent in the way they are not associated with the offender.''
It's called taking preventative measures. It's funny how society today is so fond of ''prevention rather than cure'' but when it comes to the way we dress, noone decides to apply this notion.
Yes ofcourse not ALL rapes are sexually motivated. However, when society makes laws, they make them generally or for the majority of situations. So my arguments are based on the notion that the majority of rapes r sexually motivated. And as for the ''psychodynamic manifestation'', I see their point. But in my opinion, in general, if the girls were covered up, they wouldn't be excercising this power over females (as in like not via sexual assault). Also, I dont think u could blame ''psychodynamic manifestation'' alone, for rape. Sure that would contribute, but I think sexual motivation would also play a part (generally).
''To the best of my knowledge provocation is partial defence all round unless legislation otherwise suggests.''
Oh ok, well im practically positive it isn't a complete or partial defence for assault.
''You can't be guilty of not taking precautions, these are acts against a person, this is not Workers Compensation cases we are dealing with where an employer needs to take precautions. The fact is if you dress indecently and expose too much, then you are offending, however if your dress is not an indecent exposure, then you are fine in the eyes of the law. You can't be provoked by something that tempts you only. If a girl walks past a guy and she is wearing a mini-skirt and he attacks her, she has not provoked him. A provocation would be she would go up to him and make a comment or approach that would offend or the lik''
Ofcourse u can be guilty of not taking precautions. So ur telling me that if an attractive girl walked into a bikie bar naked and sat right in the middle of the bar strutting her stuff and the guys sexually assaulted her, she wouldn't be guilty of failing to take precautions? Now, obviously this is an extreme situation. But if u say, yes, she is guilty of not taking those precautions, then the issue becomes - to what extent can a girl reveal herself for her not to be guilty of not taking precautions. You may say that the law draws the line as to what extent a girl can reveal herself for her not to become guilty of not taking precautions (ie. through laws about indecent exposure), but chances are, the law is wrong (I realize this is subjective btw). And if u say no she's not guilty, then sorry to say but ur quite lost. Also, in this case, I think most of us would agree that she has infact provoked these men. It's a matter of common sense.
''Perhaps. But if the latter girl was gang-raped and humiliated and even vilified based on race, then the community would tend to feel sorry for her more. The situation here is the offender themselves.''
Yes ofcourse in that situation the community would feel sorry for her more. And no ur wrong, its not the offender, it's the offence. They would feel more sorry for her because the crime committed against her was much more heinous than just a single man rape. So going back to my hypothetical...I was talking in terms of like if the exact same offence was committed to both these women. The offence is the same, but the offendee (I dont think thats a word lol but anyway) differs and as a result the emotional response evoked in many of us would differ for the reasons mentioned before.
''How can you suggest restricting what people wear, because some people who lack self control, have encompassed poor-child rearing, and have been with their offending mates most of their lives, decide to prey on an innocent person. Innocent in the way they are not associated with the offender.''
It's called taking preventative measures. It's funny how society today is so fond of ''prevention rather than cure'' but when it comes to the way we dress, noone decides to apply this notion.
ogmzergrush
LOL
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,198
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2002
sly fly said:
Yeah of course!! (got space cadet?)sly fly said:
OS
Banned
How is space cadet relevant to this discussion - and as for preventative measures, how about preventing potential rapists from letting their urges go out of control and commit this CRIME......sly fly said:
gonnafailhsc
Trilla
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2005
- Messages
- 22
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
just to add on this discussion, i beleive the shiek was taken out of context and i also believe he was not articulate enough to express his views, (in the quran it also states that men are not allowed to wear tight clothing) i believe something is very wrong with islam today, we constantle on the backfoot and always defending it, i want muslims to present islam
Yeah. Unfortunately, it’s always the wahabbi idiots who end up presenting Islam to the public (or otherwise, they are the only ppl who the media decides to show to the public). You never see the rational, educated Muslims presenting Islam. So for those who hate Islam and Muslims, their ignorance is not entirely their fault.gonnafailhsc said:
SabtheLab
Mindlessly Acuminous
slyfly, im not wahabbi but i really think calling a fellow Muslim is inappropriate. i agree with your points and unfortuantely it is always wahabbi extremist views that are presented but nevertheless undermining a fellow Muslim isnt going to help us in the long run....we'll just earn peoples disrespect. in fact this is something which ticks me off the most...were bickering among ourselves when we should be looking past our differences and uniting to show the world what REAL Islam is about. in regards to wahabbis, i think it'll suffice to say that they are quite extreme and don't represent the views of the majority of the Muslim world. better than telling them off eh?
breaking
paint huffing moron
hahaha..... i LOL'd when i read this so i thought it deserved a bump.soha said:
soha
a splendid one to behold
what the fuck is soo funny about that?BreaKing said:
loser