What I said is based on watching you in this thread and others, ad nauseum, promoting an authoritarian model of morality, it's based on nothing more nor less than that, Agustino. — John

No it's based precisely on NOT watching me because if you had watched me you'd see that's not what I was advocating as my previous post CLEARLY illustrates providing evidence from my other posts within this thread. So it's based on your prejudice. You should really be ashamed of yourself.

LOL your capacity for self-awareness is simply astounding Agustino!
:-}

Okay again, let me treat you like a baby then. Okay baby. First Heister writes:

I was mentioning morality and such as separated from religion. I think you can do that... — Heister Eggcart

Then Agustino asks Heister:

So do you think casual sex is moral - apart from religion? — Agustino

Then Heister responds:

Apart from religion? What do you mean by that, exactly? — Heister Eggcart

Then Agustino responds:

Because you talked of morality apart from religion. So I was inquiring about it. — Agustino

Then Heister responds:

There are quite a few too many Christians out there that think you can't be moral or even discuss morality unless you're religious. — Heister Eggcart

Then Agustino responds:

Okay. I'm not one of them then ;) — Agustino

So to summarise, Agustino asks Heister if casual sex is moral apart from religion - because Heister said he believes morality exists outside of religion (Agustino was glad to hear that - he was actually curious how Heister's attitude towards sex is determined by non-religious grounds to compare with his non-religious grounds). Then Heister seems to be confused and doesn't answer as Agustino expected. So Agustino clarifies and states that HE - Heister - mentioned morality outside of religion, and so Agustino was inquiring what he thinks about it. Then Heister replies that there are many Christians who think you can't be moral or can't even discuss morality if you're not religious. Then Agustino says he's not one of those Christians - who think you can't be moral or discuss morality if you're not religious. So baby, how can you then say that Agustino seems to think things are moral or immoral based on religion, authority and the Bible when he has in fact stated that he is one of those Christians who believes people can be moral outside of religion, and that morality doesn't need religious beliefs to be discussed??? I tell you how - because you didn't bother to read everything carefully. You acted on your prejudice. But you baby have such a big ego you can't even admit that, and give a simple apology. You'll instead look to wiggle out of it as you do every single time when you're wrong - you never admit it. Either that, or you are as Terrapin said, an Aspie - I can't conclude anything else...

This is hilarious; I don't believe Terrapin ever said that; I think you actually claimed that and asked Terrapin to concur, unless I misremember.

But it's unimportant and has nothing to do with the issue in any case; but it does seem to demonstrate either your tendency to jump to conclusions about things you know nothing of; in this case about my psychology. Or else it shows your tendency to make disparaging remarks when you can't find any cogent arguments. This is shown yet again with your ridiculously childish and patronizing "baby".

Ho hum will the laughs ever cease.
:-d

So, to return to the issue at hand and just for the record if you genuinely don't think morality is founded on religion or authority, then what is it founded upon?

Have been massively busy, and don't really have the time to sift through these massive paragraphs right now, so Agustino, if you still want me to respond to something, anything, just whisper me and we can carry on more casually there. This thread has already gone down a couple rabbit holes already, haha.

He's more honest than Hillary that is true - but he's not an honest person. — Agustino

No, that is not true. Quite the contrary, as demonstrated by comparitive fact checking assessments. Where are you getting that from? Is it just your uninformed opinion or have you cherry picked? Trump is a far bigger liar.

Yes because I want to unmask this sexually immoral progressive culture. Trump is the baboon to do it. — Agustino

That is so messed up, Agustino. There are many more important matters, like inequality, gun control, tax evasion, foreign policy, healthcare, and the economy. You really ought to get your priorities straight. And a competent human being with their heart and mind in the right place is preferable to a baboon considerably lacking those qualities. Voting for the baboon because it appeals to this little chip on your shoulder would be irresponsible.

Yeah, but he's honest cos he don't 'really' ( ;).) pretend to be anything but a liar? :s

...your politcal answers would actually take us backwards. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, that seems to be his modus operandi. Such a person is called a reactionary, although he denies that he is one. This explains why he is so against progressivism, as if it is the devil incarnate. They're polar opposites.

A woman purposefully going dressed like a whore to attract the attention of men - that's not her just being who she wants, she knows clearly what effect that will have - it's just a biological reaction. So while men shouldn't abuse her, catcall her, or anything of that sort even in that case - it doesn't also follow that she should purposefully get dressed in such a way as to excite strong (and potentially) uncontrollable passions in men. — Agustino

This is nothing but giving a free pass for predatory sexual behaviour. Passions are not uncontrollable. It's not just a biological reaction. Men make a choice of action. Seeing "sexily dressed women (whatever that might be)" is not a communication of a desire to have sex. That's all an assumption on the part of the male in question-- "a woman has drawn my attention and interested me sexually, so she must be indicating a sexual interest in me. She is the sexual object there to fulfil my desire."

In reality, there are countless reasons for women to dress "sexy," which have nothing to do with wanting sex from men they encounter. Particular dress is social standard in certain contexts. There's questions of personal appearance-- some outfits are pleasing to individuals in ways others are, so are own for that reason, rather than to appear "sexy" to men.

Then there's the fact that intending to be "sexy" isn't actually a expression of desire to have sex. Just becasue someone is dressed in a way intending to bring about sexual desire from others, it doesn't mean they actually want to have sex with anyone. Wanting people to desire you sexually is distinct from desiring to have sex with someone.

To illustrate, a woman could strip off, rub her breasts in your face and lay down and spread her legs in front of you, and still not want to have sex with you. The measure of her desire to have sex is not her dress, it's not stripping off, it's not rubbing her breasts in your face and it not spreading her legs, but rather whether she actually desires to have sex. No matter how much desire she has inspired in you, no matter how many actions she has taken which "seem" to indicate she wants to have sex, you still need to know whether she wants sex. You can't just assume sex is wanted because of body, dress or even some sexual provocative behaviour.

The driving force here is not a lack of loyalty from women, it is jealousy on the part of men. They are driven mad by a sexually attractive woman would deny them what they desire, what they think they deserve for feeling sexually attracted to her. By being a sexually attractive women, they think her their possession who must want them*, else they would be stuck in a inconceivable world they could want women but not get them. So when a woman rejects them, all the blame falls on them for daring to be sexually desirable (but not available), rather than men realising their expectation (a sexually attractive woman= a women desiring to have sex) was rubbish in the first place.

And this is why your approach can only take us backwards in terms of sexual harassment and assault. It teaches men they are entailed to sex from anyone they find sexually attractive. Women are always considered sexual objects used for completing the man's image a sexual conquest, rather than people who get to decide whether or not they have sex.

Men fail to learn that sexually attractive women are part of the world, whether they draw attention to themselves or not, and that not getting not have sex with them, no matter how the women are dressed, no matter how many drinks he bought them, no matter how many expensive gifts he gave, no matter how "nice" he has been to them, no matter how much money or social status he has, is actually just.

*This includes you. The insistence that Trump's victims really "wanted" is a prime example of this thinking of women as the property of male sexual desire.

Agustino is into images. Fulfilling an image is what amounts to success for him, whether it be politics and relationships (e.g. particular social traditions). People and the world come secondary to whether or not someone meets an image. For him Trump represents a solution because he is an image of "Progressivism" destroyed. He stands up an attacks liberals and "PC" when no-one else within the mainstream gets close. Trumps's posturing represents an image of a society returned to traditions Agustino desires, a set of images which encapsulate a just society. It's an image of a society which functions by worshipping images, enough to make him think he has won a great victory.

He hates "Progressivism" so much because to doesn't deal in images. For "progressives" there is no image to meet, no scapegoat for the ills of the world. Whether we are talking about the classical liberal or the modern socially aware liberal, images have no role. There nothing to latch on to and obtain "perfection" within the imperfect world.

I wouldn't insult him by calling him a reactionary. With respect the issues I was discussing, he is far worse than that. He's ignorant of the world. He's just advocated the position which harms with respect to sexual harassment and sexual assault, which envisions both issues as a question of keeping women locked away from encounters with men, rather than tackling the heart of the issue: that some men think women are their sexual possessions by their mere existence. Truth gets buried beneath the images of manipulative woman and keeping women out of the sight of men. Sexual harassment and assault are returned to the inevitable action women must avoid, rather than being understood as an action men ought not take.

Based upon my experience I'm inclined towards the view that plenty of women (not all or even close to all) have no qualms about using their sexuality to their advantage. I doubt any woman is going to wear high heels and a skin tight dress, for instance, for purposes other than gaining a particular type of attention. That can't be comfortable or functional. What they do get - in addition to more tangible benefits - is external validation of their attractiveness and desirability. This in turn results in a significant boost to their sense of self-worth. Many women will readily admit this. Others will say they dress like that 'for themselves', but to me that just means they understandably want to feel good, and the easiest and most common route to doing so in our society is to be valued for your body and your looks generally. Makeup, plastic surgery, overpriced clothing, etc. are all hugely popular with a significant percentage of people, at least where I live, so we do seem fixated upon physical beauty and sexuality. We probably don't give it much explicit thought most of the time, but it's what our society deems valuable and this has been inculcated from an early age. We're bombarded with images which reinforce this sense of value and self-worth through the fostering of insecurities and corresponding ideals of success and attractiveness.

Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with this scenario, in which people are theoretically free to live and think as they wish, but let's be honest about it and admit that attractive women do at times objectify themselves. And also that men respond to this objectification.This is an obvious and undeniable point as I see it. And women do so because it can clearly result in significant advantages for them--or at least what they perceive to be advantages. That's the world we live in. That may very well be the way the world's always been. Take Melania Trump for example: would she be in the position she's in because of her brains, or her beautiful soul, or her other outstanding character traits? I doubt it. He married her because she's pretty and she married him, a narcissistic douchebag - one who's well beyond his physical prime - because it brought her quite a few benefits. So women, just like men, often do chase after power and money and fame by whatever means necessary.

It's this culture - with its lax morality and forging of such superficial relationships - that Agustino, to my understanding, feels is the problem. I don't think he's ever condoned aggressiveness towards women (regardless of how they're dressed) or rationalized such behavior in the way that Trump has. And while I despise his attempts to pitch Trump as the lesser of evils in this election, along with his seeming dismissal of 'progressivism' tout court, I do think he makes a relevant point or two on this issue: Donald Trump is a product of the dominant values of our society! That doesn't excuse his responsibility for his behavior entirely (or for that matter women who choose to objectify themselves), but it does shift a bit of the blame to larger social mores and values that are often seen as 'progressive' and liberating. These have been pushed through by some of the very people who are now up in arms over his disgusting and one-dimensional treatment of women.

This predicament is obviously not what feminists intended when they sought to disburden women from the shackles of domestic life, but perhaps more the unintended consequence of disparaging that life as somehow undignified. As if slavishly climbing the corporate ladder or otherwise trying to be like modern men is somehow indicative of a more worthwhile life. Men and women would both do well to reject these tacit assumptions and embody a much different set of values and self-interpretations. When that happens someone like Trump is no longer admired, but is instead seen as an embarrassment and an indictment of the society which gave rise to him. But I digress as usual...

Of course none of this means that men who are aroused by a woman's provocative dress or demeanor have the right to violate them in any way. It's a more nuanced position than that. Women will pick whom they want to have sexual relationships with, which is how it should be. But again, let's 'keep it real' and acknowledge the obvious: women are not always the innocent and passive recipients of unwelcome advances from men. Many of them WANT this reaction. They obviously don't want to open their legs for every guy who fawns after them, but they most definitely will for one with something to offer, and this 'something to offer' is typically not his warm and caring personality. I find this an indisputable fact of life in a commercial/consumer society, and would be curious as to where any person who disagrees with this blunt assessment lives. Maybe things are quite a bit different in more rural and conservative areas than where I've spent my entire life (Los Angeles).

For a man (or woman) to see and acknowledge this situation does not at all entail that they personally desire to have a sexual relationship with the particular tempter or temptress. In fact they can be saddened by such a situation in which both men and women are debased. But the point is that women often make themselves into what they feel men want, just as men try to make themselves into what they feel (attractive) women want. And these ideals are guided by the dominant values of the culture: Money. Physical attractiveness. Fame. Power. Donald Trump embodies these (three of them at least) and can thus pick from a slew of beautiful women who will gladly accommodate his desires as long as they receive something in return. Even something as fleeting as his momentary attention. Sad but true.

In an (my) ideal world people are modest, humble, simple, and concerned with much more than the physical attractiveness of their sexual partners. Nothing wrong with trying to make yourself attractive to your partner, but it shouldn't be the foundation of the relationship, and it should be kept more private than displayed in public. Again this is a nuanced position which avoids extremes of prudishness and vulgarity. In this idealized world we also age gracefully and don't feel the excessive need to fight against time in order to preserve our outward appearance for others. We're secure in our worth as human beings beyond what society - and marketers and advertisers - dictates we should feel about ourselves. Etc.

I have many disagreements with Agustino, but I'm beginning to share his opinion regarding the rottenness of our culture and its guiding values. I wouldn't want society to be what he wants it to be - there are a lot of GREAT things progressives have accomplished IMO - but I'm largely in agreement with him on this particular issue. I'm also open to other opinions, however, and may change my mind if presented with good evidence that our society, as it is, is conducive to the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of the individuals who compose it. I don't think it is, and this is merely one manifestation amongst many of its sickness.

Well that's a loaded question isn't it? I doubt that the way you frame it is the way it actually happened. — Agustino

No, it isn't a loaded question and in light of the various similar stories and the type of horror almost every woman has to go through and then having mysogynists like you suggest they are lying is exactly what creates rape culture. Congratulations, you're clearly part of that problem.

No, it isn't a loaded question and in light of the various similar stories and the type of horror almost every woman has to go through and then having mysogynists like you suggest they are lying is exactly what creates rape culture. Congratulations, you're clearly part of that problem. — Benkei

Yes good to see you failed to even address any of the points I made in those long paragraphs. Is that what you progressives are like - ignoring the arguments and just pointing fingers at strawmen?

This is nothing but giving a free pass for predatory sexual behaviour. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I take it then that you don't know what you're quoting, or you're not reading it carefully enough. So let's go back:

So while men shouldn't abuse her, catcall her, or anything of that sort even in that case — Agustino

What does this mean now? Does this mean giving a free pass to predatory sexual behaviour? Absolutely not. It actually means the contrary.

To illustrate, a woman could strip off, rub her breasts in your face and lay down and spread her legs in front of you, and still not want to have sex with you. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ok so after you it's moral for her to do that right? It's moral for her to use her body to feel domination and power over another no? And the other should have no means of defence against this - no law on his side to for example call the police and to get that woman out of his face. Obviously she doesn't want to have sex - she wants to dominate me. That's a problem.

Just becasue someone is dressed in a way intending to bring about sexual desire from others, it doesn't mean they actually want to have sex with anyone. Wanting people to desire you sexually is distinct from desiring to have sex with someone. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Oh so this wanting people to desire you sexually is a good and honorable desire no? It's good and honorable to want others to feel like they are your property, under the spell and control of your beauty right?

So when a woman rejects them, all the blame falls on them for daring to be sexually desirable (but not available) — TheWillowOfDarkness

Then if they're not available why the hell do they want to be sexually desirable if not in order to have power and dominate?

And this is why your approach can only take us backwards in terms of sexual harassment and assault. It teaches men they are entailed to sex from anyone they find sexually attractive. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Absolutely not.

He's just advocated the position which harms with respect to sexual harassment and sexual assault, which envisions both issues as a question of keeping women locked away from encounters with men, rather than tackling the heart of the issue: that some men think women are their sexual possessions by their mere existence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No I actually advocated a position which tackles both of those problems at once, instead of only one of them like you.

Look it's very simple. If we are to have a civilised society, folks shouldn't abuse each other. That includes the man who wants to grab a woman because she sexually attracts him regardless of her desire, BUT very importantly, also includes the woman who purposefully dresses that way in order to dominate men and feel she has power over them by having them chase her endlessly and to no end. Both of those actions are shameful - and they ought to be stopped. You on the other hand think only one of those actions is shameful. You are biased towards the women. It's the truth - like all progressives, you only get part of the story right. For you women = good, men = bad. It's very clear.

Now Willow, the real truth is that YOU and people like you are the professors of Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a reaction against folks like you. You tell him "No sit down in your bench - you have no right to do anything but allow women to have full power over you and dominate you however they like" - and he says "No, I'll take charge of my own destiny and I'll dominate those bitches myself - I'll make them into my slaves instead of the other way around". You are teaching him - by oppressing him, and failing to provide him with a legal and moral means of defending himself.

The progressives are so against Trump because Trump unmasks them - he unmasks their fakeness, their lies, and their immorality through himself. He is the product of their society - a society where your average Joe is a rapist like Trump. And your average woman is a power and fame hungry creature waiting to manipulate and abuse men through her sexuality. This is nothing but the cold truth. — Agustino

Don't kid yourself. That is nothing but an enormous straw man concocted in your wild imagination. Quite astounding actually, even for you.

I think that that, particularly when coupled with the following:

For the sake of this specific discussion in this thread...
Progressive/Liberal = permissive when it comes to sexual morality - permissive (and encouraging) of casual sex, adultery, fornication, promiscuity, etc. — Agustino

...is very telling. They give an insight into your thinking, and the way that you frame the debate, and indicate that you do so in this fallacious black-and-white, hero-villian way that puts you on the wrong footing from the get go.

No, that is not true. Quite the contrary, as demonstrated by comparitive fact checking assessments. Where are you getting that from? Is it just your uninformed opinion or have you cherry picked? Trump is a far bigger liar. — Sapientia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKFC9r2xzYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoJMT90N9nY
CROOKED HILLARY - and everyone knows it. Show me the time when a crowd will laugh when they hear "Donald Trump is honest" - you won't be able to.

I'd laugh at the assertion that Donald Trump is honest. Just because he's apparently mastered the 'art of the deal' and may initially come across as sincere and truthful, doesn't mean he is these things. He'll gladly sacrifice the truth for the sake of political expediency, and is thus no different than Hillary or almost any other politician in that regard. At least admit that he's not guided in the least by any higher values than power and money.

Babysteps. I'm obviously not going to entertain all your delusions if you even get basic facts wrong and I cannot be bothered to correct every mistake you make. I stick to the important parts; respect for women is a good start.

I do admit that he's motivated by money and power - as I said a different sort of liar from Hillary. Hillary is the person whom you play a video of her saying X in front of her face, and after watching she'll tell you she hasn't said X. Trump isn't like that. He'll admit he said X, but switched his position. There's a difference.

I stick to the important partes; respect for women is a good start. — Benkei

And how then do you fail to realise that I agree and you're only shadow boxing a strawman? For example:

A woman purposefully going dressed like a whore to attract the attention of men - that's not her just being who she wants, she knows clearly what effect that will have - it's just a biological reaction. So while men shouldn't abuse her, catcall her, or anything of that sort even in that case - it doesn't also follow that she should purposefully get dressed in such a way as to excite strong (and potentially) uncontrollable passions in men. — Agustino

How is the bolded part not evidence of this for example?

He'll admit it when forced to (when indisputable evidence is involved), but he'll justify and explain away his actions. He specifically tends to justify his abhorrent behavior by pointing to other people who've done similar things. Honestly my 17-year-old stopped doing that a couple years ago, and takes much more accountability for his actions than a presidential candidate does. What kind of message does this immaturity send to our society, specifically to our kids, Agustino? He's not the answer.

Better for us to deal with Hillary for the next few years and do some intense soul-searching in the meantime. I think I'm tending towards the position that it'll be easier to reform progressivism with some 'culturally conservative' principles than to reform the Republican Party with progressive economic (and certain cultural!) principles. I truly believe that a large portion of people who currently align with these two parties are not content, and could be drawn into a new one combining - or better, transcending - the strengths of each. I'm preoccupied with this idea.

How is the bolded part not evidence of this for example? — Agustino

Because it's negated by the sentence following it (again) and claiming they acted "shamefully" before, or questioning their credibility, or claiming they are "abusers" and that nobody is "not guilty" (blaming the victim, real classy!) and to assume they are out to fuck rich and powerful men. So yeah, you don't have any idea what it means to have respect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKFC9r2xzYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoJMT90N9nY
CROOKED HILLARY - and everyone knows it. Show me the time when a crowd will laugh when they hear "Donald Trump is honest" - you won't be able to. — Agustino

Your reply just confirms my suspicions. Your opinion is formed by public perception - actually, public misconception when it comes to the depth of Hillary Clinton's lying, and especially with regards to the very large number of people deluded enough to believe that Hillary Clinton is the bigger liar - as well as propaganda, rather than the facts.

I don't know whether there has been a similar reaction to Trump's claims that he's honest, but I wouldn't be surprised if there has been.

I do recall the reaction of the audience when Trump claimed that he was a gentleman. They burst into laughter.

He'll admit it when forced to (when indisputable evidence is involved), but he'll justify and explain away his actions. He specifically tends to justify his abhorrent behavior by pointing to other people who've done similar things. Honestly my 17-year-old stopped doing that a couple years ago, and takes much more accountability for his actions than a presidential candidate. What kind of message does this send to our society, specifically our kids, Agustino? — Erik

So what kind of message does Hillary give to our kids when you show her indisputable evidence of having done X and she just laughs and says she's never done X? Clearly a worse message no?

I think I'm tending towards the position that it'll be easier to reform progressivism with some 'culturally conservative' principles than to reform the Republican Party with progressive economic (and certain cultural!) principles. — Erik

Oh how mistaken I think you are. Do you think those folks who have just grabbed the reigns of power, and now are looking to dominate using them will yield up their power willingly because of the "morality" of any agenda? The progressives are running a war - you think they really want their moral agenda? Of course not - they're running the most blatant power game in modern history - they're the new slave owners - on a multitude of issues. On the one we were talking about regarding men and women - they are the new slave owners who want women to have complete power over men, while men cannot do anything about what women do - where men have no form of protection. You think they'll let you change that? You think they'll give that up for "equality"? That's like asking the slave owner benefiting from his slaves to free them up!

Have you seen what Baden said regarding Tinder and the sexual market for working class white males? He said that poor working class white males get the short end of the stick, because sex is so easily available and women get to choose completely, and men have very little choice, and due to their poverty and lack of social status, these men get the short end of the stick. But he wasn't worried about it in the least - this according to him is progress - it's good that this is happening, that's what the working class white male deserves - in other words to become a slave. You must be able to see through all their empty talk to their intentions.

Because it's negated by the sentence following it — Benkei

Okay so let's have a look and see if this really is the case - if the two sentences are contradictory.

So while men shouldn't abuse her, catcall her, or anything of that sort even in that case - it doesn't also follow that she should purposefully get dressed in such a way as to excite strong (and potentially) uncontrollable passions in men. That's just not decent - it's simply a power game. — Agustino

So clearly you must not be referring to the part in italics, but rather to the part in bold as the source of the negation. So let's see:

Men shouldn't abuse, catcall, or any such action even if women dress inappropriately VS women shouldn't dress inappropriately in order to excite strong and potentially uncontrollable passions in men. How do they negate each other? Those sentences are perfectly compatible. So do you think women should purposefully dress in order to provoke men and arouse their desires? Do you think this is moral - just talking about the women now not about men.

claiming they acted "shamefully" — Benkei

So if a women purposefully dresses in such a way in order to subjugate the desires of other men to her persona she's not acting shamefully according to you?

or questioning their credibility — Benkei

So women = good, and men = bad - all the time in rape/assault accusations, right? Why shouldn't we question their credibility with the same scrutiny that we question the credibility of men - it should be the same for both. What about innocent until proven guilty? That only applies when the women are the potential criminals no? When it's men - guilty until proven innocent right? It must be impossible that you're not capable of seeing such prejudices in your thinking. It really has to be.

Well see that's the thing - you never admit to your biases. You are biased to Hillary and refuse to admit any defects of her - including the big one that sits right in front of everyone else's face that she's one of the biggest liars they've ever seen. I admit to mine - I even called Trump a baboon or a dangerous gorilla. You never do. To you it's just about proving leftism right, regardless of whether it really is...

Man, even your logic doesn't work. Even if it were true (and it isn't) that women purposefully dress to subjugate the desires of men, they still haven't acted shamefully - that doesn't necessarily follow and is only your narrow moral framework that adds that value judgment (as so many conservatives). They're allowed to dress that way and in no way is that shameful or in any shape or form a type of abuse or sharing responsibility for a resulting rape.

You really don't get it do you?

Women dress the way they do to fit in, and be like their role models, and consumerism and marketing manipulates that, and before then some other asshole arbitrarily did.

Even if it were true (and it isn't) that women purposefully dress to subjugate the desires of men, they still haven't acted shamefully - that doesn't necessarily follow and is only your narrow moral framework that adds that value judgment (as so many conservatives). — Benkei

Ok so let's look deeper. So you're telling me that it's not shameful to seek to have power and dominate others right? So if women were to seek to have power and dominate others through the way they dress - then that wouldn't make them shameful - right? Ok if that is so, then why would it be shameful when a man seeks to have power over women and calls them sluts when they dress inappropriately? I think both are shameful, but it surprises me how you only think one of them to be shameful.

or sharing responsibility for a resulting rape. — Benkei

Did I say it was? No. So don't strawman.

Even if it were true (and it isn't) — Benkei

I suggest you look around yourself more. Preferably not through the prism of any biases, but rather to see how things really are regardless of what beliefs you already hold.