₦airaland Forum

freecocoa:
Lol, dude section 231 of the code talks about indecent acts, dressing was not specifically mentioned.

Now statutes are subordinate to the constitutional laws of the land, therefore doesn't hold water here as it isn't in the constitution what indecent dressing is, besides, even with the said laws in the north and south, rape is still on the rise, now what?

Please indecent exposure is covered in an inclusive interpretative term in section 231. It is part of the laws called common or received law applicable in all former British colony.

And don't play the lawyers with me; Subordinate laws or statutes are only null and void to their inconsistency with the constitution . And in this context it is not.

If you want me to furnish you with the court rulings and submissions of human right lawyers like Festus Keyamo and Co , just say so. It isn't even a debate.

Indecent exposure is part of our legal system. It is the reason the legislators were derided for wasting funds on passing another bill in 2008 that has already been part of existing statutes.

lezz:
Please indecent exposure is covered in an inclusive interpretative term in section 231. It is part of the laws called common or received law applicable in all former British colony.

And don't play the lawyers with me; Subordinate laws or statutes are only null and void to their inconsistency with the constitution . And in this context it is not.

If you want me to furnish you with the court rulings and submissions of human right lawyers like Fests Keyamo and Co , just say so. It isn't even a debate.

Indecent expire is part of our legal system. It is the reason the legislators were derided for wasting funds on passing another bill in 2008 that has already been convert by existing statutes.

Oga it's not a matter of playing the lawyers.

I don't argue that there's no code on indecency, the phrase is "indecent acts" not exposure. The term is interpretative, so please whose place is it to interprete?

So the penal code suitable for only people in the north is consistent with the constitution in this context?

I don't want you to furnish me no submissions, I'm not claiming to be a lawyer or anything, this is just a discourse based on pure LOGIC, are you a lawyer?

They, lawmakers were not derided for wanting to make those laws because they already supposedly exist, they were derided because we have more pressing issues than such nonsense.

You just have to show me where it is in the constitution, that people shouldn't wear so so so and so, please remember you are talking to a layman so please be as plain as can be, thank you.

Mindfulness:
Portugal, Spain, Greece and Poland have comparatively very low rape rates and are all countries where MANY women VERY OFTEN wear very revealing outfits.

Still, like I said, let concrete evidence be provided that provocative dressing has nothing to do with rape.

*

This whole slut walking thing is just using the rape argument as a Trojan horse to advance a much broader objective for the feminine imperative - and that is the unencumbered right to openly pursue its mating or sexual strategies.

Today's modern woman wants to be able to indulge to the extreme her sexuality without recrimination from society, she sees scanty dressing as a right and is oblivious of its effect. So there is this erroneous push that sluttiness has nothing to do with sexual violence, that sluttiness should be promoted and celebrated. Any resistance to this idea is seen as the evil patriarchy trying to hold her back.

ApexTitan:
Still, like I said, let concrete evidence be provided that provocative dressing has nothing to do with rape.

*

This whole slut walking thing is just using the rape argument as a Trojan horse to advance a much broader objective for the feminine imperative - and that is the unencumbered right to openly pursue its mating or sexual strategies.

Today's modern woman wants to be able to indulge to the extreme her sexuality without recrimination from society, she sees scanty dressing as a right and is oblivious of its effect. So there is this erroneous push that sluttiness has nothing to do with sexual violence, that sluttiness should be promoted and celebrated. Any resistance to this idea is seen as the evil patriarchy trying to hold her back.

Do you have concrete evidence that indecent dressing is responsible for rape?

Now provocative dressing has a lot to do with the thought of sex, that doesn't mean it has something to do with rape.

Morality is subjective, therefore what you term "indecent dressing" might not be same for the next man, how then do we determine what indecent dressing i?

freecocoa:
Do you have concrete evidence that indecent dressing is responsible for rape?

Now provocative dressing has a lot to do with the thought of sex, that doesn't mean it has something to do with rape.

Morality is subjective, therefore what you term "indecent dressing" might not be same for the next man, how then do we determine what indecent dressing i?

Careful now, one is not saying all rape is caused by provocative dressing. I am saying that provocative dressing can be one of several incitements to commit the crime of rape or other forms of sexual violence. This is simple logic, and seeing as you appear to be a lover of logic you should appreciate this. Our slut walkers on the other hand claim that there is no connection, that provocative or slutty dressing has no correlation to rapé or its incitement hence they support it. They would do well to be reminded in this instance that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You have entangled yourself in your second paragraph, you admit that provocative dressing has a lot to do with the thought of sex and not necessarily with rape. We all know that rape is a type of sex, non-consensual and forceful sex, so how can you say honestly that provocative/slutty dressing has no bearing here?

In describing the type of dressing under discussion here we have been using the words provocative or slutty and it's for good reason. We are not talking about an abstract concept with multivariate or ambivalent meaning. Even the slut walkers themselves are specific with the type of clothes they are promoting so the issue of subjectivity does not arise. They are promoting ashewo fashion and everyone everywhere knows exactly what they mean.

with 300 thousand rape crimes in all the 50 states out together, only India still ranks higher than the US on the rape scale.

Shouldn't it make sense that it would be LOWER?seeing as the women all cover up and are decent?

If that's not proof that dressing has little to do with it, I don't know what is.

No hopes of convincing you anyway.

ApexTitan:
Your question presupposes that rape incidents are low(er) in countries that are not as conservative as Nigeria or India. You will find that the USA with an estimated 300,000 rape crimes (according to the US Department of Justice https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210346.pdf) ranks among the top 10 countries where people are likely to get raped, and they occupy that position with several other first world countries like France, UK and Canada. Go through any of the many stats available online and see for yourself.

I am waiting to see anyone prove that provocative dressing has no link or effect whatsoever on whether a person gets raped or not. And till that time the present call for women to throw caution to the wind and dress as skimpily as they desire, because they want to feel empowered and liberated with their sexuality, will continue to draw ridicule from people like me. I always find it interesting that any effort to encourage decent dressing among today's modern woman is immediately seen as a curtailing of her rights.

ApexTitan:
Careful now, one is not saying all rape is caused by provocative dressing. I am saying that provocative dressing can be one of several incitements to commit the crime of rape or other forms of sexual violence. This is simple logic, and seeing as you appear to be a lover of logic you should appreciate this. Our slut walkers on the other hand claim that there is no connection, that provocative or slutty dressing has no correlation to rapé or its incitement hence they support it. They would do well to be reminded in this instance that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You have entangled yourself in second paragraph, you admit that provocative dressing has a lot to do with the thought of sex and not necessarily with rape. We all know that rape is a type of sex, non-consensual and forceful sex, so how can you say honestly that provocative/slutty dressing has no bearing here?

In describing the type of dressing under discussion here we have been using the words provocative or slutty and it's for good reason. We are not talking about an abstract concept with multivariate or ambivalent meaning. Even the slut walkers themselves are specific with the type of clothes they are promoting so the issue of subjectivity does not arise. They are promoting ashewo fashion and everyone everywhere knows exactly what they mean.

Provocative dressing incite the thought of sex, not rape. You have to separate both.

Sex is meant to be consensual, now something is wrong with you, if you feel that the sex needs to be forced, now if you feel the urge to have forced sex, because you will be taking away the other person's right, you refrain, if you don't, you have committed an offence.

There's people willing to play roles if you want to, the only thing wrong with rape is that you are taking someone else's right. You are not allowed to do that.

Rape is sexual assault, not sex.

Really? You think we all agree on what slutty is?

ApexTitan:
Still, like I said, let concrete evidence be provided that provocative dressing has nothing to do with rape.

*

I have just provided it.

This whole slut walking thing is just using the rape argument as a Trojan horse to advance a much broader objective for the feminine imperative - and that is the unencumbered right to openly pursue its mating or sexual strategies.

So?

Today's modern woman wants to be able to indulge to the extreme her sexuality without recrimination from society, she sees scanty dressing as a right and is oblivious of its effect. So there is this erroneous push that sluttiness has nothing to do with sexual violence, that sluttiness should be promoted and celebrated. Any resistance to this idea is seen as the evil patriarchy trying to hold her back.

Why would you deny them this right?

ApexTitan:
Careful now, one is not saying all rape is caused by provocative dressing. I am saying that provocative dressing can be one of several incitements to commit the crime of rape or other forms of sexual violence. This is simple logic, and seeing as you appear to be a lover of logic you should appreciate this. Our slut walkers on the other hand claim that there is no connection, that provocative or slutty dressing has no correlation to rapé or its incitement hence they support it. They would do well to be reminded in this instance that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If we go by this logic, women should wear burkas because some people consider any form of feminity a provocation. And even where women are covered from head to toe, there is still rape.

You have entangled yourself in your second paragraph, you admit that provocative dressing has a lot to do with the thought of sex and not necessarily with rape. We all know that rape is a type of sex, non-consensual and forceful sex, so how can you say honestly that provocative/slutty dressing has no bearing here?

Statistics show CLEARLY that the impact of fashion on crime rates is at best very weak.

In describing the type of dressing under discussion here we have been using the words provocative or slutty and it's for good reason. We are not talking about an abstract concept with multivariate or ambivalent meaning. Even the slut walkers themselves are specific with the type of clothes they are promoting so the issue of subjectivity does not arise. They are promoting ashewo fashion and everyone everywhere knows exactly what they mean.

No, they are promoting the right to dress the way a woman chooses to, whether decent or indecent.

ApexTitan:
Still, like I said, let concrete evidence be provided that provocative dressing has nothing to do with rape.

*

This whole slut walking thing is just using the rape argument as a Trojan horse to advance a much broader objective for the feminine imperative - and that is the unencumbered right to openly pursue its mating or sexual strategies.

Today's modern woman wants to be able to indulge to the extreme her sexuality without recrimination from society, she sees scanty dressing as a right and is oblivious of its effect. So there is this erroneous push that sluttiness has nothing to do with sexual violence, that sluttiness should be promoted and celebrated. Any resistance to this idea is seen as the evil patriarchy trying to hold her back.

Yes. And why should it be otherwise?

Same way nobody should harass a lady for wearing a full dress, no one should harass another for wearing less.

Is the other person's choice an alien concept to you? What makes you think you have the right to chose for anyone how to dress?

The high handedness of it all

Nothing stops me from wearing a bikini on my street; nothing stops a sick man from overpowering me and raping me.

There is no law or campaign that can appeal to a sick mind not To Molest a woman (decently dressed or not). That's where the campaigners are losing it. They would have to ensure there is no sick person in a vicinity before telling women they are free to dress indecently else they tell the women to be ready to face the consequence of their indecency.

@Mode of campaign: if I want to do an awareness on rape and stop victimization, I surely would not do so unclad.

I'm impressed...very impressed

cococandy:
with 300 thousand rape crimes in all the 50 states out together, only India still ranks higher than the US on the rape scale.

Shouldn't it make sense that it would be LOWER?seeing as the women all cover up and are decent?

If that's not proof that dressing has little to do with it, I don't know what is.

No hopes of convincing you anyway.

The use of statistics on message boards like this can sometimes take on the appearance of a blood sport so unless I 'chop belleful' I tend not to go that route but since I have hope from the guys celebrating Sallah tonight I can talk a little ... if you look up available records on the web you will see that the US with a relatively smaller population than India ranks higher in reported rape cases. In 2012 alone, according to their National Crime Records Bureau there were ~24,000 cases reported in India. For that same year in the US the FBI puts the cases reported at ~ 84,000. (see https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/rape#disablemobile and http://ncrb.gov.in/CD-CII2013/compendium%202013.pdf [pg 79]) This site http://www.wonderslist.com/10-countries-highest-rape-crime/ even ranks the US as number 1 in the world.

I know the argument can be made that a lot of rapes go unreported in places like India, well we also have to realise that same also goes for the US. The US also has a broader definition of rape and this may skew impressions but the trend is the same if you look through as many records as you can find.

Again I will stress here that I am not in anyway implying that the high rape numbers in the US is the result of slutty dressing; I have already stated in an earlier comment that the motivations of rape are varied; I'm no criminologist or psychologist and do not give any such pretensions.

My point is that dressing provocatively cannot be unconnected to sexual violence and that slut walkers who claim otherwise are making a sad error. The whole rape argument is just a ruse for a much broader agenda which I have mentioned earlier.

The world is full of evil doings. The cops are only trying to help by stating the truth on how some lesser evil can be curbed.

Responsibility and safety are the 2 keywords to abide by and uphold as a citizen in other to live a safer life, is that too much to ask ?

My child attempted to wear a leggin under a Crop top this morning to school ( Casual Friday) , after several warning to desist from exposing her butt without wearing a skort or even a layer top under the crop top to cover up.

Parents can only do their part: buy decent clothes and equip them with safety gadgets... so use your brains for coordination before going out of the house to spare yourselves from eternal pain - Responsibility.

A friend's house in the U.S. was cleaned out recently , Naija style, as in EVERYTHING including the cars in the garage(they must've brought a tow truck coz I don't know how they pulled that off). Guess what? The Alarm was off.

Okay now.

coogar:
even if you walk around with a transparent bag filled with dollar bills, you would get robbed!
women don't want responsibility but they want rights.....an indecently-dressed woman is sending
a message to the males out there that she's available for whatever price she's putting on her wares.
it's as simple as that.

Lordy Lord. I didn't even read this.

Timbuktou:
Anyone who says slut or victim blaming isn't being honest with themselves or haven't considered the foolishness of the sentiment. For every crime there is a corresponding deterrent: for burglary, there's the option of alarm systems or burglar-proof installation, why not refuse to install a anti-burglar system because it's victim shaming? Smh

Truth is sluts don't want any responsibility for their actions. The truth is dressing a certain way will attract rapists no matter how stiff rape laws are. Murder has a life-for-life penalty and people still commit murder. Someone is committing a murder as we speak . Why the heck do you think someone won't be raping? What's the toughest punishment for rape sef? Dey dia dey zuzu. Don't protect yourself you hear? Be showing sick people your fresh legs, you hear?

Even if the rapist is caught and punished, that would be after the fact, wouldn't it? A word should be enough for the sensible.

EOD

Provocative dressing incite the thought of sex, not rape. You have to separate both.

Nd I wonder why you're still dragging, isn't the thought of sex wat leads to rape, when sex starved or crazy individual (as the case may be) are involved.... how then do we separate the two indecent dressing incite the thought of sex which makes crazy pple rape women..... I don't know wats so ambiguous about this...

Sex is meant to be consensual, now something is wrong with you, if you feel that the sex needs to be forced, now if you feel the urge to have forced sex, because you will be taking away the other person's right, you refrain, if you don't, you have committed an offence.

It's not an argument, nobody ever said rape was not an offence, however, we owe ourselves the responsibility of "staying safe"... indecent dressing may not be an offence, in our analysis, we also. Ought to consider the fact that walking with a transparent bag of money isn't an offence but robbery is, provoking pple isn't an offence but battery is and so on.... Besides, has it ever occured to you that provacative dresses makes for easy access to a woman's privates ... so in dressing like a hooker, one Is not only calling the attention of rapists but also making the act a lot easier "he who brings home ant infested fa'gg0tz invites the gathering of lizards"

There's people willing to play roles if you want to, the only thing wrong with rape is that you are taking someone else's right. You are not allowed to do that.

No arguments

Rape is sexual assault, not sex.

Rape is forceful sex, no where in its definition was it stated that it must be consensual... that is only the ideal thing....

Really? You think we all agree on what slutty is?

I think there is a general consensus about wat is termed indecent dressing but if you wanna argue that wat is generally called indecent dressing is not indecent dressing, then we'd start with places where complete nudity is not indecent at all, afterall, morality is subjective... praise the lord...

njokusboy:
Nd I wonder why you're still dragging, isn't the thought of sex wat leads to rape, when sex starved or crazy individual (as the case may be) are involved.... how then do we separate the two indecent dressing incite the thought of sex which makes crazy pple rape women..... I don't know wats so ambiguous about this...



It's not an argument, nobody ever said rape was not an offence, however, we owe ourselves the responsibility of "staying safe"... indecent dressing may not be an offence, in our analysis, we also. Ought to consider the fact that walking with a transparent bag of money isn't an offence but robbery is, provoking pple isn't an offence but battery is and so on.... Besides, has it ever occured to you that provacative dresses makes for easy access to a woman's privates ... so in dressing like a hooker, one Is not only calling the attention of rapists but also making the act a lot easier "he who brings home ant infested fa'gg0tz invites the gathering of lizards"



No arguments




Rape is forceful sex, no where in its definition was it stated that it must be consensual... that is only the ideal thing....




I think there is a general consensus about wat is termed indecent dressing but if you wanna argue that wat is generally called indecent dressing is not indecent dressing, then we'd start with places where complete nudity is not indecent at all, afterall, morality is subjective... praise the lord...

Oh! Really? We are to act on every thought that comes to mind?

When you say that the thought of sex makes crazy people rape someone, you best know that they rape the person because they couldn't control themselves, not because they were thinking about sex.

If nothing can be done about the thoughts, then trust me, it is unfair to label rape a crime. Sounds like you are saying rapists have no control of their actions.

It baffles me that you people don't get it really, yea, rape is not consensual that's why we don't call it sex, when a person is raped, it is forced, the word 'forced' is the problem.

I say that we all have different definitions of indecent and I don't see how that is supposed to even be an argument, this is just pure facts. Take deeper like church and christ embassy as examples.

While provocative dressing may incite sexual urges, it is your sole right to either act on it or not, that's why you can't blame the person in the dress, you can tell yourself "dude knock it off" and just like that, the urge is done, you can also choose to dwell on it, only you are responsible for that, not anyone.

Btw, sex is not supposed to be forced, no?

freecocoa:
Oga it's not a matter of playing the lawyers.

I don't argue that there's no code on indecency, the phrase is "indecent acts" not exposure. The term is interpretative, so please whose place is it to interprete?

So the penal code suitable for only people in the north is consistent with the constitution in this context?

I don't want you to furnish me no submissions, I'm not claiming to be a lawyer or anything, this is just a discourse based on pure LOGIC, are you a lawyer?

They, lawmakers were not derided for wanting to make those laws because they already supposedly exist, they were derided because we have more pressing issues than such nonsense.

You just have to show me where it is in the constitution, that people shouldn't wear so so so and so, please remember you are talking to a layman so please be as plain as can be, thank you.

Not playing the lawyer ? You don't pass as layman. You are putting out assertions in a legal term and lay men don't do that.

Indecent act or exposure all fall into the context as far as exposure is concern. If a lady goes in public with her ass or boobs bare, it is an "act" . It is and indecent act/exposure. Period. And please do not mention the constitution in this regard. The constitution primarily contains the setup of government bodies and tiers as well as the frame work of governing a country. It doesn't contain criminal offences and their punishment. That is left to the Criminal code and penal code. You really are a layman who loves vain banter.

You can't even get rape in the constitution. You get it in the criminal code or penal code. Indecent act/exposure are legal terms which you want to apply to your own brand of logic in everyday English usage.

See section 26 subsection 1 and 2 of the Violence Against Persons Act 2015.

Also below are excerpts by famous public human rights lawyers in Nigeria and their legal views on indecent exposure.


[b] Human rights lawyer-activist Festus Keyamo yesterday told Daily Champion that though, indecent exposure is an offence against public morality according to the criminal code, arresting offenders is legal.

Likewise was the view of Bamidele Aturu, another human rights activist and Lagos-based lawyer who said indecent dressing is an offence in law, even as he clarified that there was no longer any offence like "wandering" in Nigeria of today. Aturu also said police could arrest anybody, especially ladies who indecently expose their bodies in the public but they should not use that as an opportunity to molest and assault ladies in the name of detaining them.

Also, Ikeja branch chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Niyi Idowu noted that though there is a clear difference between criminality and immorality, indecent exposure of bodies especially by ladies is a criminal offence, but arrests in this regard must be conducted lawfully. But, the lawyers maintained that in order to strike a balance, the police must not detain suspects for more than 24 hours before charging them in court.

"Since that indecent dressing is an offence in law, then it would be right to say that arresting offenders is legal. But that could also engender another sort of illegality, which is keeping suspects in detention beyond 24 hours. Anyone arrested must be charged in court," Keyamo insisted. "In as much as the government, through the police, wants to rid the society of indecent exposures especially with ladies, the fundamental rights of such people must also be accordingly respected. The position of the law is clear on that," said Idowu.

"Whereas it is a crime to expose your body indecently, it is also a crime to detain an offender for more than the prescribed period of detention. The police should also prosecute suspects quickly in order to strike a balance. "The detainees must not be seen by the police as money making objects or tools to satisfy their sexual urges," Aturu stressed, responding to allegations by suspects that they were being sexually molested. He, however, charged all religious institutions to preach morals into their youths as regards descent appearances. Some victims had on Tuesday alleged that police officers had arbitrarily raped and extorted money from them on the pretext of assisting them to get bail.
[/b]

It's Friday night and I'm off for the booze and lay. I won't give you a back and forth. It's resolved, isn't it?

ApexTitan:
The use of statistics on message boards like this can sometimes take on the appearance of a blood sport so unless I 'chop belleful' I tend not to go that route but since I have hope from the guys celebrating Sallah tonight I can talk a little ... if you look up available records on the web you will see that the US with a relatively smaller population than India ranks higher in reported rape cases. In 2012 alone, according to their National Crime Records Bureau there were ~24,000 cases reported in India. For that same year in the US the FBI puts the cases reported at ~ 84,000. (see https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/rape#disablemobile and http://ncrb.gov.in/CD-CII2013/compendium%202013.pdf [pg 79]) This site http://www.wonderslist.com/10-countries-highest-rape-crime/ even ranks the US as number 1 in the world.

I know the argument can be made that a lot of rapes go unreported in places like India, well we also have to realise that same also goes for the US. The US also has a broader definition of rape and this may skew impressions but the trend is the same if you look through as many records as you can find.

Again I will stress here that I am not in anyway implying that the high rape numbers in the US is the result of slutty dressing; I have already stated in an earlier comment that the motivations of rape are varied; I'm no criminologist or psychologist and do not give any such pretensions.

My point is that dressing provocatively cannot be unconnected to sexual violence and that slut walkers who claim otherwise are making a sad error. The whole rape argument is just a ruse for a much broader agenda which I have mentioned earlier.

@ the two bolded. contradictions.
Effects of going around in circles.
So which is it?


@ colored, so you even know that?

i was watching one little girl in India confronting some guys on this rape issue and their response was that why should a girl be by herself at certain hrs of the day without male protection.
I guess that was because they didn't find indecent dressing to blame in that situation as most Indian women tend to cover up.

But Really?
And they said that boldly on camera.
SMH.
As if that makes it okay. No words of condemnation for the actual culprits.

As for this secret agenda. I ask you again, what makes you think you can decide for people what to wear?
Never mind. Don't answer that.
It's the conceit of those who think they can decide for others how to dress that is the most annoying of this whole issue.


Well The continuation of this debate will only be a repetition of what we've already said before and of course some self contradictions will start popping up here and there.
So have a good day there.

Let's agree to disagree.

lezz:
Not playing the lawyer ? You don't pass as layman. You are putting out assertions in a legal term and lay men don't do that.

Indecent act or exposure all fall into the context as far as exposure is concern. If a lady goes in public with her ass or boobs bare, it is an "act" . It is and indecent act/exposure. Period. And please do not mention the constitution in this regard. The constitution primarily contains the setup of government bodies and tiers as well as the frame work of governing a country. It doesn't contain criminal offences and their punishment. That is left to the Criminal code and penal code. You really are a layman who loves vain banter.

You can't even get rape in the constitution. You get it in the criminal code or penal code. Indecent act/exposure are legal terms which you want to apply to your own brand of logic in everyday English usage.

See section 26 subsection 1 and 2 of the Violence Against Persons Act 2015.

Also below are excerpts by famous public human rights lawyers in Nigeria and their legal views on indecent exposure.


[b] Human rights lawyer-activist Festus Keyamo yesterday told Daily Champion that though, indecent exposure is an offence against public morality according to the criminal code, arresting offenders is legal.

Likewise was the view of Bamidele Aturu, another human rights activist and Lagos-based lawyer who said indecent dressing is an offence in law, even as he clarified that there was no longer any offence like "wandering" in Nigeria of today. Aturu also said police could arrest anybody, especially ladies who indecently expose their bodies in the public but they should not use that as an opportunity to molest and assault ladies in the name of detaining them.

Also, Ikeja branch chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Niyi Idowu noted that though there is a clear difference between criminality and immorality, indecent exposure of bodies especially by ladies is a criminal offence, but arrests in this regard must be conducted lawfully. But, the lawyers maintained that in order to strike a balance, the police must not detain suspects for more than 24 hours before charging them in court.

"Since that indecent dressing is an offence in law, then it would be right to say that arresting offenders is legal. But that could also engender another sort of illegality, which is keeping suspects in detention beyond 24 hours. Anyone arrested must be charged in court," Keyamo insisted. "In as much as the government, through the police, wants to rid the society of indecent exposures especially with ladies, the fundamental rights of such people must also be accordingly respected. The position of the law is clear on that," said Idowu.

"Whereas it is a crime to expose your body indecently, it is also a crime to detain an offender for more than the prescribed period of detention. The police should also prosecute suspects quickly in order to strike a balance. "The detainees must not be seen by the police as money making objects or tools to satisfy their sexual urges," Aturu stressed, responding to allegations by suspects that they were being sexually molested. He, however, charged all religious institutions to preach morals into their youths as regards descent appearances. Some victims had on Tuesday alleged that police officers had arbitrarily raped and extorted money from them on the pretext of assisting them to get bail.
[/b]

It's Friday night and I'm off for the booze and lay. I won't give you a back and forth. It's resolved, isn't it?

I told you no long submissions on any lawyers.

Anyways you said you are leaving so there's no point, you didn't prove your point beyond reasonable doubt though.

cococandy:
@ the two bolded. contradictions.
Effects of going around in circles.
So which is it?


@ colored, so you even know that?

i was watching one little girl in India confronting some guys on this rape issue and their response was that why should a girl be by herself at certain hrs of the day without male protection.
I guess that was because they didn't find indecent dressing to blame in that situation as most Indian women tend to cover up.

But Really?
And they said that boldly on camera.
SMH.
As if that makes it okay. No words of condemnation for the actual culprits.

As for this secret agenda. I ask you again, what makes you think you can decide for people what to wear?
Never mind. Don't answer that.
It's the conceit of those who think they can decide for others how to dress that is the most annoying of this whole issue.


Well The continuation of this debate will only be a repetition of what we've already said before and of course some self contradictions will start popping up here and there.
So have a good day there.

Let's agree to disagree.

Tsk tsk tsk

You with your previous comments asserted that India which is more conservative than the US had a higher rape occurrence. I have shown with statistical evidence that you were wrong and that the reverse is the case, the US and indeed several other first world countries have higher incidence of this crime.

This is important because you were hinging your whole argument on the notion that the provocative dressing has no bearing whatsoever in the motivation for this crime. What you claim is a contradiction - my statement of admission that neither me nor anyone else can say conclusively that the high rape occurrence in the US ALL had to do with dressing is by no means a contradiction! That old wool-over-the-eyes trick won't work here.

@Freecocoa

[img]http://.net/i/913.gif[/img]

You will be getting a pristine badge for proficiency in advancing straw man, or should I say straw woman arguments. How have your comments helped your case that which is obviously pro-slut walking? I mean, this whole talk about rape not being sex but sexual assault is pure fuzzy logic, that is if we can even call it logic at all.

Stop introducing the subjectivity dimension of what slutty dressing means. That one is not up for debate, do a quick google search if you are still in doubt of the type of dressing the slut walkers are promoting because every other person is clear on this area. Your examples of the different dressing standards in certain churches is miles off from what we are discussing about.

Oh! Really? We are to act on every thought that comes to mind?

Nope, the problem is that there are pple dat act on every thought that comes to mind, the essence off it all is to take preventive measures, by making sure that their sexual urges are not provoked...

When you say that the thought of sex makes crazy people rape someone, you best know that they rape the person because they couldn't control themselves, not because they were thinking about sex.

They raped the person because they cannot control their sexual urge with was aggravated by the sight of raw flesh...

If nothing can be done about the thoughts, then trust me, it is unfair to label rape a crime. Sounds like you are saying rapists have no control of their actions.

Some rapists are mentally and emotionally affected, whether it's to be labelled a crime is another ball, when we decide whether to label kleptomania a crime or not, we'd turn to this...

It baffles me that you people don't get it really, yea, rape is not consensual that's why we don't call it sex, when a person is raped, it is forced, the word 'forced' is the problem.

In truth, you baffle us more, the points we raised are simpler than ABC, rape is a name given to "forced sex"... sex is a general term for all types of intercourse be it between a man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, man forcing woman, woman forcing man, man and goat, goat and goat etc... that it is forced is wat makes it rape, same way sex with a minor is paedophilia and sex with animal is bestiality...

I say that we all have different definitions of indecent and I don't see how that is supposed to even be an argument, this is just pure facts. Take deeper like church and christ embassy as examples.

Nd I said, there is a general consensus as regards to wat is termed indecent, any other definition is isolated... so if beating up my opponent before I can claim a girl is normal in my village, i'd do so in town and claim it's normal because morality is subjective? How narrow

While provocative dressing may incite sexual urges, it is your sole right to either act on it or not, that's why you can't blame the person in the dress, you can tell yourself "dude knock it off" and just like that, the urge is done, you can also choose to dwell on it, only you are responsible for that, not anyone.

I don't know how you manage to understand the point and dance around it at the same time, you have admitted that indecent dressing provokes sexual urges, why can't to also admit that there are people who are not so reasonable as to "knock it off" and take measures to ensure such ideas do not develop in the first place, no one ever blamed women for getting raped, all we are saying is "dressing decently would go a long way to minimize it"... Besides, fully dressed pple are more difficult to un clothe, (you cleverly skipped that part).... slut protests is a ridiculous(if not stvp1d) way to go about it. If I had a daughter that gets raped (God forbid) and she was putting on a skimpy dress... After killing the rapist and consoling her, the next thing I would ask her is why she should put on that kind of dress, followed by why she was in dat kind of place... I would have warned her severally ofcoure...

Btw, sex is not supposed to be forced, no?

See above

[img]https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWUal9Mi6oBlSj6jWyViRD4VHi9xzj9D0_nLi_XVi6behR1De[/img]

https://static1.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/5500-4/photos/1408835920-hundreds-attend-slutwalk-2014-in-chicago_5591334.jpg

https://www.jpattitude.com/IHTM/SlutWalk2012.jpg

https://www.windsorstar.com/cms/binary/4895210.jpg?size=640x420

Just so we see what is being advocated for here.

ApexTitan:
[img]https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWUal9Mi6oBlSj6jWyViRD4VHi9xzj9D0_nLi_XVi6behR1De[/img]

https://static1.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/5500-4/photos/1408835920-hundreds-attend-slutwalk-2014-in-chicago_5591334.jpg

https://www.jpattitude.com/IHTM/SlutWalk2012.jpg

https://www.windsorstar.com/cms/binary/4895210.jpg?size=640x420

Just so we are see what is being advocated for here.

Imagine..... Iranu.

ApexTitan:
@Freecocoa

[img]http://.net/i/913.gif[/img]

You will be getting a pristine badge for proficiency in advancing straw man, or should I say straw woman arguments. How have your comments helped your case that which is obviously pro-slut walking? I mean, this whole talk about rape not being sex but sexual assault is pure fuzzy logic, that is if we can even call it logic at all.

Stop introducing the subjectivity dimension of what slutty dressing means. That one is not up for debate, do a quick google search if you are still in doubt of the type of dressing the slut walkers are promoting because every other person is clear on this area. Your examples of the different dressing standards in certain churches is miles off from what we are discussing about.

My dear you can call it whatever you like, doesn't mean that's what it is.

I'm not even saying ladies should walk about unclad, I'm saying that a lady was unclad is not justification for rape, you just are refusing to see my point.

These ladies are not saying women should start dressing as what you call sluts, the message is against rape for whatsover reason, it's amazing how y'all claim not to get that.

The subjectivity of what indecent dressing is, is totally on point with the example given, being in line because we do have to agree on what is indecent dressing is in the first place.

It's like you don't even understand your own argument.

freecocoa:
My dear you can call it whatever you like, doesn't mean that's what it is.

I'm not even saying ladies should walk about unclad, I'm saying that a lady was unclad is not justification for rape, you just are refusing to see my point.

These ladies are not saying women should start dressing as what you call sluts, the message is against rape for whatsover reason, it's amazing how y'all claim not to get that.

The subjectivity of what indecent dressing is, is totally on point with the example given, being in line because we do have to agree on what is indecent dressing is in the first place.

It's like you don't even understand your own argument.

You know you are digging yourself into a hole with this right?

OK explain this for us who don't get it. They are not saying women should dress as slut but that if a woman does indeed choose to dress like a slut she should be celebrated and not treated like a slut? Did I get it?

PS: I also noticed how you framed that line, ..."as what you call sluts". What do you freecocoa call sluts?

Lol Because I didn't want to address that freaking lie?

You admitted by yourself that rape is less reported in places like India and there is the tendency for for that in America to be exaggerated as a lady can sue you for sexual assault if you touch her in any offensive way even you didn't go all the way.

Man I don't have time such baseless argument.

So rape is higher in America than in India or Nigeria?

I believe you and I agree.

And I accept that this is because American women dress scantily most of the time even though in many states it's cold 3/4 of the year so people can't even afford to be half nude even if they wanted to except during the warmer seasons.

How great.

Can we end this meaningless debate on that note?

ApexTitan:
Tsk tsk tsk

You with your previous comments asserted that India which is more conservative than the US had a higher rape occurrence. I have shown with statistical evidence that you were wrong and that the reverse is the case, the US and indeed several other first world countries have higher incidence of this crime.

This is important because you were hinging your whole argument on the notion that the provocative dressing has no bearing whatsoever in the motivation for this crime. What you claim is a contradiction - my statement of admission that neither me nor anyone else can say conclusively that the high rape occurrence in the US ALL had to do with dressing is by no means a contradiction! That old wool-over-the-eyes trick won't work here.

njokusboy:
Nope, the problem is that there are pple dat act on every thought that comes to mind, the essence off it all is to take preventive measures, by making sure that their sexual urges are not provoked...



They raped the person because they cannot control their sexual urge with was aggravated by the sight of raw flesh...



Some rapists are mentally and emotionally affected, whether it's to be labelled a crime is another ball, when we decide whether to label kleptomania a crime or not, we'd turn to this...




In truth, you baffle us more, the points we raised are simpler than ABC, rape is a name given to "forced sex"... sex is a general term for all types of intercourse be it between a man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, man forcing woman, woman forcing man, man and goat, goat and goat etc... that it is forced is wat makes it rape, same way sex with a minor is paedophilia and sex with animal is bestiality...



Nd I said, there is a general consensus as regards to wat is termed indecent, any other definition is isolated... so if beating up my opponent before I can claim a girl is normal in my village, i'd do so in town and claim it's normal because morality is subjective? How narrow



I don't know how you manage to understand the point and dance around it at the same time, you have admitted that indecent dressing provokes sexual urges, why can't to also admit that there are people who are not so reasonable as to "knock it off" and take measures to ensure such ideas do not develop in the first place, no one ever blamed women for getting raped, all we are saying is "dressing decently would go a long way to minimize it"... Besides, fully dressed pple are more difficult to un clothe, (you cleverly skipped that part).... slut protests is a ridiculous(if not stvp1d) way to go about it. If I had a daughter that gets raped (God forbid) and she was putting on a skimpy dress... After killing the rapist and consoling her, the next thing I would ask her is why she should put on that kind of dress, followed by why she was in dat kind of place... I would have warned her severally ofcoure...


See above

Really? I find it hard to believe how light you make this issues, how is it fair to make someone responsible for another's action? Shouldn't we be telling the rapist to get help instead or simply tell them they can control their actions, assuming they don't know this which is even impossible.

I still maintain that, seeing raw flesh doesn't push one to rape, it can bring on the feeling of wanting to have sex I agree, now ability to control what sort of sex to have or even have any sex at all is on you.

I agree, if a rapist is proven to be mentally unstable, then that's another case.

I am not dancing around it per se, I am saying that, you can determine how you handle the said provocation, it's that simple.

Don't think I am all for people walking around unclad, I am simply saying, if they want to, they should be able to without getting raped, because in the end, you are responsible for your actions no matter how we look at it. I understand taking measures to protect oneself in a world such as this but trying to make excuses for criminals is what I don't understand.

You are not agreeing that the rapist could've helped himself to say no, if he wanted to, that's where I have a problem.

ApexTitan:
You know you are digging yourself into a hole with this right?

OK explain this for us who don't get it. They are not saying women should dress as slut but that if a woman does indeed choose to dress like a slut she should be celebrated and not treated like a slut? Did I get it?

PS: I also noticed how you framed that line, ..."as what you call sluts". What do you freecocoa call sluts?

I'm not digging myself into any hole.

Where is the accepted treatment of what you call "sluts" rape? Is there a way agreed upon by which sluts should be treated?

I try my best not to judge or label people, especially on issues not generally accepted.

Even if I do have a definition of who I consider a slut, I don't think they deserve to be treated a particular way for being sluts.

cococandy:
Lol Because I didn't want to address that freaking lie?

You admitted by yourself that rape is less reported in places like India and there is the tendency for for that in America to be exaggerated as a lady can sue you for sexual assault if you touch her in any offensive way even you didn't go all the way.

Man I don't have time such baseless argument.

So rape is higher in America than in India or Nigeria?

I believe you and I agree.

And I accept that this is because American women dress scantily most of the time even though in many states it's cold 3/4 of the year so people can't even afford to be half nude even if they wanted to except during the warmer seasons.

How great.

Can we end this meaningless debate on that note?

Yeah, so when statistics provided by veritable institutions like the DoJ and FBI don't align with your position we are to term them lies? Hmmm

Rape incidents are under reported everywhere not just in India, this includes the almighty US of A with its current high numbers. So if we factor the unreported cases into available records the figures will rise for all the countries in question again even for our much revered America.

This is now a meaningless debate because the facts aren't helping advance your position? Too bad. I must admit this has been a fun exchange for me but of course you reserve the right to retreat. Cheers

lol I didn't say your figure in the link for US is a lie.
I said it's a lie that rape is higher in the US than in India.

omo get your comprehension in shape.

Anyways I've agreed with you. So you can rest now.
Funny dude.

#FACTS.

ApexTitan:
Yeah, so when statistics provided by veritable institutions like the DoJ and FBI don't align with your position we are to term them lies? Hmmm

Rape incidents are under reported everywhere not just in India, this includes the almighty US of A with its current high numbers. So if we factor the unreported cases into available records the figures will rise for all the countries in question again even for our much revered America.

This is now a meaningless debate because the facts aren't helping advance your position? Too bad. I must admit this has been a fun exchange for me but of course you reserve the right to retreat. Cheers