i recall a few years back when some local daily came up with a list of banned movies/concerts. one of it was a kylie minogue concert somewhere down under and it was banned because ‘it encourages men to do heinous acts’…

seriously, what the flying fuck?

these ‘educated ppl’ are merely finding their nxt scapegoat with blatant and inane accusations. how much good would it do, banning her concert video when her videos are played to death on tv? thing is, my argument isnt abt kylie minogue. my argument is how the flying filth can someone connect an old grandpa who constantly rapes his grand-daughter in some rural area to kylie minogue? yes, im sure he watches the ‘chocolate’ video over and over again masturbating to her every tone/move.

in that same article, a RHCP concert was banned because they were sporting mohawks…

to think that now this ‘mamat’ is saying things like the reporter was using some skimpy outfit, is not outrageous.. its bloody retarded. and f-all to the ‘misquoted’ retort.

this was my five minutes of fame. excuse the lagging comment.

yes, it is inexcusable if a man rapes a woman, regardless of what the woman is wearing.

i’m not shifting blame.

but we do live in a f***ed up world, with f***ed up ppl, whether u like it or not.

so if a woman decides to wear skanky clothes, it’d naturally attract these f***ed up ppl. u may say that a woman who is all wrapped up from head to toe will also be as susceptible to falling prey to these f***ed up ppl. i’m not debating that. all i can say is, do it at your own risk. but i’m NOT saying that if anything does happen, the assailant’s behaviour is excusable because of what u were wearing. i’m merely pointing out a simple but harsh reality.

Re my learned friend beefstew’s comment above: if you feel that there’s no correlation between a person wearing expensive jewellery or carrying expensive bags and the chances of that person being robbed, then imagine this scenario:
two men are walking down the street – one’s dressed up extravagantly, in his designer suit and a gold chain around his neck. the other man is less flashy, dressed in an old pair of slacks, simple teeshirt, and a silver chain around his neck.

A snatch-thief on a motorcyle comes from the opposite direction towards the 2 men. The motorcycle comes in between the 2 men and is about to pass them. Million dollar question – which chain does he decide to snatch???

Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
Does the fact that the man in the designer suit wears a gold chain make it right or gives the snatch thief a legitimate excuse to rob him? NO.

Does the fact that by him wearing a gold chain, it makes him more LIKELY to be robbed as opposed to the man wearing the silver chain? Possibly.

Does it mean that the man wearing the silver chain will never ever be robbed? NO – if he was walking by himself without the man wearing the gold chain beside him, it is possible that he might be robbed, even if it was only a silver chain.

Wear the gold chain at your own risk.

Ah, that was exactly the same reason the Muslim leader in Sydney gave. That he was misquoted.

I’m sure you’ve heard of some Muslim leader churning out something along this lines in Sydney right?

I don’t understand why it is so hard for men to understand, if you rape a woman, you are already an unhinged psycho to start with. What’s this about women being held culpable for the way they dress?

Sexism and religion are poles apart.

Beware Datuk! You can’t really blame on anybody if somebody hit you at the back and take you Rolex, can you? Because you ask for it….It might happened you know.

Erm…Wearing black on CNY isn’t really a religious stuff but a tradition, anyway I get your point.

i can see your point. however, i think it is true that ‘revealing’ attire should not be worn to a place of worship, be it a church, mosque or temple.

it not only serves to curb the “distractions”, but also as a sign of respect to God. anyone who says that they’re not “distracted” by a female in a miniskirt and a top with a plunging neckline, is telling an utter lie. it is what we choose to do with that “distraction” that matters. you can choose to continue oggling at the person, or you can choose to concentrate on praying. men are made to be attracted to the opposite sex and vice versa. it’s human nature to be distracted by such things.

then again, just because a woman wears sexy attire does not mean that the CCTV guy had an excuse to zoom in on her legs. i personally dont even think that what the reporter was wearing was sexy. however, that’s besides the point.

my point is this – women should not deliberately wear revealing clothing to a place of worship (or anywhere else for that matter) and sit on the notion that “if men have pure and clean thoughts they wont be distracted by me”. men are bound to be distracted, it is how they deal with the distraction that matters. unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world and some men choose to deal with the distraction the wrong way.

when an incident like the CCTV one does happen, the man should not shift responsibility to the woman and blame the woman for wearing “sexy attire”. it is the man’s own lust that’s to blame.

And you cannot blame the men for being such lustful beings, God made them like that, it’s in their nature

No offense to your friend but I found this sentence quite insulting actually. To say this is to imply that people (and especially men) are incapable of controlling themselves.

This kind of thinking is why there are still people who use the “I can’t help myself” excuse without any feeling of shame.

God may have made men that way as it were, but the responsibility still lies with each individual. You and I know that of course. I wonder if everyone else feels that way.

By the look of things, unfortunately not everyone.