Things and Stuff

majere616:

stfuhypocrisy:

convertedinvader:

stfuhypocrisy:

convertedinvader:

stfuhypocrisy:

WELCOME.: >mfw people think that image had to do with rape

[TW FOR RAPE/VICTIM-BLAMING]

flamingpotatogrenade:

stay-gold-ponyboyy:

flamingpotatogrenade:

HE IS TALKING ABOUT A PICTURE FROM SLUT WALK GUYS….

pleaaaaaaaaaaaase tell me I’m not the only one pissing myself?

It had absolutely nothing to do with rape or victim blaming. That subject was entirely besides the point. It was not at all…

I think the problem here is YOU don’t know the ramifications of YOUR fucking actions by perpetuating this fucking myth.
Who the fuck cares if someone wants to look aesthetically pleasing if it boosts their self-esteem? Are you the fucking fashion police? That’s none of your business.

And don’t even talk about the “consequences of dressing provocatively”. That shit just boils my blood. Lemme tell you a few things:

• Victims of rape/assault/harassment are supposed to make “responsible choices” when it comes to their attire, in order to avoid unwanted attention. Yet, the rapists/assaulter/harasser isn’t held responsible for their CHOICE to rape/assault/harass someone. 
• Telling women/victims what to wear or avoid wearing in order to avoid sexual violence gives them a false sense of security. Rape/assault/harassment can happen at any time of the day, to anyone, male or female, queer or straight, trans or cis, adult or child, drunk or sober.
• Victim-blaming only perpetuates the stereotype that all men are slaves to their hormones, who are animals who can’t control themselves. If I were a non-raping man, I would be fucking infuriated that there are people in the world who perpetuate that myth.

You clearly don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Stfu and gtfo.

The problem here is that you aren’t arguing the point that flamingpotatogrenade presented, but an imaginary point based on an incorrect deduction you made. You apparently think that since the sign was used in a protest against rape apologism, the sign itself is against rape apologism, and therefore any argument made against it must support rape apologism. Unfortunately for you, that logic is flawed. The statement that it makes no sense for one to go to great lengths to appear pleasing to the eye and then claim that it’s not for that purpose has absolutely nothing to do with rape or rape apologism, and as surprising as it may sound at first, the statement on the sign itself (“Believe it or not, my outfit has nothing to do with you”) doesn’t, either. At least not in a direct way. Let me break it down to simple logical steps:

The sign states that her outfit has nothing to do with others, therefore it’s not an “invitation to rape” either. However, these are two different points. In simple terms, one’s outfit can have SOMETHING to do with others without becoming an “invitation to rape”. And that’s the only thing flamingpotatogrenade stated: the fact that one’s outfit has something to do with others, namely that extra efforts are made to appear pleasing to others. So unless you believe that appearing pleasing to others is actually an invitation to rape, his point has absolutely nothing to do with rape, so accusing him of rape apologism is a blatant straw-man fallacy.

Actually, if you read the blog and the answers they gave, then you’d see why I was bringing up the things I brought up. It wasn’t just about that image.

I did read each and every post he made about the topic at hand; you’re welcome to quote him to prove your point if you can find anything pertaining to rape or rape apologism in his posts.

“You still fail to understand the external consequences of the way one dresses. How one dresses affects the impressions people get of said person, and you can’t blame others for getting certain impressions if you choose to dress provocatively”

Yeah, that pretty much boils down to “woman are asking for it”

Please read my response to the other person. I was discussing implications, not actions.

(Source: sirbromanguyboy)