Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

An interesting discussion is taking place on the Guardian newspaper site:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dav ... llacy.html

The article ends with the following points, and if you click through you can read the responses..

When our houses are burgled, we're hardly more likely than rape victims to see the intruder end up behind bars. So what do we do? We fit locks to our doors and windows. We keep our valuables out of sight.

To suggest any comparable behaviour in the field of rape is considered outrageous. Yet, why shouldn't women be encouraged to think twice before visiting footballers' hotel rooms late at night? Why shouldn't they be advised that to get themselves into a drunken stupor in the company of a frisky male could carry risks? Whatever the polite classes may feel, a large proportion of the population continues to see sense in such admonitions.

Feminists object that even to mention such things constitutes a shift of blame from perpetrator to victim. Yet, when we fit window locks, does this make burglary our fault?

The insistence of feminist activists that the courts must provide the only solution to rape is surely political. They want a demonstration that the state backs women against men. Yet, in perpetuating the idea that women have no part to play in securing their own safety, campaigners are doing them no favours.

Sorry, but i think this is the funiest article i've read for the week.

Are you saying that women should be blamed why they're raped just because they went out to party? Unbelievable, isn't it?! I do not agree with this article, debatable though.

Rape happened even at home. Maids are being rape at home while working for their employers. Rapists are rapists, drunk or not.

The article was specifically talking about date rape and the fact that of all rape accusations only one in five result in convictions.

I could not see where the article said it was ok to rape women.

Perhaps it is just too simple a concept that if there weren't any dates, there wouldn't be any date rape

[and just for the record, I don't condone any acts of violence against any women]

cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Perhaps it is just too simple a concept that if there weren't any dates, there wouldn't be any date rape

Are you endorsing this concept?

I practice it - as this is what Islam teaches - so yes. No dates - unless its after an engagement.

Many/most religions teach that marital relations should only take place within marriage.. I happen to believe this and practice this.

But I don't want to impose my views on others if they wish to live their lives otherwise.

However, I do have sympathy for the article which talks about the difficulties of working out whether date rape did take place or not when a man and woman go willingly to a bedroom/flat etc after partying together. When it becomes his word against hers - how do you differentiate the real date rapes with those where the man is innocent?

Cheers,
Shafique

Interesting debate and i agree with the opening post.

If you walk into an under privelaged ghetto wearing expensive jewellery chances are you will get mugged and you put yourself in danger. By discouraging someone from wearing that much jewellery in that location does not mean you are agreeing to the concept of mugging people wearing expensive items.

Most rape victims are raped by people they know, not strangers lurking at night.

So really the only way to prevent rape is to make sure women wear a top to bottom gown and lock their bedroom against boyfriends, husbands, fathers and brothers.

Frederick wrote:Most rape victims are raped by people they know, not strangers lurking at night.

So really the only way to prevent rape is to make sure women wear a top to bottom gown and lock their bedroom against boyfriends, husbands, fathers and brothers.

One sure way to prevent rape outside of marriage is to limit the occasions that men and women are together alone in situations which could lead to s.exual relations. There will be no disputes about consent etc.

However, it unfortunately will be seen as an archaic and primitive view to suggest that s.e.x should be celebrated within the confines of marriage.

The unpalatable fact is that whilst dates and pre-marital relationships are seen as acceptable, the natural consequence of this is that date rapes will occur - some as true rapes, others as mis-understandings on the part of the man. The tragedy is that a jury cannot distinguish between the two when the man and woman enters into the bedroom willingly.

It remains for individuals to decide whether the costs of promiscuity on society and individuals outweighs the sensual pleasures of such encounters. Religion teaches us that peace is found in monogamous, loving relationships where each spouse respects the other.

I believe that promiscuity leads to the degradation of women and also contributes to the heinous act of marital rape.

Being celibate before marriage is seen as a sacrifice to some, whilst others see it as an investment in a stable and fulfilling married life, and a stable family is the building block of a stable and peaceful society. But hey, why let a little personal sacrifice get in the way of transient pleasure?

[Sorry if I'm getting a little 'preachy' ]

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:One sure way to prevent rape outside of marriage is to limit the occasions that men and women are together alone in situations which could lead to s.exual relations. There will be no disputes about consent etc.

I see - just like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan during the taliban? Good examples they are of male / female segregation.

However, it unfortunately will be seen as an archaic and primitive view to suggest that s.e.x should be celebrated within the confines of marriage.

Well I would disagree that it is either archaic or primitive, but it clearly does not work out as a panacea solution to martial affairs or the protection of females from rapists like you seem to believe it will . Go to any country with a religious state and you will find just as many sexual deviants as you will in the moral less west (we only need look so far as Dubai). Its just you won't read about them in the newspapers (especially when involving the very religious or rich). People are people. Some can control themselves, others can't, irrespective of the religious denomination or lack of it. From my travels around the world its as clear as daylight it makes not one bit of difference. There are atheists / agnostics who are able to lead a happy faithful married / unmarried life without once stepping into a mosque or a church just as much as there are some religious members who think it is ok to walk around with holier then thou graces whilst carrying out some depraved sexual acts behind closed doors.

The unpalatable fact is that whilst dates and pre-marital relationships are seen as acceptable, the natural consequence of this is that date rapes will occur - some as true rapes, others as mis-understandings on the part of the man. The tragedy is that a jury cannot distinguish between the two when the man and woman enters into the bedroom willingly.

A majority of the population (including my un-religious sinful self) can actually date and practice self control based on their own internal moral conscience without a religious belief and without raping the other party - Suggesting that by banning dates it will solve the issue of rape is like claiming that banning people from mixing will prevent violence or crime.

It remains for individuals to decide whether the costs of promiscuity on society and individuals outweighs the sensual pleasures of such encounters. Religion teaches us that peace is found in monogamous, loving relationships where each spouse respects the other.

Lets look what else it teaches us;

Let's start with the bible'

Exodus 21:7-11

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

- so if she does not satisfy you, you can always get a refund.

From the holy quran - 4:24

"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you.

- So you can't have s.e.x with someone else's wife - but if you have some captives you are free to have as much s.e.x with them as you like.

I believe that promiscuity leads to the degradation of women and also contributes to the heinous act of marital rape.

I believe that enforced religious dogma based on out of date scriptures also leads to heinous act of marital rape and child abuse and in some cases is used as a justification for such sick actions. I also believe its track record in the world has overall proved to have brought about more negative impacts then positive.

Being celibate before marriage is seen as a sacrifice to some, whilst others see it as an investment in a stable and fulfilling married life, and a stable family is the building block of a stable and peaceful society. But hey, why let a little personal sacrifice get in the way of transient pleasure?

Provide me with an example of a society where this occurs and I will accept it as fact. I can tell from your posts that your beliefs have worked for you and I have no doubts your home is a peaceful loving place. But please do not assume that the fact that I have followed a different path to you means that I am lacking in the attributes which have made my home and peaceful loving place just because I don't wear a ring after taking part in a ritual. I can now say this openly as I live in a country where I will not be thrown in jail or whipped for following what I feel is absolutely fine between my self and my creator despite what any book says or claims.

[Sorry if I'm getting a little 'preachy' ]

Just a little bit mate

Cheers,
Shafique

Peace and god bless, JJ

Scott,

Religous people do not have the monopoly on morality and chastity - but generally, religion teaches people to be chaste and moral. It is a choice that anyone can choose to make - whether to sleep around or wait for marriage - religion is irrelevant here, for whilst all religions teach chastity - in practice people have always chosen whether to follow this teaching or not.

The equation is quite simple - if people choose to be chaste, there will be fewer date rapes.

Society also benefits from fewer illegitimate children, single parent families, cases of adultery leading to divorce etc.

I am not advocating enforced chastity - for that never works and just pushes s.exu.al liasons underground. What does work though is the general teaching and example of parents etc that the most peaceful and happy way to live your life with your wife/husband to be chaste and limit s.e.x to within marriage. [Actually, on reflection, I do believe in laws that outlaw adultery as I believe it is a big enough ill against society that there needs to be a 'stick' to make people think twice about committing adultery.]

I'm not saying that all rapes will disappear if everyone is chaste and men and women do not date freely - but as the article referred to in this thread is about date rapes and about how many rapes are committed by men known to the women, then I think it is not just legitimate, but also patently obvious that chastity will reduce the incidence of rapes.

Note that Chastity does not mean men and women do not meet and interact socially - far from it. It frees up women to interact with men as people and not s.e.xual objects - but this is another thread!

I trust this is less preachy and more logical

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Scott,

Religous people do not have the monopoly on morality and chastity - but generally, religion teaches people to be chaste and moral. It is a choice that anyone can choose to make - whether to sleep around or wait for marriage - religion is irrelevant here, for whilst all religions teach chastity - in practice people have always chosen whether to follow this teaching or not.

The equation is quite simple - if people choose to be chaste, there will be fewer date rapes.

Society also benefits from fewer illegitimate children, single parent families, cases of adultery leading to divorce etc.

I am not advocating enforced chastity - for that never works and just pushes s.exu.al liasons underground. What does work though is the general teaching and example of parents etc that the most peaceful and happy way to live your life with your wife/husband to be chaste and limit s.e.x to within marriage. [Actually, on reflection, I do believe in laws that outlaw adultery as I believe it is a big enough ill against society that there needs to be a 'stick' to make people think twice about committing adultery.]

I'm not saying that all rapes will disappear if everyone is chaste and men and women do not date freely - but as the article referred to in this thread is about date rapes and about how many rapes are committed by men known to the women, then I think it is not just legitimate, but also patently obvious that chastity will reduce the incidence of rapes.

Note that Chastity does not mean men and women do not meet and interact socially - far from it. It frees up women to interact with men as people and not s.e.xual objects - but this is another thread!

I trust this is less preachy and more logical

Cheers,
Shafique

Well you have deviated somewhat from your original take on a solution to date rapes - so yes it is a lot less preachy and more logical. I think a majority whether they be religious or not will agree that not sleeping around with other people when in a relationship or union of marriage will produce a happier family and society.

jabbajabba wrote:
Well you have deviated somewhat from your original take on a solution to date rapes - so yes it is a lot less preachy and more logical. I think a majority whether they be religious or not will agree that not sleeping around with other people when in a relationship or union of marriage will produce a happier family and society.

Excellent - glad to see we agree the logic, and apologies for appearing 'preachy' (is that even a word?).


My intention, and my 'original take', was simply that no dates = no date rape, and the next few posts were confirming I did not believe in or practice dating due to my religious beliefs - but I can see how this could be construed as preaching. I was perhaps not explicit that I was equating 'not dating' with 'not sleeping around'.

I certainly do have female social contacts and business contacts, but I try and lead a chaste life and avoid situations that could be construed as a 'date'.

Anyway - I found it fascinating to read the reactions to the article on the web site itself.

Cheers,
Shafique

Exodus 21:7-11

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Too bad exegesis and the Torah blow this completely out of the water.

I dont know how much this relates to the topic but here it goes....

i once heard on Peace TV , in a speech by Dr. Zakir Naik regarding Rights of Women in Islam.... he gave a very good example

Twin Identical Sisters. walkin on the streets , both beautiful, one is wearing a mini skirt the other one fully covering her body according to islam law.... which one is more likely to become a rape victim?

makes you wonder..... that women can play their part in their own security.

Would be a good argument apart from the fact that a majority of rapes take place behind closed doors and more importantly a majority of the perpetrators are related to the victim.

So it seems a Burqa makes no difference at all, when the rapist is the husband, father or uncle.

Blaming the crime on the females choice of clothes is a backward perspective on an issue which resides a lot deeper then someone taking fancy to a tart walking down the street in a short skirt.

Rape is rape, there is no other way to put it. Any forced sexual act where an object is is used to forcefully penatrate a woman or a man is considered as such.

Sure, there are ways to help prevent rape, more specificaly date rape, but it doesn't mean it's not going to happen.

I agree, when people who are out partying and getting intoxicated or going to hotel rooms with someone they hardly know is not that great of an idea. I'm not saying people shouldn't go out and have a good time, or that what may end up happening is purely their fault -- but some precautions have to be, and essentially should always be taken. It's just like how one person is more likely to mug one individual over two...

Rape is usually committed for the feeling of power the individual gets from committing this crime. So an intoxicated individual who is staggering around and less aware of their surroundings is more likely to become a prime target than someone who is in complete control of their actions. The same can be said when two individuals are alone in a room, car, any location that isn't very visible to the public.

I don't think telling someone that they need to take precautions to help ensure that something like date rape wont happen is wrong. I dont see it placing blame on anyone as well -- it's more of an advice to everyone (in my opinion).

Im trying to refrain from using any gender speficic nouns because rape isn't a male on female crime. It is something that can happen to anyone at anytime -- regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, or age.

I only commented regarding date rape because that was what the initial topic/article was about...correct? If I was wrong, please feel free to correct me.

jabba,

While I partially agree with some of the things you say about this issue I feel that I need to clear something up about your Bible quote. First of all, you're quoting for the Old Testament, which was written thousands of years ago and remember, Christianity is not the Old Testament, the OT is part of its history and lineage but Christianity would not exist without it's prophet, gospels, and New Testament. Anyway, the Exodus quote is not advocating selling daughters into slavery. It's saying that in times of extreme poverty some fathers sought to give their daughters a better life, hence they sold them into servitude, out of desperation not out of lack of love for them. If you look up some historical information of how Israelite society functioned in the second millennium BC, droughts and hunger were part of life and had to be dealt with, but how? No government Welfare agencies back then so its own society had to deal with these situations as best they could at that time. Here's what the Netbible commentaries briefly say based on historical notes:
(Re: Exodus 21:7-11 )

This paragraph is troubling to modern readers, but given the way that marriages were contracted and the way people lived in the ancient world, it was a good provision for people who might want to find a better life for their daughter. On the subject in general for this chapter, see W. M. Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women, 31-64.
The word אָמָה (’amah) refers to a female servant who would eventually become a concubine or wife; the sale price included the amount for the service as well as the bride price (see B. Jacob, Exodus, 621). The arrangement recognized her honor as an Israelite woman, one who could be a wife, even though she entered the household in service. The marriage was not automatic, as the conditions show, but her treatment was safeguarded come what may. The law was a way, then, for a poor man to provide a better life for a daughter.

ok about the subject of this thread: I agree that being religious doesn't guarantee morality. But I think that this article is talking about common sense and personal responsibility more than anything. In an Utopian society all men would know right from wrong. But since we don't live in Utopia people need to be careful with their actions and decisions. There's nothing wrong with stating the truth - it's a dangerous world out there, be careful, don't do stupid things that can put you in danger. I don't see how this can translate into placing blame on woman.

I think people immediately get defensive when such a subject is put forth. I mean how can someone who was violated in such a disgraceful manner actually have to bare partial blame too? The author of the article is right, if you left your front door wide open before going out then came back to find most of your things gone...Is it not logical for you to bare part of the blame?

It in no way makes it right for someone to steal your things, but by leaving the door open for them, you made it a lot easier for them to do so. So it makes sense to lock your doors before going out. However the thieves can always break in regardless, but you can't argue that the probability you will get robbed goes down a lot. Same goes for Date rape. I would have to agree with Cox.

Oh dear, this discussion is a SLIPPERY SLOPE...
Legally speaking , at least in the US....a girl's appearance can not be used against her in a case of rape, becasue in the US she is allowed to wear wahtever she wants whenever she wants as long as she is obeying the law....on the other hand being a volunteer high school counselor, we were taught and advise girls not to wear something that is "inviting", because you invite a certain type of attention from the opposite sex when you wear certain clothing, especially when you add alcohol into the picture becasue you loose sight of what you are doing, andthe guy will assume oh well shes a skank anyways... as far as feminism goes...it hasnothign to do with feminism..its about self respect...especially in an Islamic Country....where the men are naturally deprived of the SEX APPEAL on a daily basis or atleast more than Western countries...so just think before you wear that outfit next time...because your first impression is IMPORTANT BUT I am not justifying a rape on behalf of a girl's outift....just think twice!

Its an old debate, but Shaf was only pointing out the fact that 'precautions' can be taken in protecting ones home, but no-one seems to take a similar precaution with their own safety when out around town.

Chastity belts?



Knight

HaHa that reminds me of a scene from that old school movie...ROBIN HOOD MEN IN TIGHTS

CaliGirl1986 wrote:Oh dear, this discussion is a SLIPPERY SLOPE...
Legally speaking , at least in the US....a girl's appearance can not be used against her in a case of rape, becasue in the US she is allowed to wear wahtever she wants whenever she wants as long as she is obeying the law....on the other hand being a volunteer high school counselor, we were taught and advise girls not to wear something that is "inviting", because you invite a certain type of attention from the opposite love when you wear certain clothing, especially when you add alcohol into the picture becasue you loose sight of what you are doing, andthe guy will assume oh well shes a skank anyways... as far as feminism goes...it hasnothign to do with feminism..its about self respect...especially in an Islamic Country....where the men are naturally deprived of the love APPEAL on a daily basis or atleast more than Western countries...so just think before you wear that outfit next time...because your first impression is IMPORTANT BUT I am not justifying a rape on behalf of a girl's outift....just think twice!

I'm only speaking on behalf of the US but from experience what I wear doesn't matter. I have been followed by creeps while I wore sweatpants and x-large T-shirt. I hardly ever wear make-up, don ponytails (sometimes pigtails so that must invite the pedos), and overall I am a classy stylish dresser and if not I dress like a tomboy. Yet I get weird men following me. One guy (assume Arab by accent) stopped his car, rolled window and said 'S ex x , s ex x.' Another (Colombian of Arab background) owned a local convenience store. I walked there didn't have a car. He offered to give me a lift home but first said he'd we'd go to a hotel. Just like that. Both those occasions I looked sloppy in shorts and baggy T-shirt.

Another time in Paris creepy man follows me. This was in April so it was still a bit cold so I wore trousers and loose black jacket (remember from photo album) and he kept pointing to every hotel I walked by. He eventually gave up. Also on Paris train (wore same trousers or jacket) guy comes into my train compartment. Says "Vous-etes tres joli" Then starts rubbing himself.

I can tell more stories but it must be boring reading such long posts. To the point; I don't think guys care what you wear. They're horn dogs regardless but yes it would be different in an Islamic nation.

puppypup wrote:

CaliGirl1986 wrote:Oh dear, this discussion is a SLIPPERY SLOPE...
Legally speaking , at least in the US....a girl's appearance can not be used against her in a case of rape, becasue in the US she is allowed to wear wahtever she wants whenever she wants as long as she is obeying the law....on the other hand being a volunteer high school counselor, we were taught and advise girls not to wear something that is "inviting", because you invite a certain type of attention from the opposite love when you wear certain clothing, especially when you add alcohol into the picture becasue you loose sight of what you are doing, andthe guy will assume oh well shes a skank anyways... as far as feminism goes...it hasnothign to do with feminism..its about self respect...especially in an Islamic Country....where the men are naturally deprived of the love APPEAL on a daily basis or atleast more than Western countries...so just think before you wear that outfit next time...because your first impression is IMPORTANT BUT I am not justifying a rape on behalf of a girl's outift....just think twice!

I'm only speaking on behalf of the US but from experience what I wear doesn't matter. I have been followed by creeps while I wore sweatpants and x-large T-shirt. I hardly ever wear make-up, don ponytails (sometimes pigtails so that must invite the pedos), and overall I am a classy stylish dresser and if not I dress like a tomboy. Yet I get weird men following me. One guy (assume Arab by accent) stopped his car, rolled window and said 'S ex x , s ex x.' Another (Colombian of Arab background) owned a local convenience store. I walked there didn't have a car. He offered to give me a lift home but first said he'd we'd go to a hotel. Just like that. Both those occasions I looked sloppy in shorts and baggy T-shirt.

Another time in Paris creepy man follows me. This was in April so it was still a bit cold so I wore trousers and loose black jacket (remember from photo album) and he kept pointing to every hotel I walked by. He eventually gave up. Also on Paris train (wore same trousers or jacket) guy comes into my train compartment. Says "Vous-etes tres joli" Then starts rubbing himself.

I can tell more stories but it must be boring reading such long posts. To the point; I don't think guys care what you wear. They're horn dogs regardless but yes it would be different in an Islamic nation.

well it DOES matter what she wears - If it didnt playboy magazines would have included women in burqa. they were hitting you based on ur face - seeing through ur insecurities.

^WTF they saw through my insecurities? Like really you drive by seeing a lady in shorts and baggy T-shirt taking a morning walk in her own neighborhood and bang " I can tell she is an insecure walker/jogger because she's avoiding a walk from 11am-3pm to avoid the sun and get skin cancer. Time to ask for sexo."

I walk into a convenience store to buy some food. Yeah a guy must think "She's buying packaged food. She's so insecure to cook to cook her own food. Time to tell her we must go to hotel."

What's your problem? Always blaming anything that happens to me as 'insecurity.'

BTW you are insecure because you don't surf in the water only pretend in the desert. Surf the waves man!!!

no dates = no rape? no i don't think so..most women are beeing abducted, raped & murdered

Being a woman i just want to say that woman should not be blamed for rape. i don't think so dress of any girl is a point of this issue actually rapist are those person who are mentally not stable they should be hanged in the market till there death .

It is such a sad world if women can't be friends or hang out with men for fear of being raped. Sticking to all-female groups would drive me crazy, and I don't think it is natural.

Personally, I never felt threatened on dates, but I never got drunk and never fooled around with the guys. I went on dates in public locations and got myself to and from dates independently, not driven in the date's car. You just have to be smart about it and you will soon weed out the guys who are truly interested in you or ones who are interested only in s.e.x. It is definitely possible to date and protect yourself from harm.

kanelli wrote:It is such a sad world if women can't be friends or hang out with men for fear of being raped. Sticking to all-female groups would drive me crazy, and I don't think it is natural.

Personally, I never felt threatened on dates, but I never got drunk and never fooled around with the guys. I went on dates in public locations and got myself to and from dates independently, not driven in the date's car. You just have to be smart about it and you will soon weed out the guys who are truly interested in you or ones who are interested only in s.e.x. It is definitely possible to date and protect yourself from harm.

Yeah i agree with you. One should take care of herself.