Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: IronJack
I see. A rapist is expected to determine why a woman is naked before he decides to rape her.

Oooooooooookay...

24 posted on 05/20/2012 10:39:02 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1216 of our ObamaVacation from reality [and what dark chill/is gathering still/before the storm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: null and void
A rapist is expected to determine why a woman is naked before he decides to rape her.

I think you have cause and effect confused. The man isn't a rapist until he rapes her. And if he -- like most men -- would inquire into why a woman was roaming the street naked, I think one could reasonably expect that a civilized human being would respond to a woman in need not by raping her but by offering her safety. On the other hand, a woman who was strutting around in public in her union suit has no moral high ground from which to accuse men of presumption, or to condemn them for wanton acts.

A woman parading around in public should not necessarily be a candidate for rape, nor should such a rape be considered innocuous. But her nudity certainly creates an extenuating circumstance, and could even preclude a conviction. On the other hand, it is clearly a violation of decency for her to appear naked.

And to equate common modesty with sharia is not only an ad absurdum argument, it is a childish oversimplification.

30 posted on 05/20/2012 1:19:47 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson