Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 9833

if a girl leads a guy on, or is drunk at a party and flirts a lil, or leaves the impression she wants more then to just make out.. she gets.. "sexed up"
[...]
but how can you blame a guy for lusting a girl who is wearing clothes that essentuate the female figure.. you cant..


and those guys who rape girls, were pushed over, or took themselves over the limit..

i guarantee if girls wore dresses like they used to in the 1800's.. the amount of rape cases would be cut in half..

TJ, Myspace 48 Comments [2/27/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Martha P.

No, rapes might decrease if guys kept their weenies in their pants...

Then again, rape is about force and control, not sex. Not all rape victims wore \"clothes that essentuate the female figure\" (that's ACCentuate, dipshit).

2/27/2006 10:15:30 AM

Mr. Turquoise

Martha P.: \"Not all rape victims wore \"clothes that essentuate the female figure\" (that's ACCentuate, dipshit).\"

Indeed. I've lusted after hundreds of women...but I've not raped any of them.

Repeat after me, TJ - \"No\" means \"go home and have a wank\".

Mr. Turquoise

2/27/2006 10:23:17 AM

Julian


Hmmm - I've heard this argument before. It actually was in the 18th century. The dresses the girls wore caused the priests to lust -- so they burnt the girls at the stake for being witches!!

Does TJ mean Tool for Jesus?

2/27/2006 10:37:04 AM

Maronan

Sorry, little TJ, you've failed Lesson 1 in justice, so let's move back to Lesson 0: It's not the victim's fault.

2/27/2006 11:15:20 AM

Jeremy

So, TJ... you'd advocate having them wear Burkas? Amazing how similar Christian extremism and Muslim extremism really are...

2/27/2006 12:05:49 PM

birdseatbugs

Yeah, sure, them wimmins shure was modest in them times:

\"The 1790’s saw women’s dress lose its artificially supported dignity in favor of comfort and naturalism. Not to be unnoticed however, late 18th Century women transferred their emphasis from splendor to sex and discarded not only their false rumps but their underwear* as well. The woman of 1800 proudly displayed the strength of her femininity with as much force as her mid-century predecessor.\" (From The Costumer's Manifesto, http://tinyurl.com/o6r8v)

Also, considering the way the dresses/underpinnings were constructed, it's highly unlikely that it would dissuade a rapist. After all, if you're going to choose a victim, one that can't run away very easily/fight back effectively is going to be more appealing than one who _can_... Which is part of what rape is all about anyhow.

And now I have to stop, because otherwise I'll break down into incoherent ranting.

* It's entirely possible that this refers to crinolines and multiple petticoats rather than the women \"going commando\", not that I know anything about the history of the wearing of what we today know as underwear.

2/27/2006 12:52:50 PM

Nic

Yup, it's all the victim's fault. Because men can't be held responsible for their actions if a woman is wearing a short skirt. She deserves to be raped for not being ashamed of her body. /sarcasm off
This idiot makes me want to cry.

2/27/2006 1:49:02 PM

g-21-lto

Asshole.

I usually have semi-funny responses to these, but ...

2/27/2006 2:51:43 PM

David D.G.

But, officer, it's not my fault. I didn't want to bludgeon the clerks and steal the money -- but they were holding it up and counting it where I could see it and everything, and I -- I -- I just couldn't control myself!


~David D.G.

2/27/2006 3:49:47 PM

sadchristian

Any woman around this guy is in danger.....

2/27/2006 4:36:38 PM

TDR

.... putting the cause of women's rights back 200 years....

2/27/2006 5:19:27 PM

Phil

Your honor, I put it to you that the alleged victim was \"sexed up\" and asking for it with her revealing clothes. Yeah, brilliant TJ.

Anyone who emphathises with a rapist is scum.

Also, I have an inkling that the number of ACTUAL rapes (as opposed to reported ones) was actually much, much higher in the 1800s, especially spousal rape.

2/27/2006 8:29:34 PM

Nekhbet

TJ before my retirement I was a social worker a large part of my clientele were ex-offenders. I've spoken to men who had served time for raping women as old as 89 years of age and as young as 6 months. Explain to me how a 6 month old infant can get 'sexed up' and inflame a fulminating moron such as yourself to overwhelming passion. So what is it? Loutish freak? Cretinism? Self control of a demented chimpanzee?

2/27/2006 8:48:26 PM

TDR

Phil, possibly \"empathises\", but I do agree with you.

2/27/2006 9:28:50 PM

Winston Jen

I see a target for a lynching coming on. Come on TJ, we know you can make more sexist, puritan and bigoted posts than that.

2/27/2006 11:35:45 PM

Julian


Sorry Phil - the bible says there's no such thing as spousal rape!

Paul said the only reason to not have sex was prayer or temporarily if both parties consented to say no. So if one says yes, grin and bear it!

2/28/2006 12:46:58 AM

CousinTed

Yes, beause men turn into uncontrollable sex demons the moment they see and inch of skin.

\"I didn't mean to violate that girl in every orifice with my huge, throbbing, tentacle penises officer! Honest!\"

2/28/2006 1:06:14 AM

Jade

Everyone pretty much covered what I would say.

I don't care if the woman is wearing a thong bikini and tassles, you still have no right to lay a finger on her if she doesn't ask you to. Way to step backwards 100 years TJ.

2/28/2006 4:19:21 AM

Sierra

Julian, by 'one' you mean 'the man,' right?

2/28/2006 4:23:25 AM

Julian

Well it was written by the same guy that said women should shut up because it was Eve that ate the apple not Adam, so you have a fair point Sierra. The verses are:

1Cr 7:4 the wife over her own body hath not authority, but the husband; and, in like manner also, the husband over his own body hath not authority, but the wife.
1Cr 7:5 Defraud not one another, except by consent for a time, that ye may be free for fasting and prayer, and again may come together, that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence;

So it does imply consent. Basically it says put out to stop your spouse being tempted by Satan.

(my 2c - more often than not the more women get sex, the more they want it. The less men get sex, the more they want it)

2/28/2006 4:58:02 AM

Phil

TDR: heh, thanks for the catch. Edited so I don't look so silly.

2/28/2006 10:22:25 AM

Meexer

A man who rapes a woman is someone who chooses not to control himself. End of story.
Rape is the perp's fault...and as for rapes being less 200 years ago, well, they were less reported, but...

2/28/2006 2:38:55 PM

Aku

\"..And that's why it should be illegal for women to wear pants, and vote!\" Bah.

3/5/2006 6:10:20 AM

Seomah

\"1Cr 7:5 Defraud not one another, except by consent for a time, that ye may be free for fasting and prayer, and again may come together, that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence\"

That is possibly the only verse I could agree with.

- I feel like the Adversary (¿?) is tempting me... Hurry, take off your clothes...

I just have to remember to tell that to my girlfriend.

3/6/2006 10:55:54 AM

Marlowe

Why? Because no one payed attention to rape victims in the 1800s?

2/3/2008 4:32:34 AM
1 2