Fox News guest says women ‘are asking for sex if they’re dressing immodestly’

Source: RawReplay
By David Edwards

Fox News’ Sean Hannity invited Christian pop singer Rebecca St. James to discuss recent “slutwalk” protests.

The first demonstration was called earlier this month after a Toronto police officer claimed “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” Since then, protests have spread through cities across the U.S.

“I think there has to be responsibility though for what a woman is wearing,” St. James told Hannity Monday. “When a woman is dressing in an immodest way, in a proactive way, she’s got to think about what is she saying by her dress?”

“They’re asking for sex,” she continued. “They’re asking for sex if they’re dressed immodestly.”

Watch this video from Fox News’ Hannity, broadcast May 9, 2011 and clipped by Media Matters

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/fox-news-guest-says-women-are-asking-for-sex-if-theyre-dressing-immodestly/

cos we try to find psychological defenses, to shield us to the fact that we are all vulnerable to being raped. the easiest defense is to say the woman somehow earned it

Sad isn't it?

to spout the old cliche about "they were asking for it"! :mad: :mad:

It is so backward thinking and they want to make sure they propagate the message among their sheep.

"If she didn't want to be raped, why did she leave the house with her vagina?"

and their Vegas cocktail lounge cleavage? Probably not.

to "see what they're up to". Right. Like the old "I read Playboy for the articles."
I got sent home from school for wearing a skirt like Laurie Dhue's. At Fox, I would have been promoted.

go all out with VJJ cleavage. Whoot ! Very revealing.

Isn't that the concept behind the burka?

was told that the "covering of women" was all about the MEN being unable to "resist" the "allures of the female body", and the covering of females was to "help" them (the men) resist the temptations. When women of all ages (past puberty) cover up, it cannot be because (all/most) women are that attractive and desirous of male attention.

The thinking is the exact same.

thanks for bringing that up.

You are now blocked for being completely disingenuously in taking my apology.

fuck you.

The only thing you backtracked on was your interpretation of my posts.

If you wish to apologize for your blaming-the-victim mentality, I will gladly accept it.

creep

progression of events. While I'm not proud of how it was interpreted, it wasn't my intent.

Also it had nothing to do with women.

Here is the link, it had to do with Sony.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4840833#4841960

Cheers.

The stupid. It hurts.

He was talking about Sony and PSN on another thread and he was the one who said, and said first,



He's trying to make you think someone else said it, but that is clearly not the case.

And no, it's not the exact same thinking, because Sony was apparently **knowingly** running an un-patched Apache server (that wasn't up-to-date to begin with) without a firewall, which is the digital equivalent of opening your front door, putting up a big neon sign saying "come right the fuck in through our not-even-amateur effort and take what you like" and then bitching about it when someone does exactly that.

The "knowingly" part makes me think this was an inside job to begin with, but there's no proof of that as yet.

I remember your assertions quite well on that thread. You were wrong then and you are wrong now, and facts reported since that embarrassing effort on your part have since proven that beyond any question.

Surprise me with an honest answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4840833#top

Post 31 is an example of one blaming the victim.

Well, what were my assertions?

:puke:

...because they didn't think of putting their women in Burkhas first! They say they think it's a travesty, but the truth of the matter is, they have a hard on for those policies. Can you imagine if those men who think women belong in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant got their way and women like Hillary Clinton that they hate were shuffled out of the cabinet and back to her kitchen unable to leave it without a male relative to escort her out and about?! They would think it was awesome! Don't let them lie to you. That's what they want. Unfortunately, we can't survive on one income anymore. Everyone has to work. Want women to be back in the Kitchen? Pay her husband a wage twice what you're paying him now and she can go back and raise the kids. Until then, shut the fuck up and deal with it. Men need to control their urges. Women don't need to put more clothes on. Men need to learn to keep it in their pants and their hands to themselves.
Sorry. I went off a little bit. :evilgrin:

That a woman dressed "immodestly" did have an interest in having sex.
Does she not still have a say as to with whom she might want to have sex ?

I think she does, but apparently barb and shawn don't seem think so.

don't care how they dress.....it's not an open invitation for sex.

in my world, no still means no, and assume is still, ass...u....me

Even if a woman WAS "dressing for sex" and that was ACTUALLY her motive (and no, I'm not claiming that as a fact either), that doesn't mean that she was asking to be RAPED. I was always taught and thought that women were the permission givers as far as consensual sex is concerned. And if it's not consensual, it's RAPE! Dress doesn't have anything to do with consent.

BTW, welcome to DU. :)

zOMFG!!1! She's a secret Muslin!!!11!!!1!

Same goes for WSJ, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, USA Today and about 100 other pure propaganda creation studios.

:eyes:

uh...burqa?
O8)

Why aren't these women more direct? They are not shy about their dress, but they won't come out and simply say "I want sex." Wouldn't that be easier? I need to look at what I've been wearing.

If you know what I mean.

IMHO if a man is unable to take responsibility for his own actions, he should not be allowed to vote or own property. Or go outside off a leash.

sex and choosing to act upon that thought immediately.

The only diff is that the former are not toting guns against America (but they do like toting guns btw.lol)

Which century are we living in? the medieval era?
What next? Blasphemy laws?

:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

All TeaBaggers are begging to be shot for carrying guns at rallys...

Both would be grossly incorrect.

I wouldn't be able to walk down the street without having to burn out my eyes.

"Wanna have sex?"

And it requires no special clothing. I can even do it in jeans and a tshirt.

Sadly, chances are that Ms. St. James will learn the hard way that her opinion is bullshit.

So if we all dressed exactly as she says and women and children (and boys and men) continue to be raped. What then?

Move to wearing a head to toe garment? Then when people are still raped even then. What next? Oh, I know...in the mind of Rebecca St. James, people are still asking for it because we are tempting rapists by covering up too much and causing their imaginations to run wild.

What about kids in school uniforms, nurses, flight attendents, librarians, teachers, etc that men have fantasies about? Aren't they actually some of the worst people EVEH for wearing clothes (oh wait that would be "sex costumes") while working or attending school? You know they are just walking around flaunting it.

These type of scum are worthless and will keep moving the goal posts because their minds cannot hold a fucking singular logical thought for more than .0000025 of a second.

Wrong Clothes/You get Raped

Wrong words/Tongue cut Out. Wrong glance/Eyes Removed. Wrong gaping piehole spouting off idiotic and dangerous crap/Fox News Segment.

:grr:

and "asking for" assault. And only idiots don't understand the difference.

Women are allowed to enjoy sex with the partner, or partners, of their CHOICE.