The TLR is that she said as a black belt she felt confident in fending off college sexual assaults and thought other women should be encouraged along the same lines.
Critics said we ought better to teach men not to commit sex crimes.
Whilst I agree with that view point, it seems to me that having a woman grab and twist the testicles hard is likely to put any man off committing a sex crime.
The TLR is that she said as a black belt she felt confident in fending off college sexual assaults and thought other women should be encouraged along the same lines.
Good for her!
Critics said we ought better to teach men not to commit sex crimes.
Wait... wut?
How can this be, in any way, controversial?
Whilst I agree with that view point, it seems to me that having a woman grab and twist the testicles hard is likely to put any man off committing a sex crime.
Um... yeah, they need to be able to, ya know, defend themselves.
nasa boss "arrrgh that space shuttle exploded AGAIN....
DIDNT YOU TELL THAT SHUTTLE NOT TO EXPLODE!!"
engineer "well, yes, we told it not to explode, its even in the law that you as a shuttle are not allowed to explode.
maybe we could try to prevent the explosion by not sending up shuttles with design specifications that are known to have a high likly hood of failure that increases its chances to explode"
nasa boss "why must you encourage this explosion culture? you are a bad person and everything that you just said offends me."
Grey Templar wrote: I think its basically criticising her for not saying we need to change guys who are likely to commit rape.
Frankly of the 2 solutions hers seems better.
I have to agree. Now that I've read the article, it just seems like an overblown case of militant feminism. You just know that, if she said the other option, feminists would have criticised her for telling women to rely on men to solve their problems.
Critics said we ought better to teach men not to commit sex crimes.
This is a common thing I've been reading recently whenever anyone advises vigilance or practical advice to avoid being a victim of sexual assault. I think feminists seems to think this is some form of victim blaming and that the emphasis should be on men not to rape as opposed to women to tape steps avoid being raped. If you apply the same logic to any other crime you really see how daft it is. Telling people to lock their cars and not flash their valuables in rough areas is seen as perfectly sensible advice and is never called victim blaming.
Furthermore this idea that men 'ought better to teach men not to commit sex crimes' an incredibly naive way of looking at things. Do people really think that that rapists are simply poorly educated and if only someone had told them that it was wrong to rape then they wouldn't?
99% of men know not to rape wouldn't dream of doing so and the other 1% don't care and won't listen. No amount of well meaning lessons on consent will deter them. With that in mind a certain degree of vigilance is vital and no this is not blaming the victim.
It is a lot harder to get convicted of rape than many other crimes, due to the way society treats it, or rather tends to treat the victim as complicit and partly responsible.
That said, I still think a tough punch to the gonads is a good thing for a woman to know how to deliver. Two rigid fingers shoved hard into the eyes is another good one.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a lot harder to get convicted of rape than many other crimes, due to the way society treats it, or rather tends to treat the victim as complicit and partly responsible.
That said, I still think a tough punch to the gonads is a good thing for a woman to know how to deliver. Two rigid fingers shoved hard into the eyes is another good one.
I am offended by everyone posting those stupid comments under the article.
At NO POINT did she ever offend any rape victim or made it look not as bad as it is. She merely stated that she can defend herself and recommended every woman to do the same.
This isn't offensive, this is a fething good advice. The only offensive thing is those "special people" claiming they want to teach men "not to rape". What the feck. This is a sexist and as offensive as a comment can possibly be as this suggests that every men is likely to rape a woman unless taught not to.
...and seriously, how on earth would you teach someone that raping is wrong? Like...god.
Goddamn it, so many stupid people.
Self-defense is the best thing you can do and should be mandatory in all schools. It's one thing that can never be bad, but only do good for you.
Maybe I'm weird, but I see both as valid points...
The US Army recently changed it's entire anti-sexual harassment/sexual assault program.. It used to be "this gak happens, we'll punish the gakheads who do it". Now, it's "let's provide care and support for the victims, as well as an educational approach to change the culture"
There is definitely a TON of positives, and no real downside to self-defense.
To me, the educational and "teach men not to rape" (which are stupid ways of putting things, because men can/do get raped/sexually assaulted) is more in the aspect of changing the culture of "lol, she blacked out drunk and I fethed her" or any of the other stories that people often hear. Because a good chunk of rape/assault cases are on people who are in relationships or at least know each other.
I dunno, maybe I'm just weird for thinking that attacking a social issue from multiple fronts is a good idea.
My sister took self-defence classes as part of her PE lessons one year. These were aimed at teaching women how to defend themselves from men, and it was quite a popular course. As LusicusAR says, it's a 1% who commit offences, and teaching people to fend off that 1% is important.
(Beyond the obvious kick-in-the-balls, one of the tricks they learnt was some kind of jab to a nerve in the elbow, which she spent about half an hour trying to do to me. Apparently I'm immune to it? It worked on other people. Mind you, I'm convinced I'm basically dead ever since my pulse was measured at 4bpm pre-exercise and 3bm post-exercise.By a professional Biology teacher, who, for all her faults, should have known how to find a pulse).
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a lot harder to get convicted of rape than many other crimes, due to the way society treats it, or rather tends to treat the victim as complicit and partly responsible.
On the flipside, a rape charge is also the easiest way to ruin someone's social standing. Doesn't matter what the courts decide.
I don't think telling Women to attack their attacker is a sensible idea considering the man may well be more physically capable. In fact it would probably lead to greater harm of the woman.
This just seems like an extension of "she was asking for it" argument because she couldn't physically defend herself.
Having taught at a martial arts school which offered women's self defense classes I think that every woman should take some instruction. It's not to place any blame on them, because even if you are skilled fighter it can still happen, but if it were my girlfriend, wife, or a daughter I'd at least want them to have every tool possible to help them fight as much as possible.
A lot of what we was taught wasn't just defensive moves, a lot focuses on general awareness of situations where a threat may come from and warning signs to watch for. Not playing blame the victim but there is a significant portion of women who have no clue how open they are to danger even in public places and how even small actions can help guard against becoming an easy target. By just knowing what to watch for they can greatly reduce the risks of it occurring by making minor adjustments in behavior, simple stuff like traveling with a friend at night or keeping keys in hand while walking from you car to a building are things that greatly reduce your profile as target. Also when you have prepared yourself mentally how to address a situation before it ever arises you hardwire yourself to react faster and can take on an aggressive defense, where the ideal victims are those that are completely unaware of the situation and surrounding largely making them unable to react to the threat.
Teaching them ways to inflict pain is also quite successful as it can potentially provide an opportunity to run and escape or at least try and make enough noise to get help. I think defense classes are a very valuable asset to women and I'd highly encourage them to take them whenever possible. A lot the classes are even offered for free, we used to offer bi-weekly classes for free and they were open to the general public for whoever wanted to attend.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a lot harder to get convicted of rape than many other crimes, due to the way society treats it, or rather tends to treat the victim as complicit and partly responsible.
On the flipside, a rape charge is also the easiest way to ruin someone's social standing. Doesn't matter what the courts decide.
That may or may not be the case, however the rate of prosecution of rape is very low and the successful prosecution rate has been dropping (in the UK).
Liberals think its better to be a victim than to defend yourself so when Ms. Nevada said women should learn to defend themselves, they freak out and ignore that despite laws, crimes still happen.
While I agree with the “Teach men not to rape, rather than women how to avoid rape” idea, I do not think aggressiveness is a good way to convey this point of view, and I do not think Miss USA deserve to receive flak for her comment.
MWHistorian wrote: Liberals think its better to be a victim than to defend yourself so when Ms. Nevada said women should learn to defend themselves, they freak out and ignore that despite laws, crimes still happen.
I don't think telling Women to attack their attacker is a sensible idea considering the man may well be more physically capable. In fact it would probably lead to greater harm of the woman.
This just seems like an extension of "she was asking for it" argument because she couldn't physically defend herself.
Lets see.
Defend your self maybe avoid harm. Maybe rapist ends up in morgue if done right.
Maybe be harmed more.
Don't defend yourself.
Be raped.
Maybe be murdered.
Not seeing the downside.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: While I agree with the “Teach men not to rape, rather than women how to avoid rape” idea, I do not think aggressiveness is a good way to convey this point of view, and I do not think Miss USA deserve to receive flak for her comment.
Why not both?? I mean, no matter how much you "teach" people not to be rapists, there's still that slim percentage that will (event if they're not intending to) commit a crime. On the flip side, there is literally no downside to teaching people self-defense.
I don't think telling Women to attack their attacker is a sensible idea considering the man may well be more physically capable. In fact it would probably lead to greater harm of the woman.
This just seems like an extension of "she was asking for it" argument because she couldn't physically defend herself.
Also
If someone wants t hit you with a tire iron would you fight them? Why? The attacker may me more physically capable. In fact it would probably lead to greater harm to yourself.
See how amazingly stupid that idea is?
MWHistorian wrote: Liberals think its better to be a victim than to defend yourself so when Ms. Nevada said women should learn to defend themselves, they freak out and ignore that despite laws, crimes still happen.
I have no problem with people doing both. I just think it should not feel anywhere near a requirement to learn self-defense for women, just like it is not a requirement for men. But then again, I come from a different culture from most users, one where people do not feel like they need to carry a gun to be safe, and I would be extremely pissed if things would worsen that much that I started needing one to feel safe. So my perspective on self-defense may be quite different.
MWHistorian wrote: Liberals think its better to be a victim than to defend yourself so when Ms. Nevada said women should learn to defend themselves, they freak out and ignore that despite laws, crimes still happen.
Here's an idea: let's lose the broadly insulting generalizations, before certain individuals lose the right to post.
Lets see. Defend your self maybe avoid harm. Maybe rapist ends up in morgue if done right. Maybe be harmed more.
Don't defend yourself. Be raped. Maybe be murdered. Not seeing the downside.
This.
Rapes are generally prevented when things do not go well for the attacker. A victim that fights off an attack typically reacted in a confrontational way or caused a noise disturbance, etc that caused the would be rapist to back out of the attack.
I've yet to ever hear of rape not happening because the victim simply surrendered to the rapist.
Rape is typically about power and dominance if a victim is submissive it can actually trigger far worse abuse as the attacker is striving for a reaction of pain and submission from the victim.
I have no problem with people doing both. I just think it should not feel anywhere near a requirement to learn self-defense for women, just like it is not a requirement for men. But then again, I come from a different culture from most users, one where people do not feel like they need to carry a gun to be safe, and I would be extremely pissed if things would worsen that much that I started needing one to feel safe. So my perspective on self-defense may be quite different.
You never boxed or did martial arts or were in the Army?
Oh, come on. She was asked what we can do to solve the problem of sexual assault on colleges and her response was to train women to defend ourselves. There's so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start.
But let's start with that in sexual assault cases, the number where you are accosted by a random stranger jumping out of a bush at night is a tiny minority. Most are not placing you in a situation with a clear-cut adversary trying to attack you. Usually these are committed by friends, acquaintances, lovers. They aren't situations where "oh, if I punch them in the balls and run then everything will work out fine!"
A big part of the reason it's stupid is because the whole premise of the answer is that sexual assault is a violent attack and you can just defend yourself against it by knowing how to be violent back. Yes, maybe that could help in a minority of situations that fit that bill (though here you're at risk of running into "oh, it was her fault because she didn't fight hard enough," which is pretty awful) but most sexual assaults are not like that.
if you knee you date in the balls, that stops the date rape much better then doing nothing, letting him rape you, and then trying to prosecute him after the fact.
you can still knee him in the balls, run, avoid being raped, and still prosecute him for attempted rape.
if the problem is that we are not telling men not to rape people, then logically, when someone in a relationship says "no stop that, you are raping me" they would stop it... yet that is not what happens in date rape cases, the rapist, despite being told to stop, continues...
hence why actually being ABLE to stop it is quite important.
I have no problem with people doing both. I just think it should not feel anywhere near a requirement to learn self-defense for women, just like it is not a requirement for men. But then again, I come from a different culture from most users, one where people do not feel like they need to carry a gun to be safe, and I would be extremely pissed if things would worsen that much that I started needing one to feel safe. So my perspective on self-defense may be quite different.
I disagree. Knowing how to defend yourself is very important, not just to prevent sexual assault, but any other kind of assault, robbery, etc. I would actually quite like it if self-defence was taught to a minimum level in schools.
I disagree. Knowing how to defend yourself is very important, not just to prevent sexual assault, but any other kind of assault, robbery, etc. I would actually quite like it if self-defence was taught to a minimum level in schools.
This, so, so, so many times. I would have been killed at the age of 19 if I did not know how to defend myself and I try my very best to raise awareness for self-defense ever since. I regularly organize self-defense courses at our local schools, at a high school and in our company. Self-defense should be taught in every school as part of any PE lesson.
I get so angry when some politicians seriously claim that this would be a bad idea because it would create a "negative mindset" among children making them think the world is more dangerous than it is expecting murder in every alley. So angry
Frazzled wrote: You never boxed or did martial arts or were in the Army?
Nope. Why? Does that seem unlikely to you?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Oh, come on. She was asked what we can do to solve the problem of sexual assault on colleges and her response was to train women to defend ourselves. There's so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start.
Yes, but pedagogy will serve better than aggressiveness .
I have no problem with people doing both. I just think it should not feel anywhere near a requirement to learn self-defense for women, just like it is not a requirement for men. But then again, I come from a different culture from most users, one where people do not feel like they need to carry a gun to be safe, and I would be extremely pissed if things would worsen that much that I started needing one to feel safe. So my perspective on self-defense may be quite different.
I disagree. Knowing how to defend yourself is very important, not just to prevent sexual assault, but any other kind of assault, robbery, etc. I would actually quite like it if self-defence was taught to a minimum level in schools.
this +1000.....
seriously, most kids will never, EVER use or need calculus... most kids WILL need to defend themselves in their lives, and even if they do not, learning how builds confidence, and is good old fashioned healthy excercise
I'm kind of in the school of thought of 'get it done yourself'. Learning to defend yourself can give you the assurance that YOU can provide for your safety and not have to wait for some moronic horn-dog to turn over a new leaf.
-Shrike- wrote: I disagree. Knowing how to defend yourself is very important, not just to prevent sexual assault, but any other kind of assault, robbery, etc. I would actually quite like it if self-defence was taught to a minimum level in schools.
I am not sure that would work. It may only create some arm run, where the aggressor will still be ahead of the victims. Though it would help against drunk or very stupid aggressors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: seriously, most kids will never, EVER use or need calculus...
Seriously? Do you not even look at the prices when buying stuff in the supermarket too?
Frazzled wrote: You never boxed or did martial arts or were in the Army?
Nope. Why? Does that seem unlikely to you?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Oh, come on. She was asked what we can do to solve the problem of sexual assault on colleges and her response was to train women to defend ourselves. There's so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start.
Yes, but pedagogy will serve better than aggressiveness .
Actually fighting back is a very good way of stopping any type of assault.
You are only going to get attacked if the attacker thinks he can overpower you. if you quickly show that is not the case the bulk of the time they'll turn tail and run(because criminals are almost exclusively cowards) and look for easier prey.
Nobody is saying self-defense classes should be a requirement. Its just a damn good idea, and you'd be very stupid not to take one.
MWHistorian wrote: Liberals think its better to be a victim than to defend yourself so when Ms. Nevada said women should learn to defend themselves, they freak out and ignore that despite laws, crimes still happen.
That is an extremely offensive remark.
Both the Brady campaign and Moms Demand Action (two prominent Left Wing organizations) believe it is better to be raped than to defend yourself. I don't see how repeating what they say publicly is offensive. In Australia and Japan they even have knife control, like gun control. Limiting the means to defend oneself is the same as limiting the right. If I misunderstood their position then they should have made it clearer.
if the problem is that we are not telling men not to rape people, then logically, when someone in a relationship says "no stop that, you are raping me" they would stop it... yet that is not what happens in date rape cases, the rapist, despite being told to stop, continues...
hence why actually being ABLE to stop it is quite important.
Or even, quite a bit of the time, the person who is assaulted is blacked out (whether it be by drinking too much, or has been slipped a mickey)... I may be wrong, but IIRC the courts have said that being incapable of providing consent is basically the same as not providing it and/or "saying no"
easysauce wrote: if you knee you date in the balls, that stops the date rape much better then doing nothing, letting him rape you, and then trying to prosecute him after the fact.
you can still knee him in the balls, run, avoid being raped, and still prosecute him for attempted rape.
Okay have you ever paid any attention to how cases related to rape go? How basically your suggestion would end up with your date (who you better hope isn't on the sportsball team) slandering you to heaven and back while every aspect of your private life is combed over to find "proof" of how horrible you are and you get utterly socially ostracised and then in the end there's a high chance nothing will happen to him anyway?
This is why focusing on women's behaviour is bad, because there is so much wrong with how our society views and deals with sexual assault that it just cannot be solved by any action we can take. The only way to make a significant difference to it is to change the culture around it. We can take all the self defense classes we want, but they won't solve the problem because there are other reasons that "punch him in the balls" do not work.
Come on. You think avoiding rape is so simple and that for some reason we won't follow this one simple step, punching him in the balls, that would solve all sexual assault?
You are only going to get attacked if the attacker thinks he can overpower you. if you quickly show that is not the case the bulk of the time they'll turn tail and run(because criminals are almost exclusively cowards) and look for easier prey.
Except most sexual assault is not committed by men jumping out of bushes at night. Most sexual assault is committed by friends, acquaintances, lovers. And I don't mean friends, acquaintances or lovers jumping out of bushes at night, either.
Grey Templar wrote: Actually fighting back is a very good way of stopping any type of assault.
Yeah. If I can go safely without fear of getting assaulted in the first place, that is even better than repelling an attack through fighting back, though.
Grey Templar wrote: Nobody is saying self-defense classes should be a requirement.
I said it should not feel like one. I meant that you should be able to go around without fear of being assaulted. I know I go around a lot without fear from being assaulted. I wish more people could share that very nice feeling.
I said it should not feel like one. I meant that you should be able to go around without fear of being assaulted. I know I go around a lot without fear from being assaulted. I wish more people could share that very nice feeling.
Except most sexual assault is not committed by men jumping out of bushes at night. Most sexual assault is committed by friends, acquaintances, lovers. And I don't mean friends, acquaintances or lovers jumping out of bushes at night, either.
If only self-defense worked against anything else but people jumping out of bushes. Damn it!
If I went around punching all the men I knew in the balls every time I saw them to ward off sexual assault you'd accuse me of being misandrist. Though I've got to admit it might be pretty effective. Assuming women's prisons have a lower rate of sexual assault than the general population, anyway.
I really have to disagree with that Brady Campaign Ad, having worked at women's rehab clinic rape is not something that's over in 30 seconds, most women have their lives severely impacted by rape and some are haunted by the experience for the remainder of their lives. It forever changes the way they relate to men, even with women who are able to work past things it always remains in the back of their mind and it can result in failed marriages and have other dire impact on their family so it greatly impacts those around the victim as well. A huge portion of substance abuse in women is due to causes rooted in sexual assaults. So it's not 30 seconds and over as that ad would suggest. That ad is absolutely horrible as it has no compassion or regard for what the victims of rape actually endure.
HiveFleetPlastic, I do not want to be rude or anything, but since you seem to be much more familiar with these issues than I am, maybe you could describe an actual rape/sexual assault scenario, to show more clearly how the mechanics of rape work and how self-defense will not serve ?
I have read about them and got convinced, but I think I have forgotten a bit since .
Sigvatr wrote: Can we please not quote the ad? It's incredibly offensive and unfitting.
Agreed... but MWHIstorian was trying to make a point, and a powerful one at that. This is the depth that some anti-gun groups would go.... just like that weird CNN article I posted earlier.
if the problem is that we are not telling men not to rape people, then logically, when someone in a relationship says "no stop that, you are raping me" they would stop it... yet that is not what happens in date rape cases, the rapist, despite being told to stop, continues...
hence why actually being ABLE to stop it is quite important.
Or even, quite a bit of the time, the person who is assaulted is blacked out (whether it be by drinking too much, or has been slipped a mickey)... I may be wrong, but IIRC the courts have said that being incapable of providing consent is basically the same as not providing it and/or "saying no"
yes exactly, as a victim of date rape myself, neither my ability to defend myself, nor her knowledge that rape is wrong, prevented it from happening.
Had I simply not drank myself into oblivion, the whole thing would have been prevented, not that that takes away from her actions, but I do share at least some of the blame.
that is why not putting yourself in a bad situation, is also important, as is education, as is being able to defend yourself. All three of those things are necessary under the appropriate circumstances, and one will not fix all the problems. Education doesnt stop those that know better but do it anyways, self defence doesnt stop it when you cant defend yourself because you are drunk, and not getting drunk doesnt help you if you have no viable self defence tools or training to over come an aggressor when that is the only option left.
but OFC there will be people that have problems with taking a multi focused approach to all aspects of the problem,
easysauce wrote: if you knee you date in the balls, that stops the date rape much better then doing nothing, letting him rape you, and then trying to prosecute him after the fact.
you can still knee him in the balls, run, avoid being raped, and still prosecute him for attempted rape.
Okay have you ever paid any attention to how cases related to rape go? How basically your suggestion would end up with your date (who you better hope isn't on the sportsball team) slandering you to heaven and back while every aspect of your private life is combed over to find "proof" of how horrible you are and you get utterly socially ostracised and then in the end there's a high chance nothing will happen to him anyway?
This is why focusing on women's behaviour is bad, because there is so much wrong with how our society views and deals with sexual assault that it just cannot be solved by any action we can take. The only way to make a significant difference to it is to change the culture around it. We can take all the self defense classes we want, but they won't solve the problem because there are other reasons that "punch him in the balls" do not work.
Come on. You think avoiding rape is so simple and that for some reason we won't follow this one simple step, punching him in the balls, that would solve all sexual assault?
You are only going to get attacked if the attacker thinks he can overpower you. if you quickly show that is not the case the bulk of the time they'll turn tail and run(because criminals are almost exclusively cowards) and look for easier prey.
Except most sexual assault is not committed by men jumping out of bushes at night. Most sexual assault is committed by friends, acquaintances, lovers. And I don't mean friends, acquaintances or lovers jumping out of bushes at night, either.
for obvious reasons, what you are saying is offensive, judgmental, wrong, and a plethora of negative stuff that I wont list here.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: HiveFleetPlastic, I do not want to be rude or anything, but since you seem to be much more familiar with these issues than I am, maybe you could describe an actual rape/sexual assault scenario, to show more clearly how the mechanics of rape work and how self-defense will not serve ? I have read about them and got convinced, but I think I have forgotten a bit since .
You'll have to excuse Hybrid, he doesn't relate to the real world. He's secluded far away in a magic land of rainbows were everybody is a bunch of happy hippies and the power of love keeps everyone safe and warm. Their society is far more advanced then it is here on earth as they've evolved past all forms of violence and everyone just shoots happy bubbles at each other.
if the problem is that we are not telling men not to rape people, then logically, when someone in a relationship says "no stop that, you are raping me" they would stop it... yet that is not what happens in date rape cases, the rapist, despite being told to stop, continues...
hence why actually being ABLE to stop it is quite important.
Or even, quite a bit of the time, the person who is assaulted is blacked out (whether it be by drinking too much, or has been slipped a mickey)... I may be wrong, but IIRC the courts have said that being incapable of providing consent is basically the same as not providing it and/or "saying no"
yes exactly, as a victim of date rape myself, neither my ability to defend myself, nor her knowledge that rape is wrong, prevented it from happening.
Had I simply not drank myself into oblivion, the whole thing would have been prevented, not that that takes away from her actions, but I do share at least some of the blame.
Ok, to chime in on my opinion, as a victim of rape, as well as a member of the US Armed Forces who has undergone dozens of training sessions on how as a man, I am a rapist, lets just make this clear.
There is no black or white answer.
The majority of rapes/sexual assaults are date rapes. Self-Defense would in most cases never come up because the levels of booze involved just prevents it. That being said, saying that self-defense training is not an answer... is just absolutely foolish. In my case, it may have saved me from the nightmare I suffered. It may have saved the thousands of other victims. And even if not, there is never a negative to learning to defend yourself physically. As has been stated, it helps to build self confidence, it is great exercise, and it can be used in plenty of situations if ever necessary.
Learning to defend yourself will not keep you completely safe from being assaulted, but it could stop some. Teaching men to change their outlook in life will not stop all assaults from occuring, but it could stop some. So, as for the original discussion of the topic, the people attacking the women are idiots, who while being partially correct in their point, are wrong overall.
A screenshot seemingly showing that same ad posted to the Brady Campaign's Facebook page, and a photo of monitor displaying a similar image, have also been widely circulated and touted as evidence that the Brady Campaign did in fact issue the ad but withdrew it due to negative public reaction [see the images]
That'd be one hell of a photoshop to fake the image... unless someone faked that website. Which is possible.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: But then again, I come from a different culture from most users, one where people do not feel like they need to carry a gun to be safe, and I would be extremely pissed if things would worsen that much that I started needing one to feel safe. So my perspective on self-defense may be quite different.
by that logic, since you never needed a condom to feel safe, neither should we...
stanman wrote: You'll have to excuse Hybrid, he doesn't relate to the real world. He's secluded far away in a magic land of rainbows were everybody is a bunch of happy hippies and the power of love keeps everyone safe and warm. Their society is far more advanced then it is here on earth as they've evolved past all forms of violence and everyone just shoots happy bubbles at each other.
if the problem is that we are not telling men not to rape people, then logically, when someone in a relationship says "no stop that, you are raping me" they would stop it... yet that is not what happens in date rape cases, the rapist, despite being told to stop, continues...
hence why actually being ABLE to stop it is quite important.
Or even, quite a bit of the time, the person who is assaulted is blacked out (whether it be by drinking too much, or has been slipped a mickey)... I may be wrong, but IIRC the courts have said that being incapable of providing consent is basically the same as not providing it and/or "saying no"
yes exactly, as a victim of date rape myself, neither my ability to defend myself, nor her knowledge that rape is wrong, prevented it from happening.
Had I simply not drank myself into oblivion, the whole thing would have been prevented, not that that takes away from her actions, but I do share at least some of the blame.
Ok, to chime in on my opinion, as a victim of rape, as well as a member of the US Armed Forces who has undergone dozens of training sessions on how as a man, I am a rapist, lets just make this clear.
There is no black or white answer.
The majority of rapes/sexual assaults are date rapes. Self-Defense would in most cases never come up because the levels of booze involved just prevents it. That being said, saying that self-defense training is not an answer... is just absolutely foolish. In my case, it may have saved me from the nightmare I suffered. It may have saved the thousands of other victims. And even if not, there is never a negative to learning to defend yourself physically. As has been stated, it helps to build self confidence, it is great exercise, and it can be used in plenty of situations if ever necessary.
Learning to defend yourself will not keep you completely safe from being assaulted, but it could stop some. Teaching men to change their outlook in life will not stop all assaults from occuring, but it could stop some. So, as for the original discussion of the topic, the people attacking the women are idiots, who while being partially correct in their point, are wrong overall.
you hit the nail on the head DJ, self defence will only help in some cases, same with education, same with cultural solutions, and so on.
no single solution fixes everything, and its never black and white.
One important thing that people often do not know:
Self-defense courses do not only teach you how to effectively knock someone out. A big part of them is prevention aka keeping your calm, realizing a dangerous situation, being present / dominant via body language etc.
Again: things EVERYONE can make use of. Zero downsides.
easysauce wrote: by that logic, since you never needed a condom to feel safe, neither should we...
Well, I am pretty sure the situations were you would need a condom are usually much more pleasant that those where you would need self-defense. Most people try to avoid situation where they need to use self-defense. But generally, they enjoy those where they use condoms.
If you dislike so much those situations where condoms are needed, stop getting into them.
easysauce wrote: by that logic, since you never needed a condom to feel safe, neither should we...
Well, I am pretty sure the situations were you would need a condom are usually much more pleasant that those where you would need self-defense. Most people try to avoid situation where they need to use self-defense. But generally, they enjoy those where they use condoms.
If you dislike so much those situations where condoms are needed, stop getting into them.
so now victim blaming is ok? could easily rephrase your statement as "if you dont like getting raped, dont put yourself into situations where you might get raped."
lol... thats almost as crazy as you suggesting that reading supermarket prices involves calculus....
also, back in my day, we didnt have all these fancy forms of birth control like condoms, the pill, fake names, or pulling out.
easysauce wrote: if you knee you date in the balls, that stops the date rape much better then doing nothing, letting him rape you, and then trying to prosecute him after the fact.
you can still knee him in the balls, run, avoid being raped, and still prosecute him for attempted rape.
Okay have you ever paid any attention to how cases related to rape go? How basically your suggestion would end up with your date (who you better hope isn't on the sportsball team) slandering you to heaven and back while every aspect of your private life is combed over to find "proof" of how horrible you are and you get utterly socially ostracised and then in the end there's a high chance nothing will happen to him anyway?
This is why focusing on women's behaviour is bad, because there is so much wrong with how our society views and deals with sexual assault that it just cannot be solved by any action we can take. The only way to make a significant difference to it is to change the culture around it. We can take all the self defense classes we want, but they won't solve the problem because there are other reasons that "punch him in the balls" do not work.
Come on. You think avoiding rape is so simple and that for some reason we won't follow this one simple step, punching him in the balls, that would solve all sexual assault?
You are only going to get attacked if the attacker thinks he can overpower you. if you quickly show that is not the case the bulk of the time they'll turn tail and run(because criminals are almost exclusively cowards) and look for easier prey.
Except most sexual assault is not committed by men jumping out of bushes at night. Most sexual assault is committed by friends, acquaintances, lovers. And I don't mean friends, acquaintances or lovers jumping out of bushes at night, either.
for obvious reasons, what you are saying is offensive, judgmental, wrong, and a plethora of negative stuff that I wont list here.
Bullgak. You don't get to call someone offensive, judgemental and wrong and then not back your argument up. That's not even Arguments 101, that's the introductory page. Put up or stuff it, as the saying goes.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: HiveFleetPlastic, I do not want to be rude or anything, but since you seem to be much more familiar with these issues than I am, maybe you could describe an actual rape/sexual assault scenario, to show more clearly how the mechanics of rape work and how self-defense will not serve ?
I have read about them and got convinced, but I think I have forgotten a bit since .
You can read about them online if you want. There are an awful lot of them, because there are an awful lot of sexual assaults and a lot of people find sharing them helps. One common thread is they are not clearly delineated - like I said, it's usually not strangers jumping out of bushes, it's people you know in a familiar context and everything is fine until suddenly it isn't. The other thing is - rapists don't fit any particular demographic group. They aren't this particular category of sub-human monster. They're people. I wanted to pick on:
Critics said we ought better to teach men not to commit sex crimes.
This is a common thing I've been reading recently whenever anyone advises vigilance or practical advice to avoid being a victim of sexual assault. I think feminists seems to think this is some form of victim blaming and that the emphasis should be on men not to rape as opposed to women to tape steps avoid being raped. If you apply the same logic to any other crime you really see how daft it is. Telling people to lock their cars and not flash their valuables in rough areas is seen as perfectly sensible advice and is never called victim blaming.
Furthermore this idea that men 'ought better to teach men not to commit sex crimes' an incredibly naive way of looking at things. Do people really think that that rapists are simply poorly educated and if only someone had told them that it was wrong to rape then they wouldn't?
99% of men know not to rape wouldn't dream of doing so and the other 1% don't care and won't listen. No amount of well meaning lessons on consent will deter them. With that in mind a certain degree of vigilance is vital and no this is not blaming the victim.
~8.8% of college men admit in surveys to having committed rape. That's just the ones who admit it, and sexual assault is a broader term than rape. Rapists are not inhuman monsters. They're people like you.
So if I'm in college and I go to a party (and this is a nice party full of reputable students) and I have a bit to drink and I feel nice and a friend comes up and sits next to me and we talk a little, and he's sitting close next to me but we're friends so that's okay, and then he puts his arm around me in a hug and that's sweet and I'm smiling and feeling nice and not really noticing his arm is up against my breasts and then his hand goes down my pants, I'm wondering at what stage in this process do I punch him in the balls and how doing so rewinds time to make it all not have happened (and how I protect myself from retaliation by him afterwards, like when he goes around and tells everyone what a bitch I am, including possibly making up a story about how I led him on and who knows what else).
I feel creeped out even writing that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This thread is a fantastic example of what people were talking about when they criticised the comment, because all this nonsense privileges a view of sexual assault that has no basis in reality. Nobody is against women learning to be black belts. People are against the unrealistic magical view of sexual assault where rape isn't committed by people, it's committed by a special class of monster who leap at you from the bushes or otherwise attack you and if you just fight back it's all solved.
Part of improving the culture is understanding reality, and the cultural understanding of sexual assault is way out of line with that. That's why it's important to actually understand it instead of trotting out tired old nonsense that just reinforces the existing, flawed, cultural understanding.
Secondly: in your naivite, you still don't understand what proper self-defense means - as I explained above. A huge problem most of the time is intoxication the victim, be it voluntarily or not. You gotta raise awareness for that. Where? Self-defense.
Thirdly: stop victimizing yourself. I see this so often and it's shocking. In every discussion, so many women immediately go like "Society is so bad, I can't do anything!". They, they, they. The only guilty one in an actual situation is the person committing rape. Period. Does our current culture fuel sexual assaults? Yes. With internet and porn everywhere, including nastier stuff, and higher expectations, stress level etc., sexual assaults have become a bigger problem. Can you change that? Good luck.
You should try to raise your voice. Take political action. But always, always start with yourself and safe yourself. Then use that positive experience and empower others.
Fourth: The example you described is neither rape nor attempted rape, but sexual harassment.
Secondly: in your naivite, you still don't understand what proper self-defense means - as I explained above. A huge problem most of the time is intoxication the victim, be it voluntarily or not. You gotta raise awareness for that. Where? Self-defense.
Thirdly: stop victimizing yourself. I see this so often and it's shocking. In every discussion, so many women immediately go like "Society is so bad, I can't do anything!". They, they, they. The only guilty one in an actual situation is the person committing rape. Period. Does our current culture fuel sexual assaults? Yes. With internet and porn everywhere, including nastier stuff, and higher expectations, stress level etc., sexual assaults have become a bigger problem. Can you change that? Good luck.
You should try to raise your voice. Take political action. But always, always start with yourself and safe yourself. Then use that positive experience and empower others.
Fourth: The example you described is neither rape nor attempted rape, but sexual harassment.
Fourth: The example you described is neither rape nor attempted rape, but sexual harassment.
No... that is sexual assault.
Agreed... Assault in talking about sexual assault is any unwanted physical contact (doesn't have to be violent at all) harassment is anything not physical (verbal comments, hand gestures, etc)
Bullgak. You don't get to call someone offensive, judgemental and wrong and then not back your argument up. That's not even Arguments 101, that's the introductory page. Put up or stuff it, as the saying goes.
As opposed to you cutting out the part of the quote where I do just that, then complain that its no longer there?
Hive fleet just told a rape victim in his quote that I called offensive, namely myself, that they know nothing about rape or the legal process around it and proceeded to describe how the legal system treats date rape as a joke. While ignoring the fact that I was just talking about how the legal system treats date rape as a total joke... but i guess since my example was of a man it was ignored just as such cases are ignored in the real legal system. They dont even get treated like a joke, because they dont even get treated as anything. For what its worth, I think hive fleet either didnt read or read too fast through my posts, so Id give him the benifit of the doubt and assume it wasnt his intent to offend me, none the less, it was offensive to me.
I fully have admitted in this thread that most rapes are in fact not the scary guy in the bushes type, and I and others have very calmly explained that "self defense" is more then just fighting and violence... it is situational awareness and making common sense choices to mitigate your risk.
It would seem to some that even suggesting there are ways to mitigate rape, beyond telling men not to rape women (specifically men too), is to support rape culture.
Some of us just dont see it as black and white as that, and think you need to take a very multipronged avenue towards a solution.
Sorry, I'm not sure what I'm meant to be seeing here. That cites a 7% rate for college men reporting that they had attempted or committed rape. It also puts the rate of sexual assault around the same as the news story in the OP.
Doesn't seem to be anything there suggesting women need to punch people in the balls to avoid rape, though. I did enjoy this part:
White House Document wrote:And, of course, we must – and can – continue to change our nation’s attitudes about these crimes. Sexual assault is pervasive because our culture still allows it to persist. According to the experts, violence prevention can’t just focus on the perpetrators and the survivors. It has to involve everyone. And in order to put an end to this violence, we as a nation must see it for what it is: a crime. Not a misunderstanding, not a private matter, not anyone’s right or any woman’s fault. And bystanders must be taught and emboldened to step in to stop it.
I like this part of your post though:
Sigvatr wrote: The only guilty one in an actual situation is the person committing rape. Period. Does our current culture fuel sexual assaults? Yes. With internet and porn everywhere, including nastier stuff, and higher expectations, stress level etc., sexual assaults have become a bigger problem. Can you change that? Good luck.
You should try to raise your voice. Take political action. But always, always start with yourself and safe yourself. Then use that positive experience and empower others.
Good stuff. I think we have solid agreement here to the extent that I'm not sure why you seem to think you're disagreeing with me! In fact, raising my voice is what I'm doing right now.
Sigvatr wrote: Fourth: The example you described is neither rape nor attempted rape, but sexual harassment.
Well, it depends on exactly what his hand is doing. Where I live, digital penetration without consent is classified as rape. In any event, the question that created this topic was on "sexual assault" specifically, so my example was of sexual assault and not intended to necessarily be an example of rape.
In the case of the majority of sexual assaults I think that having access to pressure points and other disabling attacks would be a good idea. I'm not saying it should be the only solution but having the ability to get the friend/lover ect partially disabled or shock them might go somewhat to getting someone out of a terrible situation.
I personally think self defence training is a good idea for anyone. To me it is kind of non-sensical to think that instead of providing possible help now (through self defence) to harp on instead about some change that will take generations to take effect, like that will help anyone now. STopping the date rape side of sexual assault will take a lot of time and is very complicated and pervasive. I'm not sure "teaching men not to rape" being so broad will help tackle the issue at hand.
Hearing things like women should be able to walk alone at night always leads me to think that when I'm walking alone at night I am constantly evaluating others for potential threats (only when in a deserted place) and since I am in the highest risk group for physical assault that this is a reasonable and cautious thing to do.
I have no idea why someone is being pilloried for suggesting that others do likewise to protect themselves.
BTW is secual assault when someone religious bashes an athiest?
Both sides of this issue are being very silly. The people claiming to be outraged at her comment are being silly in pretending her comment was in any way exclusive, that her comment about promoting self defence meant that nothing else could be done. And the people claiming that she was right are just as silly, relying on this fantasy idea of rape as a man physically forcing himself on a woman, holding her down while she, lacking any self-defense course, is helpless to stop him. But most rape is built on social pressure and vague implications of danger, thinking that black belt skills are a useful response is just silly.
This is just two sides wanting to argue and doing so on the silliest terms possible. And what gets left behind is a real understanding of what rape is and how it can be prevented.
MWHistorian wrote: Both the Brady campaign and Moms Demand Action (two prominent Left Wing organizations) believe it is better to be raped than to defend yourself. I don't see how repeating what they say publicly is offensive. In Australia and Japan they even have knife control, like gun control. Limiting the means to defend oneself is the same as limiting the right. If I misunderstood their position then they should have made it clearer.
You lapped it up, believed and spread it across the internet, because despite how ridiculous it is you wanted to believe that your political opponents were awful. It's made you look like an idiot, repeating a ridiculous thing.
Any chance it'll cause you to think twice about the people that you've listened to, that served you up such nonsense? Any chance at all?
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a lot harder to get convicted of rape than many other crimes, due to the way society treats it, or rather tends to treat the victim as complicit and partly responsible.
I don't think this is true at all. This idea that rape isn't take seriously by society and that this is reflected in conviction rates seems to me to be a strawman.
What is true however is that rape is an extremely difficult crime to prosecute as is often leaves no evidence that a crime has even occurred, let alone whether the accused is the actual guilty party. How exactly can a successful prosecution be brought in such circumstances? The only solutions offered seem to be either lowering the standard of evidence required or even worse a reversal of the burden of proof, both of which are abhorrent suggestions.
I don't know about the US but in the UK the rate of convictions for cases that make it to court is well over 50%, which indicates that when appropriate evidence is present the system will deliver justice.
Except most sexual assault is not committed by men jumping out of bushes at night. Most sexual assault is committed by friends, acquaintances, lovers. And I don't mean friends, acquaintances or lovers jumping out of bushes at night, either.
If only self-defense worked against anything else but people jumping out of bushes. Damn it!
Don't forget dropping from trees. There are almost no montage training scenes in movies dealing with people (or worse, Killer Drop Bears) dropping from the trees.
Watch the Skies!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
also, back in my day, we didnt have all these fancy forms of birth control like condoms, the pill, fake names, or pulling out.
Back in my day, thats what the aforementioned cave bears were for.
Sigvatr wrote: Your naivite is shocking, to be fair, and what's worse is that terrrible victimizing yourself constantly.
What the hell are you talking about? She is not victimizing herself, she is explaining the mechanisms of sexual assault and how self-defense methods are usually not helpful against them.
That is nitpicking and bickering that ignore the fact your “appropriate data” will back off what she says just as well.
Sigvatr wrote: Thirdly: stop victimizing yourself. I see this so often and it's shocking. In every discussion, so many women immediately go like "Society is so bad, I can't do anything!".
Where did she say that? I mean, I have seen what can be mocked as “Society is bad”, but I have not seen “I cannot do anything”. Certainly she did say that being a black belt would not help in most situations. She did not, however, say that there is nothing else she could do. Or I have missed it.
Sigvatr wrote: Fourth: The example you described is neither rape nor attempted rape, but sexual harassment.
Yet more nitpicking, while the thread is about sexual assault anyway.
easysauce wrote: lol... thats almost as crazy as you suggesting that reading supermarket prices involves calculus....
You want to buy one liter of whatever. You can either buy cans of 20cl, or cans of 25cl. How do you get one liter? And should you rather take 20cl cans or 25cl cans to pay less?
That is (pretty basic) calculus.
easysauce wrote: could easily rephrase your statement as "if you dont like getting raped, dont put yourself into situations where you might get raped."
That would not be rephrasing, that would be saying entirely different. Most people use condoms to protect themselves in consensual sexual relationships to which they agreed willfully. Whereas people never willfully decide to get assaulted. Hence why the problem of whether or not people should feel the need for self-defense courses or guns in order to feel safe is very, very different from the problem of whether people should feel the need for condoms to be safe.
But then again, I am not sure your statement was meant as an argument anyway. Considering the (truncated) quote from me in your signature, I would not be surprised if that was meant as some kind of personal attack or something . A very bad one, by the way. It is not working.
Sorry, I'm not sure what I'm meant to be seeing here. That cites a 7% rate for college men reporting that they had attempted or committed rape. It also puts the rate of sexual assault around the same as the news story in the OP.
I wasn't trying to rebutt your argument
In the end, I think we're on the very same side of the line as, I assume, both of us think that sexual harassment / assaults / rape is an ever-increasing problem that is in dire need of more attention and appropriate responses. My point was merely that you should always try to use official and current data as it makes up for a strong basis of argumentation. Using studies of 1998, for example, is hardly relevant anymore because the context of growing up has changed (for the worse).
Good stuff. I think we have solid agreement here to the extent that I'm not sure why you seem to think you're disagreeing with me! In fact, raising my voice is what I'm doing right now.
Yep I highly appreciate you taking action, as long as it means really taking action - just speaking out on it on an internet forum is nothing.
I agree with you on a general point, my view is just that every approach should start on the smallest level, yourself, and then go on and raise the scale. I get an immensely positive feedback from my workshops (that I do not charge any money for btw. Empowerment and raising awareness for dangerous situations is an extremely important part of self-defense.
What the hell are you talking about? She is not victimizing herself, she is explaining the mechanisms of sexual assault and how self-defense methods are usually not helpful against them.
Incorrect. Everytime you blame something "on the society" or "the culture", you victimize yourself as you on your own cannot do anything against them on your own.
That is nitpicking and bickering that ignore the fact your “appropriate data” will back off what she says just as well.
Incorrect. This isn't nitpicking, this is showing how proper argumentation works. As detailed above.
Sigvatr wrote: Incorrect. Everytime you blame something "on the society" or "the culture", you victimize yourself as you on your own cannot do anything against them on your own.
What do you mean? Do you not agree that sometime problems actually do come from society? And how does saying so imply you cannot do anything against them on your own?
For instance, during the civic right movement, did racism not come from society, and did those that denounced it not actually did things against it nonetheless?
easysauce wrote: lol... thats almost as crazy as you suggesting that reading supermarket prices involves calculus....
You want to buy one liter of whatever. You can either buy cans of 20cl, or cans of 25cl. How do you get one liter? And should you rather take 20cl cans or 25cl cans to pay less?
That is (pretty basic) calculus.
I know English isn't your first language, so I'm not going to bust your balls over this, but that's not the kind of calculus he's talking about. Easysauce is also 100% correct. The majority of students will never, ever need to know calculus. That doesn't mean it isn't beneficial for them to learn it, but most of them will never need it.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, did I mixed calculus and calculations? Both use the same word, calcul, in French.
Really? That seems...fraught with danger. Getting Math A students (which over here is a math subject based around the simplest of maths you can find) applying for Math C subjects (the more interesting kind of maths ) because they are both called maths, would totally happen. At least at my school it would have.
Well, I guess. If I understood right what calculus mean. Actually, I am not sure there is a direct equivalent.
In America (not sure about the other countries)... we usually go Algebra, Geometry, More Algebra, Trigonometry and finally Calculus.... and from what I understand, Calculus is a big deal for people like Engineers
For business majors its Algebra1/Geometry/Algebra2 and then Business Calc(which regular calc except they teach you all the shortcuts and easy ways to solve problems) Never took or need to take Trig.
Grey Templar wrote: For business majors its Algebra1/Geometry/Algebra2 and then Business Calc(which regular calc except they teach you all the shortcuts and easy ways to solve problems) Never took or need to take Trig.
Ahh, see, I've yet to do my college maths... the path that I listed was how my High School tiered things... They may have done a "pre-calculus" in between Alg2, and trig, but since one school apparently burned my record which forced me to retake all my math from middle school i never did get that far.
Well, I guess. If I understood right what calculus mean. Actually, I am not sure there is a direct equivalent.
thats odd... in my french language, and i mean parisian, not quebecois, though I do mix both a bit just due to quebecois being taught here, and my time in france further muddied the two together... heck I have been know to randomly switch from french to spanish without realizing it too...
For me, calculus is the same word in english and french, calculate is calculer in french
Grey Templar wrote: For business majors its Algebra1/Geometry/Algebra2 and then Business Calc(which regular calc except they teach you all the shortcuts and easy ways to solve problems) Never took or need to take Trig.
Ahh, see, I've yet to do my college maths... the path that I listed was how my High School tiered things... They may have done a "pre-calculus" in between Alg2, and trig, but since one school apparently burned my record which forced me to retake all my math from middle school i never did get that far.
Truthfully, Calculus is really just algebra with some extra concepts that are super easy to understand(if you remembered your Algebra)
I learned more algebra in my Calc class than I learned in 4 years of high school and the 2 prior years of college.
easysauce wrote: thats odd... in my french language, and i mean parisian, not quebecois, though I do mix both a bit just due to quebecois being taught here, and my time in france further muddied the two together... heck I have been know to randomly switch from french to spanish without realizing it too...
For me, calculus is the same word in english and french, calculate is calculer in french
How about we use a combination of everything? Teach the men about rape and why its bad, and teach woman how to avoid getting raped and how to protect themselves.
I don't think the issue is that men are unaware that rape is bad. Rapists just don't care. It could be genuine misogyny and the belief that women are inferior and have no rights. It could be hatred or obsession with that specific women. It could be that the rapist is dumb as a rocks and wouldn't know better if you doubled his IQ. It could be heat of the moment stupidity. It could be because they believe they'll get away with it. I'll agree that men need to be made aware of how mentally and emotionally traumatic being raped is because I know many, possibly most, don't understand that at all.
Asherian Command wrote: How about we use a combination of everything? Teach the men about rape and why its bad, and teach woman how to avoid getting raped and how to protect themselves.
Asherian Command wrote: How about we use a combination of everything? Teach the men about rape and why its bad, and teach woman how to avoid getting raped and how to protect themselves.
...implying men do not know that rape is bad.
I don't think that we're debating that most men dont know that rape is bad... I think the bit that does need more education is just the extent of how "easy" it is to rape. Ie. meet cute girl at party, during party, prior to blacking out she tells dude that she "wants him"... later, she blacks out drunk, so he takes advantage of the situation. Basically, because she was drunk when she "gave consent", she didn't actual give consent... and ESPECIALLY didn't give consent when she was blacked out.
Asherian Command wrote: How about we use a combination of everything? Teach the men about rape and why its bad, and teach woman how to avoid getting raped and how to protect themselves.
...implying men do not know that rape is bad.
I don't think that we're debating that most men dont know that rape is bad... I think the bit that does need more education is just the extent of how "easy" it is to rape. Ie. meet cute girl at party, during party, prior to blacking out she tells dude that she "wants him"... later, she blacks out drunk, so he takes advantage of the situation. Basically, because she was drunk when she "gave consent", she didn't actual give consent... and ESPECIALLY didn't give consent when she was blacked out.
Which can get more complicated if the guy is also drunk.
Which ultimately gets us to the common sense warning that nobody should get that wasted. ever.
Asherian Command wrote: How about we use a combination of everything? Teach the men about rape and why its bad, and teach woman how to avoid getting raped and how to protect themselves.
...implying men do not know that rape is bad.
I don't think that we're debating that most men dont know that rape is bad... I think the bit that does need more education is just the extent of how "easy" it is to rape. Ie. meet cute girl at party, during party, prior to blacking out she tells dude that she "wants him"... later, she blacks out drunk, so he takes advantage of the situation. Basically, because she was drunk when she "gave consent", she didn't actual give consent... and ESPECIALLY didn't give consent when she was blacked out.
Basically a lot of guys get that screwed up all the bloody time. Guys need to be properly educated on all the things.
We need better sex education and also we need to know when no means no.
Because right now most men have no idea what consent is. A lot of guys think getting a girl willing drunk and when she is drunk she says, or if she is not conscious it's okay to have sex with her. :/ People don't know.
EDIT
Maybe... is this the Miss Universe one that Trumps owns just to hit on women, or the Miss World one? Because they had the Australian Miss Universe girl on TV the other night, and this tae-kwon-do girl is way hotter than that Australian girl.
Does Miss World still have points based on how much charity work they've done?
Mr. Olympia is one of the biggest bodybuilding competitions... I seem to recall there being a "Universe" title as well, but can't remember if it was for men, women, or both (and cant be arsed to look it up right now)
Trump owns the Miss Universe Organization, which puts on the annual pageants Miss Universe, Miss Teen USA, and Miss USA
Not to derail the thread too much, but isn't the Miss Universe "pageant" sort of like the Mr. Olympia is for men?
I see. I don't think so.
Miss Universe pageants is all of the Miss [INSERT COUNTRY NAME] Beauty Pageant contestants competing for Miss Universe. Like Miss America, Miss Venezuela, and Miss Europe.
Mr. Olympia a body building thingy.
I'm not aware of another body bulding thingy called Miss Universe.
You know, while we're on the subject of feminism, what does her looks have to do with the story at all? The whole "stop objectifying women" ring any bells to anyone?
Im more concerned that the feminist extremist view out there seems to be that all men are rapists in the making, and that we don't know anything else.
How the hell do you come to that conclusion? especially when you have men whom campaign against rape as well. It just says something for the sanity and intelligence of these individuals that they will keep on rolling the all men are rapists train long after all the evidence to the contrary has forced it to stop.
master of ordinance wrote: Im more concerned that the feminist extremist view out there seems to be that all men are rapists in the making, and that we don't know anything else.
master of ordinance wrote: Im more concerned that the feminist extremist view out there seems to be that all men are rapists in the making, and that we don't know anything else.
Okay, you are trolling, right?
No there is a strain of that, especially on college. Its all over the higher ed stuff.
master of ordinance wrote: Im more concerned that the feminist extremist view out there seems to be that all men are rapists in the making, and that we don't know anything else.
That finally makes sense now, it explains why I just had a giant bowl of rape flakes for breakfast and why I don't feel properly rested until I rape at least 10 people a day... all this time I never knew that just because I had a penis I was a natural born rapist. It's all so clear now.
Yes humor impaired people that's heavy sarcasm, I've never raped anyone nor even considered it, unlike what those wack jobs would contend simply because I'm male.
Well, what do you/they mean by all men are rapist in the making? Because obviously, “human are all potential rapists”, along with “humans are all potential murderers” is just logical truth (even though for most people it would take a pretty extreme situation to go from potentially to actually). But they are not something one would usually say. So, what is the reasoning this phrase is a part of? What is their actual message?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Well, what do you/they mean by all men are rapist in the making? Because obviously, “human are all potential rapists”, along with “humans are all potential murderers” is just logical truth
Who cannot think of an extreme situation where you have no other choice but to rape your attacker?
Sigvatr wrote: Who cannot think of an extreme situation where you have no other choice but to rape your attacker?
Who is speaking about an attacker?
I am pretty sure in a very, very theoretical situation involving immersion into a very different mindset and/or intoxication and/or sleep deprivation and/or a bunch of other factor that can make you act in ways very, very different from what you are currently used to, you could be led to rape some. And so could I. Happily this theoretical situation is extremely unlikely to happen.
Why does everybody seem so upset about that idea? Do you feel like people are accusing you of raping someone?
Sigvatr wrote: Who cannot think of an extreme situation where you have no other choice but to rape your attacker?
Who is speaking about an attacker?
When saying "everyone is a potential murderer", you usally refer to people in emergency situations being able to kill another human being. Not applicable to rape.
Sigvatr wrote: When saying "everyone is a potential murderer", you usally refer to people in emergency situations being able to kill another human being.
Well, I said murderer, not killer. I mean a murderer. Killing in self-defense is not murder, is it?
Beside, I never said it was the same situations that would trigger both murder and rape…
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Well, what do you/they mean by all men are rapist in the making? Because obviously, “human are all potential rapists”, along with “humans are all potential murderers” is just logical truth (even though for most people it would take a pretty extreme situation to go from potentially to actually). But they are not something one would usually say. So, what is the reasoning this phrase is a part of? What is their actual message?
It's more that, in these deluded individual's minds, ALL men already ARE rapists... we have already committed the crime, we just haven't been caught or reported yet.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Well, what do you/they mean by all men are rapist in the making? Because obviously, “human are all potential rapists”, along with “humans are all potential murderers” is just logical truth (even though for most people it would take a pretty extreme situation to go from potentially to actually). But they are not something one would usually say. So, what is the reasoning this phrase is a part of? What is their actual message?
The view is that all men are predisposed towards rape simply because they are men (of course, women can't rape, obviously. ), and that they need to be educated about it and told not to rape for them not to rape.
-Shrike- wrote: The view is that all men are predisposed towards rape simply because they are men
Really? I mean, is it not being raise in some form of rape culture that does that? Usually that is what I head feminists saying.
And, well, it is true that the culture in which we are raised have a big influence on us.
-Shrike- wrote: The view is that all men are predisposed towards rape simply because they are men
Really? I mean, is it not being raise in some form of rape culture that does that? Usually that is what I head feminists saying.
And, well, it is true that the culture in which we are raised have a big influence on us.
Well, usually the extremist feminists I've seen have said what I wrote. Some of the more normal feminists might have focussed on rape culture as a problem, but that's not what this conversation is about.
Anyone using the term "rape culture" to make a point should be considered not worth your time to begin with. Like, really. That term would refer to a culture that's focused around rape. And...come on.
Sigvatr wrote: Anyone using the term "rape culture" to make a point should be considered not worth your time to begin with. Like, really. That term would refer to a culture that's focused around rape. And...come on.
Or a culture which does not treat rape seriously enough, or views getting someone drunk enough to have sex with you as acceptable.
-Shrike- wrote: or views getting someone drunk enough to have sex with you as acceptable.
But this assumes that the female has no choice in anything. Last I checked both men and women gravitate towards bars to meet people.
Yes, they gravitate towards bars to meet people. If one (or both, but then it's really messy) of them is drunk to the point at which they can no longer give informed consent, then having sex with them is rape, and viewing that as acceptable is what I mean when I refer to rape culture.
-Shrike- wrote: or views getting someone drunk enough to have sex with you as acceptable.
But this assumes that the female has no choice in anything. Last I checked both men and women gravitate towards bars to meet people.
Yes, they gravitate towards bars to meet people. If one (or both, but then it's really messy) of them is drunk to the point at which they can no longer give informed consent, then having sex with them is rape, and viewing that as acceptable is what I mean when I refer to rape culture.
Actually here in the states, the general view (depending on location) is that as soon as alcohol enters the equation, a party cannot give consent
-Shrike- wrote: or views getting someone drunk enough to have sex with you as acceptable.
But this assumes that the female has no choice in anything. Last I checked both men and women gravitate towards bars to meet people.
Yes, they gravitate towards bars to meet people. If one (or both, but then it's really messy) of them is drunk to the point at which they can no longer give informed consent, then having sex with them is rape, and viewing that as acceptable is what I mean when I refer to rape culture.
The moral of the story is don't pick up chicks at a bar unless you too are drunk
-Shrike- wrote: or views getting someone drunk enough to have sex with you as acceptable.
But this assumes that the female has no choice in anything. Last I checked both men and women gravitate towards bars to meet people.
Yes, they gravitate towards bars to meet people. If one (or both, but then it's really messy) of them is drunk to the point at which they can no longer give informed consent, then having sex with them is rape, and viewing that as acceptable is what I mean when I refer to rape culture.
I don't know anyone who actually views that as acceptable. I know there are people who do that, but I have never heard anyone actually suggest that it was an okay thing to do.
So, if a woman gets into a club to get laid (sober) and picks up an attractive-looking guy (who had a few drinks)...how many people would think that she was guilty of raping him?
The entire thing looks way different vice versa.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: What if its the last day on earth before the aliens come?
-Shrike- wrote: or views getting someone drunk enough to have sex with you as acceptable.
But this assumes that the female has no choice in anything. Last I checked both men and women gravitate towards bars to meet people.
Yes, they gravitate towards bars to meet people. If one (or both, but then it's really messy) of them is drunk to the point at which they can no longer give informed consent, then having sex with them is rape, and viewing that as acceptable is what I mean when I refer to rape culture.
I don't know anyone who actually views that as acceptable. I know there are people who do that, but I have never heard anyone actually suggest that it was an okay thing to do.
I've had the misfortune of meeting several people who do that (except at parties, not at a bar), and then boast about it afterwards, saying stuff like "Yeah, man, everyone got totally fething wasted last night, and I got laid by this drunk I met there."
-Shrike- wrote: or views getting someone drunk enough to have sex with you as acceptable.
But this assumes that the female has no choice in anything. Last I checked both men and women gravitate towards bars to meet people.
Yes, they gravitate towards bars to meet people. If one (or both, but then it's really messy) of them is drunk to the point at which they can no longer give informed consent, then having sex with them is rape, and viewing that as acceptable is what I mean when I refer to rape culture.
I don't know anyone who actually views that as acceptable. I know there are people who do that, but I have never heard anyone actually suggest that it was an okay thing to do.
I've had the misfortune of meeting several people who do that (except at parties, not at a bar), and then boast about it afterwards, saying stuff like "Yeah, man, everyone got totally fething wasted last night, and I got laid by this drunk I met there."
And those kind of people are absolutely despicable (assuming that they're talking about taking advantage of drunk girls, and not just hooking up with drunk girls who also want to have sex), but the fact that such people exist doesn't indicate that we live in a rape culture. "Teaching" those people that rape is wrong isn't going to do anything either, because they obviously don't give a crap.
Frazzled wrote: How is that despicable (from your quote)? If they're both drunk and neither passes out (hence incapable of giving consent) how is that despicable?
I edited my post so hopefully it's clearer. I mean it's despicable if the guy is taking advantage of someone who is passed out or obviously unable to consent (that is, he's committing rape). If they both want to get drunk and have sex then whatever.
Frazzled wrote: How is that despicable (from your quote)? If they're both drunk and neither passes out (hence incapable of giving consent) how is that despicable?
I edited my post so hopefully it's clearer. I mean it's despicable if the guy is taking advantage of someone who is passed out or obviously unable to consent. If they both want to get drunk and have sex then whatever.
OK, we're on the same page and in agreement. I wasn't getting that before.
-Shrike- wrote: or views getting someone drunk enough to have sex with you as acceptable.
But this assumes that the female has no choice in anything. Last I checked both men and women gravitate towards bars to meet people.
Yes, they gravitate towards bars to meet people. If one (or both, but then it's really messy) of them is drunk to the point at which they can no longer give informed consent, then having sex with them is rape, and viewing that as acceptable is what I mean when I refer to rape culture.
I don't know anyone who actually views that as acceptable. I know there are people who do that, but I have never heard anyone actually suggest that it was an okay thing to do.
I've had the misfortune of meeting several people who do that (except at parties, not at a bar), and then boast about it afterwards, saying stuff like "Yeah, man, everyone got totally fething wasted last night, and I got laid by this drunk I met there."
And those kind of people are absolutely despicable (assuming that they're talking about taking advantage of drunk girls, and not just hooking up with drunk girls who also want to have sex), but the fact that such people exist doesn't indicate that we live in a rape culture. "Teaching" those people that rape is wrong isn't going to do anything either, because they obviously don't give a crap.
I do believe we're actually on the same page here, I'm not sure how we've ended up arguing. I've advocated for self defence to prevent the actual random assault fraction of rapes happening (if you don't believe that it happens, just take a look at India). On the other hand, that's not going to do gak about this type of rape, where one party is incapable of giving consent, for obvious reasons. Then again, there really isn't much you can do to stop this happening. :/
Also, if you can think of an alternative to rape culture to refer to this, I'll gladly start using that.
Sigvatr wrote: Anyone using the term "rape culture" to make a point should be considered not worth your time to begin with. Like, really. That term would refer to a culture that's focused around rape. And...come on.
Nope. It'd refer to a culture where the threat of rape is always present, which it is. No matter how nice a person I am a random woman that hasn't met me before isn't going to know whether I'm likely to rape her or not.
Just to use the self-defense example again, if it's only logical that women arm themselves and train to avoid putting themselves in bad situations, why is it not reasonable to treat every man as a potential rapist? I sure as hell treat random people out at night as potential robbers, and drunk people on town as potential "assaults-in-waiting", so what's the deal?
Sigvatr wrote: Anyone using the term "rape culture" to make a point should be considered not worth your time to begin with. Like, really. That term would refer to a culture that's focused around rape. And...come on.
Nope. It'd refer to a culture where the threat of rape is always present, which it is. No matter how nice a person I am a random woman that hasn't met me before isn't going to know whether I'm likely to rape her or not.
Or shoot her, or punch her in the face, or take her wallet. Same to same for any random woman.
The argument is nonsensical. Everyone is a potential threat. Jeez have you seen my wife drive? She's a rolling killing machine of (suddenly red headed) cuteness.
EDIT: Frazzled actually views the world as above, that everything is a potential threat to the family. No sane person wants to be like Frazzled - seriously.
How about we create a self defense culture? One centered on self-awareness and protection rather than accusing all men of being rapists by default (and that we need to educate them to not rape).
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: How about we create a self defense culture? One centered on self-awareness and protection rather than accusing all men of being rapists by default (and that we need to educate them to not rape).
I have a better idea. We need to create a chocolate cupcake and cakeball culture, wherein others compete to make the best ones, and I eat them.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: How about we create a self defense culture? One centered on self-awareness and protection rather than accusing all men of being rapists by default (and that we need to educate them to not rape).
I like this idea.
On the other hand, it's far too sensible to get anywhere.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: How about we create a self defense culture? One centered on self-awareness and protection rather than accusing all men of being rapists by default (and that we need to educate them to not rape).
I have a better idea. We need to create a chocolate cupcake and cakeball culture, wherein others compete to make the best ones, and I eat them.
Spoiler:
You can have your cake, and eat it too!Just don't let your guard down while you eat!
Sigvatr wrote: Anyone using the term "rape culture" to make a point should be considered not worth your time to begin with. Like, really. That term would refer to a culture that's focused around rape. And...come on.
Nope. It'd refer to a culture where the threat of rape is always present, which it is. No matter how nice a person I am a random woman that hasn't met me before isn't going to know whether I'm likely to rape her or not.
Or shoot her, or punch her in the face, or take her wallet. Same to same for any random woman.
The argument is nonsensical. Everyone is a potential threat. Jeez have you seen my wife drive? She's a rolling killing machine of (suddenly red headed) cuteness.
The difference being that society won't immediately start questioning your actions if you're robbed, assaulted, or shot. Remember Steubenville? When's the last time that sort of spin happened to someone who got mugged?
Sigvatr wrote: Anyone using the term "rape culture" to make a point should be considered not worth your time to begin with. Like, really. That term would refer to a culture that's focused around rape. And...come on.
Nope. It'd refer to a culture where the threat of rape is always present, which it is. No matter how nice a person I am a random woman that hasn't met me before isn't going to know whether I'm likely to rape her or not.
Or shoot her, or punch her in the face, or take her wallet. Same to same for any random woman.
The argument is nonsensical. Everyone is a potential threat. Jeez have you seen my wife drive? She's a rolling killing machine of (suddenly red headed) cuteness.
The difference being that society won't immediately start questioning your actions if you're robbed, assaulted, or shot. Remember Steubenville? When's the last time that sort of spin happened to someone who got mugged?
Are false robbery accusations as prevalent as false rape accusations?
Are false robbery accusations as prevalent as false rape accusations?
I used to get all uppity about fake rape claims because I met a guy that had one pulled on him, then I did a bit of reading and found they aren't that prevalent at all , they just grab headlines.
Are false robbery accusations as prevalent as false rape accusations?
I used to get all uppity about fake rape claims because I met a guy that had one pulled on him, then I did a bit of reading and found they aren't that prevalent at all , they just grab headlines.
Are false robbery accusations as prevalent as false rape accusations?
I used to get all uppity about fake rape claims because I met a guy that had one pulled on him, then I did a bit of reading and found they aren't that prevalent at all , they just grab headlines.
This (holy gak, me and Bullockist agreeing?!). The "loads of false rape claims, everywhere!" angle doesn't make much sense anyway, as illustrated by Steubenville and the multitude of cases like it society generally isn't very kind to people who report rapes. Why would anyone willingly put themselves in the line of fire, so to speak, when you're likely to be ostracized and attacked by a multitude of people you haven't even met?
I'm starting to find that people I never even realised disagreed with me apparently have a vendetta against me. First Ensis and now the walrus from the north who is almighty. It's enough to make me go and hide in my WW3 survival bunker.
Perhaps being able to agree with whembley and d-usa isn't a good thing. Obviously I mean on separate occasions.
Are false robbery accusations as prevalent as false rape accusations?
I used to get all uppity about fake rape claims because I met a guy that had one pulled on him, then I did a bit of reading and found they aren't that prevalent at all , they just grab headlines.
Yeah, from the media coverage it seems like it's really prevalent; I was truly surprised when I found out how rare a false rape accusation actually is.
Bullockist wrote: I'm starting to find that people I never even realised disagreed with me apparently have a vendetta against me. First Ensis and now the walrus from the north who is almighty. It's enough to make me go and hide in my WW3 survival bunker.
Lol, can't say for certain about the walrus (coo coo cachoo??), but I have no vendetta. I'm sure that somewhere down the line we either have agreed, or will agree on some issue Obviously we both come from different places in life (not just geographically), so we're not gonna see eye to eye on some stuff.
Are false robbery accusations as prevalent as false rape accusations?
I used to get all uppity about fake rape claims because I met a guy that had one pulled on him, then I did a bit of reading and found they aren't that prevalent at all , they just grab headlines.
Yeah, from the media coverage it seems like it's really prevalent; I was truly surprised when I found out how rare a false rape accusation actually is.
It's kind of like mass shootings in that regard. It's almost as if the media's sensationalist reporting leads people to think that things that actually happen rarely or are even happening less often are happening more and more.
Bullockist wrote: I'm starting to find that people I never even realised disagreed with me apparently have a vendetta against me. First Ensis and now the walrus from the north who is almighty. It's enough to make me go and hide in my WW3 survival bunker.
Lol, can't say for certain about the walrus (coo coo cachoo??), but I have no vendetta. I'm sure that somewhere down the line we either have agreed, or will agree on some issue Obviously we both come from different places in life (not just geographically), so we're not gonna see eye to eye on some stuff.
It's because I'm short, now your taking your vendetta to a whole new level by picking on my physical shortcomings , stay classy Ensis!
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: How about we create a self defense culture? One centered on self-awareness and protection rather than accusing all men of being rapists by default (and that we need to educate them to not rape).
I have a better idea. We need to create a chocolate cupcake and cakeball culture, wherein others compete to make the best ones, and I eat them.
Spoiler:
You can have your cake, and eat it too!Just don't let your guard down while you eat!
master of ordinance wrote: Im more concerned that the feminist extremist view out there seems to be that all men are rapists in the making, and that we don't know anything else.
It's fairly non-productive to engage with only the most extreme elements of the other side. There is a hell of a lot of feminism that is nothing like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: And those kind of people are absolutely despicable (assuming that they're talking about taking advantage of drunk girls, and not just hooking up with drunk girls who also want to have sex), but the fact that such people exist doesn't indicate that we live in a rape culture.
There isn't just one culture in a society. In fact, a single person can be exposed to many different cultures. The issue is that a rape culture can develop within one group, which will then find ways to justify and even encourage abuse.
"Teaching" those people that rape is wrong isn't going to do anything either, because they obviously don't give a crap.
No. People aren't just inherently awful. People can be made aware of toxic cultures and either exit those cultures or make changes to those cultures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Nope. It'd refer to a culture where the threat of rape is always present, which it is.
Then we also live in a murder culture and a 'asteroid striking the Earth' culture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: How about we create a self defense culture? One centered on self-awareness and protection rather than accusing all men of being rapists by default (and that we need to educate them to not rape).
See, this is the problem with the junk argument put up by both sides after the pageant winner's comments. Self defence and examination and education of culture aren't mutually exclusive. Encouraging one doesn't require abandoning the other.
And describing it as 'educating men not to rape' is reductionist nonsense. Its about examining cultural beliefs that a group can hold, which can allow or even encourage sexism, abuse and rape. If you have any doubt about how this works, go read a men's rights forum, there you'll find all kinds of beliefs about women that work to justify objectification and rape.
On the subject of false rape accusations, another thing about them that you might not know is most of the time when someone makes one they also make up an attacker rather than pointing to someone who actually exists. I'm not sure what the usual reason people tend to make them is, but it's not retribution.
A key element of the traditional social script about heterosexuality is the construction and expression of normative masculinity. The US literature on sexual coercion demonstrates a significant relationship between scoring highly on "hypermasculinity" and "hostile masculinity" scales and self-reported sexual aggression among young men (Malamuth & Dean, 1997). The sexual offending research literature also identifies the implicit theories or "world views" of offenders that inform their behaviour. Most frequently identified in this population are beliefs that: women are dangerous, powerful and vindictive; women are sexual commodities; and the offenders are entitled to sex and/or control over women (Polaschek & Gannon, 2004).
The interpersonal and situational contexts the participants described demonstrated that sexual assault took place across a range of intimate, familiar and social relationships. Although 15 incidents were perpetrated by partners and husbands, approximately 20 were perpetrated by friends, colleagues and acquaintances. In Australia, the Personal Safety Survey shows that a significant proportion of women are assaulted by family friends, colleagues, acquaintances and neighbours and that "stranger rape" represents only a small minority of all sexual assaults
(ABS, 2006).
This could be a relevant one for the thread:
Of themselves, none of the sites identified in the women's accounts of the sexual assault constituted a "risky" setting. Indeed, the activities surrounding the sexual assault were consistent with the type of setting they were in and the relationship between victim and perpetrator (e.g., friends often catch up at dinner and have a drink and a chat). The clear implication of these women's experiences is that it is difficult or impossible to expect victims to be aware of and manage risk (even in settings such as licensed premises). According to these accounts, it would have required women to: remain untrusting of male friends, despite having lived with them or shared 20 years of friendship; not network with colleagues on work trips and related functions; not let family members into their homes; not talk to friends of friends at parties, and so on. "Risk" was assessed by these women within the apparent relationship they were in and with the understanding that they were an equal within it.
If you are interested in the topic (though this isn't constrained to colleges and is an Australian report, not a US one) then it could be a good thing to read.
It's because I'm short, now your taking your vendetta to a whole new level by picking on my physical shortcomings , stay classy Ensis!
You sound like a back to me (talking rugby here), and as I play hooker, I should respond that when you're ready to play among the real men in the pack
I used to play , started out as a winger, then moved to outside centre , then inside centre, then because I was an angry young man , breakaway I was never big, I could just tackle well and was quite aggressive. My favourite thing was seeing someone huge running at me with a smile on their face and then seeing if I could dump them on their shoulders/neck - yep fair play was not my thing .
Sigvatr wrote: Anyone using the term "rape culture" to make a point should be considered not worth your time to begin with. Like, really. That term would refer to a culture that's focused around rape. And...come on.
Nope. It'd refer to a culture where the threat of rape is always present, which it is. No matter how nice a person I am a random woman that hasn't met me before isn't going to know whether I'm likely to rape her or not.
Or shoot her, or punch her in the face, or take her wallet. Same to same for any random woman.
The argument is nonsensical. Everyone is a potential threat. Jeez have you seen my wife drive? She's a rolling killing machine of (suddenly red headed) cuteness.
The difference being that society won't immediately start questioning your actions if you're robbed, assaulted, or shot. Remember Steubenville? When's the last time that sort of spin happened to someone who got mugged?
Sure it will. You shouldn't have been in that part of town, you shouldn't have been out late at night, hey what do you expect when you go to prison...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I sure as hell treat random people out at night as potential robbers, and drunk people on town as potential "assaults-in-waiting", so what's the deal?
All these examples happen in a context. If a shady, bulky guy comes towards me at night in a small alley, I get focused and on the jump. If the same guy is coming at me on an open street at full daylight, it won't matter. Drunk people on town are dangerous because they are drunk. If anyone blindly and flat-out assumes that every man might be a potential rapist, then said person might very likely be in need of psychological counceling.
The permanent feeling of being threatened is a very strong sign for a psychological disorder.
Sigvatr wrote: The permanent feeling of being threatened is a very strong sign for a psychological disorder.
If some woman who has been raped by someone she really trusted and would never have expected to do so, I would not consider that she has a psychological disorder for mistrusting any guy she meet afterward. It seems just the normal result of a very traumatic experience. And apparently, statistic points to most rape being done by someone the victim knew and would really not have expected to rape.
Sigvatr wrote: The permanent feeling of being threatened is a very strong sign for a psychological disorder.
If some woman who has been raped by someone she really trusted and would never have expected to do so, I would not consider that she has a psychological disorder for mistrusting any guy she meet afterward. It seems just the normal result of a very traumatic experience. And apparently, statistic points to most rape being done by someone the victim knew and would really not have expected to rape.
Actually, that IS almost the very reaction/definition of a particular psychological disorder: PTSD.... and PTSD is quite the "logical" affliction for a person to have, if they've been raped (or through multiple IED attacks, ambushes, or attended a Justin Bieber concert they were forced into)
Sigvatr wrote: The permanent feeling of being threatened is a very strong sign for a psychological disorder.
If some woman who has been raped by someone she really trusted and would never have expected to do so, I would not consider that she has a psychological disorder for mistrusting any guy she meet afterward. It seems just the normal result of a very traumatic experience. And apparently, statistic points to most rape being done by someone the victim knew and would really not have expected to rape.
Actually, that IS almost the very reaction/definition of a particular psychological disorder: PTSD.... and PTSD is quite the "logical" affliction for a person to have, if they've been raped (or through multiple IED attacks, ambushes, or attended a Justin Bieber concert they were forced into)
Sigvatr wrote: The permanent feeling of being threatened is a very strong sign for a psychological disorder.
If some woman who has been raped by someone she really trusted and would never have expected to do so, I would not consider that she has a psychological disorder for mistrusting any guy she meet afterward. It seems just the normal result of a very traumatic experience. And apparently, statistic points to most rape being done by someone the victim knew and would really not have expected to rape.
Actually, that IS almost the very reaction/definition of a particular psychological disorder: PTSD.... and PTSD is quite the "logical" affliction for a person to have, if they've been raped (or through multiple IED attacks, ambushes, or attended a Justin Bieber concert they were forced into)
+1.
Not to mention that you skipped context again.
PTSD is quite a serious problem and that is what most people who have been raped suffer from.
Sigvatr wrote: Not to mention that you skipped context again.
What do you mean I skipped context? I do not mean she will fear that you will rape her on the spot when she meets you, I mean she will not trust you enough to go in any situation where you might rape her.
Sigvatr wrote: Not to mention that you skipped context again.
What do you mean I skipped context? I do not mean she will fear that you will rape her on the spot when she meets you, I mean she will not trust you enough to go in any situation where you might rape her.
And if she meets an actual GOOD GUY, whether he is outright told that she's been raped or not, will pick up on this, and if he thinks she's really worth it, he'll be patient with her, and won't pressure her into any sort of situation that would put her out of comfort.
Sigvatr wrote: Not to mention that you skipped context again.
What do you mean I skipped context? I do not mean she will fear that you will rape her on the spot when she meets you, I mean she will not trust you enough to go in any situation where you might rape her.
And if she meets an actual GOOD GUY, whether he is outright told that she's been raped or not, will pick up on this, and if he thinks she's really worth it, he'll be patient with her, and won't pressure her into any sort of situation that would put her out of comfort.
Like a good human being should. They should help the person face their fears.
But yeah I am fine with Miss Nevada punch someone in the dick if they are just trying to get into her pants.
Sigvatr wrote: Not to mention that you skipped context again.
What do you mean I skipped context? I do not mean she will fear that you will rape her on the spot when she meets you, I mean she will not trust you enough to go in any situation where you might rape her.
That she was raped before. Then there's a logical reason for the fear. Before, I was referring to the comment about it okay always being in a constant feeling of threat without any proper reasoning, just assuming anyone might anytime rape you.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And if she meets an actual GOOD GUY, whether he is outright told that she's been raped or not, will pick up on this, and if he thinks she's really worth it, he'll be patient with her, and won't pressure her into any sort of situation that would put her out of comfort.
Yeah. So?
Sigvatr wrote: That she was raped before. Then there's a logical reason for the fear. Before, I was referring to the comment about it okay always being in a constant feeling of threat without any proper reasoning, just assuming anyone might anytime rape you.
What if someone very close to her was raped?
What if someone a little less close to her was raped?
Sigvatr wrote: Not to mention that you skipped context again.
What do you mean I skipped context? I do not mean she will fear that you will rape her on the spot when she meets you, I mean she will not trust you enough to go in any situation where you might rape her.
And if she meets an actual GOOD GUY, whether he is outright told that she's been raped or not, will pick up on this, and if he thinks she's really worth it, he'll be patient with her, and won't pressure her into any sort of situation that would put her out of comfort.
Like a good human being should. They should help the person face their fears.
But yeah I am fine with Miss Nevada punch someone in the dick if they are just trying to get into her pants.
Well if its Taekwondo odds are that will be a snap kick or a knee actually.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: How about we create a self defense culture? One centered on self-awareness and protection rather than accusing all men of being rapists by default (and that we need to educate them to not rape).
You actually want people to take a small measure of personal responsibility?
Noone was referring to you. We're talking empty cases here.
Being extremely cautious when running around alone after being raped is a strong context. There's a pretty legit reason for you behaving in such a way. It still is a case that needs psychological treatment - you've been through a traumatizing situation and having such an attitude isn't healthy either.
If you, however, simply assume that every man is a potential rapist, that's a whole different case. That's a deeply irritating behavior that rings all alarm bells for immediate psychologic attention.
d-usa wrote: So is everyone that carries a concealed weapon as crazy and unreasonable as feminists talking about rape culture?
Mmm...its good to see inflammatory posts added
How the hell is that post inflammatory.
for no reason.
It was added for a very good reason.
We have lots of people talking about how it is completely unreasonable to assume that every man could be a potential rapist and others who even go as far as to say that thinking anything like that is a sign of psychological imbalance.
If that is indeed the case, then anybody that carries concealed would be just as unreasonable and psychologically imbalanced because the reason we carry is that anybody is a potential attacker and we don't know who is actually going to attack or when it is actually going to happen.
Both groups (people who carry and women who don't want to be raped, and often that is the same group) operate on the same principle: Anybody could be a potential harm. Be aware, be prepared, don't put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation, and be ready to defend yourself if you have to. Don't assume that you are safe and let your guard down.
Sigvatr wrote: If you, however, simply assume that every man is a potential rapist, that's a whole different case. That's a deeply irritating behavior that rings all alarm bells for immediate psychologic attention.
No. No, because you have no real reason to believe otherwise, do you?
Sure, it is going to be irritating to you if you want to be with this woman and she does not want to because of this. But it is just being cautious.
And no, you do not need to be running alone to be raped. You are statistically less likely to be running alone when you get raped. So, really, what you propose is not in any way more reasonable.
Asherian Command wrote: But yeah I am fine with Miss Nevada punch someone in the dick if they are just trying to get into her pants.
It'd probably be far more aggressive then that As part of the black belt form for 1st dan (degree) there's a movement referred to as monkey steals peach, which is literally grabbing hold with a crushing fist, twisting, then ripping the guys balls off. Which would tend to deter somebody real fast.
She's 4th dan so there's quite a bit more they teach beyond that.
paulson games wrote: As part of the black belt form for 1st dan (degree) there's a movement referred to as monkey steals peach, which is literally grabbing hold with a crushing fist, twisting, then ripping the guys balls off. Which would tend to deter somebody real fast.
Yeah. Keep in mind most rapes come from family or friends. People you might actually give a second thought about ripping out the balls off. That is the whole problem, and why so many people are arguing that self-defense is usually not the right answer, as far as I understand it.
paulson games wrote: As part of the black belt form for 1st dan (degree) there's a movement referred to as monkey steals peach, which is literally grabbing hold with a crushing fist, twisting, then ripping the guys balls off. Which would tend to deter somebody real fast.
Yeah. Keep in mind most rapes come from family or friends. People you might actually give a second thought about ripping out the balls off. That is the whole problem, and why so many people are arguing that self-defense is usually not the right answer, as far as I understand it.
Huh?
So the chicks should just let it happen simply because they know their attackers?
Dafuq?
Here, my apparent blood-thirsty mindset is kicking in... RIP THEIR BALLS OFF and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, especiallyif the attacker is known.
A family member or somebody close trying to rape, murder, or harm somebody should be treated no differently then any other criminal as they're obviously violating every level of trust and IMO they should be treated with every bit of pain or genital mutilation they are deserving of.
Dad or boyfriend tries to rape you? IMO that's an even worse violation of trust then if a stranger attacks you.
Sigvatr wrote: If you, however, simply assume that every man is a potential rapist, that's a whole different case. That's a deeply irritating behavior that rings all alarm bells for immediate psychologic attention.
No. No, because you have no real reason to believe otherwise, do you?
Yes, common sense. Assuming every man to be a rapist is as irrational as any behavior can be if coming out of the blue.
Why does that matter? You are entitled to self defense even against relatives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
paulson games wrote: A family member or somebody close trying to rape, murder, or harm somebody should be treated no differently then any other criminal as they're obviously violating every level of trust and IMO they should be treated with every bit of pain or genital mutilation they are deserving of.
Dad or boyfriend tries to rape you? IMO that's an even worse violation of trust then if a stranger attacks you.
Anyone that tries should be subject to:
What Paulsen said, although the first pic looks like ninja is trying some inappropriate ticklage there!
Just to be careful though: stealing the peach (or anything similar...like really.) is to be used carefully. If you just feel like the other person might harass you without him / her actually trying to physically overcome you and you use such a move, you're in for heavy bodily injury and are looking forward to a long time in prison along with paying injury award for the rest of your life with whatever job you might find with such a criminal record.
Okay, let me just quote HiveFleetPlastic to get an idea of how an hypothetical rape can take place.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: So if I'm in college and I go to a party (and this is a nice party full of reputable students) and I have a bit to drink and I feel nice and a friend comes up and sits next to me and we talk a little, and he's sitting close next to me but we're friends so that's okay, and then he puts his arm around me in a hug and that's sweet and I'm smiling and feeling nice and not really noticing his arm is up against my breasts and then his hand goes down my pants, I'm wondering at what stage in this process do I punch him in the balls and how doing so rewinds time to make it all not have happened (and how I protect myself from retaliation by him afterwards, like when he goes around and tells everyone what a bitch I am, including possibly making up a story about how I led him on and who knows what else).
I feel creeped out even writing that.
At which point do you rip the guy's ball off, and how do you explain to the other people around you why you have his balls in your hand and is pissing blood on the carpet.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, let me just quote HiveFleetPlastic to get an idea of how an hypothetical rape can take place.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: So if I'm in college and I go to a party (and this is a nice party full of reputable students) and I have a bit to drink and I feel nice and a friend comes up and sits next to me and we talk a little, and he's sitting close next to me but we're friends so that's okay, and then he puts his arm around me in a hug and that's sweet and I'm smiling and feeling nice and not really noticing his arm is up against my breasts and then his hand goes down my pants, I'm wondering at what stage in this process do I punch him in the balls and how doing so rewinds time to make it all not have happened (and how I protect myself from retaliation by him afterwards, like when he goes around and tells everyone what a bitch I am, including possibly making up a story about how I led him on and who knows what else).
I feel creeped out even writing that.
At which point do you rip the guy's ball off, and how do you explain to the other people around you why you have his balls in your hand and is pissing blood on the carpet.
Sigvatr wrote: Yes, common sense. Assuming every man to be a rapist is as irrational as any behavior can be if coming out of the blue.
Assuming any man could be a rapist and you have no way to know beforehand is pretty damn rational if somebody you really had no way of guessing that he was a rapist has raped you. Or someone close to you. Or someone not so close to you.
Therefore, assuming any man could be a rapist, and taking appropriate protection is not that irrational.
Sigvatr wrote: Just to be careful though: stealing the peach (or anything similar...like really.) is to be used carefully. If you just feel like the other person might harass you without him / her actually trying to physically overcome you and you use such a move, you're in for heavy bodily injury and are looking forward to a long time in prison along with paying injury award for the rest of your life with whatever job you might find with such a criminal record.
That's the beauty of proper training in self defense, they teach you a variety of stuff from simple punches that can be used a "feth-off" type warning all the way up to lethal techniques (at higher levels). One of the key things they teach is how to gauge situations before they ever arise. Despite having a 2nd dan I've walked away from far more fights then I ever did prior to training, those that I did commit to usually meant there was no alternative and people got seriously fethed up for pushing it. As I'd mentioned before a huge portion of the women's defense courses that we taught was focused on situational awareness which helps avoid conflict to begin with, it's not all about ripping of balls or tearing out eyes, although that sure as hell can come in handy when pressed.
Sigvatr wrote: Yes, common sense. Assuming every man to be a rapist is as irrational as any behavior can be if coming out of the blue.
Assuming any man could be a rapist and you have no way to know beforehand is pretty damn rational if somebody you really had no way of guessing that he was a rapist has raped you. Or someone close to you. Or someone not so close to you.
Oh come on, you even quoted my post.
Sigvatr wrote: Yes, common sense. Assuming every man to be a rapist is as irrational as any behavior can be if coming out of the blue.
That's the beauty of proper training in self defense, they teach you a variety of stuff from simple punches that can be used a feth off warning all the way up to lethal techniques (at higher levels). One of the key things they teach is how to gauge situations before they ever arise. Despite having a 2nd dan I've walked away from far more fights then I ever did prior to training, those that I did commit to usually meant there was not alternative and people got seriously fethed up for pushing it. As I'd mentioned before a huge portion of the women's defense courses that we taught was focused on situational awareness which helps avoid conflict to begin with, it's not all about ripping of balls or tearing out eyes, although that sure as hell can come in handy when pressed.
Precisely, exalted. I've been teaching self-defense for quite a few years now
It's something a lot of people, including at least one in this very thread, simply do not (want to) understand: self-defense isn't KIYAHAAAA BALLS OFF. It's so much more.
I mean, even at the most basic level self defense involves learning how to stay calm, and how to analyse a situation. That's just damn useful stuff, it doesn't mean you're going to rip the bollocks off your boyfriend.
Sorry, what do you mean here?
Here is what Wiktionary says about this expression :
“unexpectedly; without warning or preparation”.
What kind of warning or preparation did you meant?
Sorry, what do you mean here?
Here is what Wiktionary says about this expression :
“unexpectedly; without warning or preparation”.
What kind of warning or preparation did you meant?
And in this context, it is used to mean that there is no trigger for such behaviour, no traumatic event has occurred to the person in question.
Well, even without living the traumatic event yourself, just having someone close to you live it could be enough. Or, to a lesser degree, having read a lot of testimony of strangers having lived through them. I mentioned that in my previous comments.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, let me just quote HiveFleetPlastic to get an idea of how an hypothetical rape can take place.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: So if I'm in college and I go to a party (and this is a nice party full of reputable students) and I have a bit to drink and I feel nice and a friend comes up and sits next to me and we talk a little, and he's sitting close next to me but we're friends so that's okay, and then he puts his arm around me in a hug and that's sweet and I'm smiling and feeling nice and not really noticing his arm is up against my breasts and then his hand goes down my pants, I'm wondering at what stage in this process do I punch him in the balls and how doing so rewinds time to make it all not have happened (and how I protect myself from retaliation by him afterwards, like when he goes around and tells everyone what a bitch I am, including possibly making up a story about how I led him on and who knows what else).
I feel creeped out even writing that.
At which point do you rip the guy's ball off, and how do you explain to the other people around you why you have his balls in your hand and is pissing blood on the carpet.
That's a question that they address in women's defense courses, it may seem surprising but a lot of women don't actually know where to draw a line when they entering into a situation where rape can occur. The actual notion that they can be raped doesn't even occur to some women (particularly teenagers and college students). There's many times where younger girls in our classes were completely clueless about such dangers and their responses were to the effect of "people/men would actually do stuff like that?" particuarly when talking about the dangers posed by parties and drinking/drugging.
It also teaches them to be calm and confident, which gives them the mindset to be forceful in protesting such advances. Even if it's a sharp NO! it can often deter less forceful attempts at rape, not all date rape is the result the guy going bat gak crazy and overpowering the girl, many times it happens because she's intimidated and doesn't know how to respond.
If things go beyond that then she can respond in kind with increasing levels of protest and apply defense techniques if he doesn't back off.
Hostile intent in other people is not that hard to figure out when you've had the presence of mind to study and prepare for such things in advance, as you know what warning signs to look for.
The largest asset that defense courses offer is awareness, which is invaluable in combating rape. Awareness to the threat, understanding what it is, and educating others in ways to help stop it before it occurs. The combat defense methods are a secondary aspect, 90% of defense training is all mental.
I think that a lot of the women that were so up in arms about Miss Nevada's comment have severe misconceptions about what women's defense courses are about as based on their statements they certainly haven't attended any. Being that they claim they want to help empower other women I think they'd find it helpful to know those things. ::Shrug::
Sigvatr wrote: Man, that would be totally out of the blue then!
So, just to recapitulate. When some traumatic event has happened to you, it is not out of the blue. When some traumatic event has happened to someone you know, it is not out of the blue. When some traumatic event has happened to some people you do not personally know, but you have read about their experience, it is either not out of the blue, or you just conveniently left that out when quoting me. I guess that it is only out of the blue if you have never ever heard about rape in your whole life or something, then.
If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
-Shrike- wrote: If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
Precisely. If reading a newspaper article about someone getting shiv'd at night, am I suddenly supposed to become all angsty and assume that everyone is a potential attacker armed with a shiv? Come on.
-Shrike- wrote: If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
Precisely. If reading a newspaper article about someone getting shiv'd at night, am I suddenly supposed to become all angsty and assume that everyone is a potential attacker armed with a shiv? Come on.
Yes. Come on man aren't you an inquisitor? Anybody might be a heretic!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, let me just quote HiveFleetPlastic to get an idea of how an hypothetical rape can take place.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: So if I'm in college and I go to a party (and this is a nice party full of reputable students) and I have a bit to drink and I feel nice and a friend comes up and sits next to me and we talk a little, and he's sitting close next to me but we're friends so that's okay, and then he puts his arm around me in a hug and that's sweet and I'm smiling and feeling nice and not really noticing his arm is up against my breasts and then his hand goes down my pants, I'm wondering at what stage in this process do I punch him in the balls and how doing so rewinds time to make it all not have happened (and how I protect myself from retaliation by him afterwards, like when he goes around and tells everyone what a bitch I am, including possibly making up a story about how I led him on and who knows what else).
I feel creeped out even writing that.
At which point do you rip the guy's ball off, and how do you explain to the other people around you why you have his balls in your hand and is pissing blood on the carpet.
At what point do you feel uncomfortable because of his actions?
At what point have you told him to stop because you are not comfortable?
At what point have you attempted to prevent him form taking further action (backing away, trying to move his hand from the area in question, etc.)?
At what point have you taken reasonable steps to get him to stop his course of action and due to his pressing the matter further action is warranted?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Why does that matter? You are entitled to self defense even against relatives.
I know people who have defended themselves against people they know. Familiarity does not mean you cannot say no, nor defend yourself.
-Shrike- wrote: If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
Precisely. If reading a newspaper article about someone getting shiv'd at night, am I suddenly supposed to become all angsty and assume that everyone is a potential attacker armed with a shiv? Come on.
Yes. Come on man aren't you an inquisitor? Anybody might be a heretic!
Hold on for a second, I'll get my pitchfork and burning torches ready!
-Shrike- wrote: If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
Precisely. If reading a newspaper article about someone getting shiv'd at night, am I suddenly supposed to become all angsty and assume that everyone is a potential attacker armed with a shiv? Come on.
Yes. Come on man aren't you an inquisitor? Everybody is a heretic!
-Shrike- wrote: If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
Precisely. If reading a newspaper article about someone getting shiv'd at night, am I suddenly supposed to become all angsty and assume that everyone is a potential attacker armed with a shiv? Come on.
Yes. Come on man aren't you an inquisitor? Everybody is a heretic!
-Shrike- wrote: If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
Precisely. If reading a newspaper article about someone getting shiv'd at night, am I suddenly supposed to become all angsty and assume that everyone is a potential attacker armed with a shiv? Come on.
Yes. Come on man aren't you an inquisitor? Everybody is a heretic!
Fixed that for you.
How'd you figure out my secret *reveals a mark of tzeentch*
What are you? Undivided, minor god, Slaanesh, Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch, or maybe one of those genestealer cults?
(apologies for the slight derail. It just seemed fitting at the time)
Sigvatr wrote: I agree. The line between it happening to someone close to you and reading about it on the internet certainly is fine and blurry.
So your idea is to just dismiss the testimony as “Hey, it is never going to happen to me, right? This only ever happens to other people”. And statistics be damned too.
-Shrike- wrote: If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
Do you see a difference between considering every man could be a rapist, and considering every man is a rapist?
We have lots of people talking about how it is completely unreasonable to assume that every man could be a potential rapist and others who even go as far as to say that thinking anything like that is a sign of psychological imbalance.
If that is indeed the case, then anybody that carries concealed would be just as unreasonable and psychologically imbalanced because the reason we carry is that anybody is a potential attacker and we don't know who is actually going to attack or when it is actually going to happen.
Both groups (people who carry and women who don't want to be raped, and often that is the same group) operate on the same principle: Anybody could be a potential harm. Be aware, be prepared, don't put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation, and be ready to defend yourself if you have to. Don't assume that you are safe and let your guard down.
The difference as I see it is that the majority of gun owners that I have interacted with do not see every other human being as a threat. Instead they know that the vast majority of people don't harbor ill intent, but that there is a small minority that do and that there may be the need to defend yourself. What this means is that you don't live your life in fear of other people, you are instead judge a threat based on actions. In a similar vein that would shift the focus from all men are potential rapists to being wary of the guy who has been following you for three blocks, keeping a steady pace a short distance behind you, and who crosses the street every time that you do, even when unnecessarily.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: What this means is that you don't live your life in fear of other people, you are instead judge a threat based on actions. In a similar vein that would shift the focus from all men are potential rapists to being wary of the guy who has been following you for three blocks, keeping a steady pace a short distance behind you, and who crosses the street every time that you do, even when unnecessarily.
That is exactly the problem. If you do that, you are ignoring people that are statistically the most likely to rape you. How stupid is that?
We have lots of people talking about how it is completely unreasonable to assume that every man could be a potential rapist and others who even go as far as to say that thinking anything like that is a sign of psychological imbalance.
If that is indeed the case, then anybody that carries concealed would be just as unreasonable and psychologically imbalanced because the reason we carry is that anybody is a potential attacker and we don't know who is actually going to attack or when it is actually going to happen.
Both groups (people who carry and women who don't want to be raped, and often that is the same group) operate on the same principle: Anybody could be a potential harm. Be aware, be prepared, don't put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation, and be ready to defend yourself if you have to. Don't assume that you are safe and let your guard down.
The difference as I see it is that the majority of gun owners that I have interacted with do not see every other human being as a threat. Instead they know that the vast majority of people don't harbor ill intent, but that there is a small minority that do and that there may be the need to defend yourself. What this means is that you don't live your life in fear of other people, you are instead judge a threat based on actions. In a similar vein that would shift the focus from all men are potential rapists to being wary of the guy who has been following you for three blocks, keeping a steady pace a short distance behind you, and who crosses the street every time that you do, even when unnecessarily.
You are correct.
I think if someone saw another person getting raped by a guy, they would just walk past. (I.E. The Bystander Effect)
The problem is people ignore things like that. They just walk on by. There are the oddities who say. "NO I AM STANDING UP FOR THAT WOMAN."
So your idea is to just dismiss the testimony as “Hey, it is never going to happen to me, right? This only ever happens to other people”. And statistics be damned too.
So your idea is to just dismiss the testimony as “Hey, it is never going to happen to me, right? This only ever happens to other people”. And statistics be damned too.
Sigvatr wrote: I agree. The line between it happening to someone close to you and reading about it on the internet certainly is fine and blurry.
So your idea is to just dismiss the testimony as “Hey, it is never going to happen to me, right? This only ever happens to other people”. And statistics be damned too.
I'd like to see those damned statistics then.
-Shrike- wrote: If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
Do you see a difference between considering every man could be a rapist, and considering every man is a rapist?
Yes. The latter indicates a serious mental problem, and the former is a waste of neurones, because every man could also be a robber, or murderer.
So your idea is to just dismiss the testimony as “Hey, it is never going to happen to me, right? This only ever happens to other people”. And statistics be damned too.
What was that statistic again? Oh, it is here. Apparently, “nearly 1 in 5 women – or nearly 22 million – have been raped in their lifetimes”, and “One study found that 7% of college men admitted to committing rape or attempted rape”
So, if about one out of 14 college men are rapists, are you going to just assume those you know are not? Maybe because they are nice guys, and you know them, and they would not do that… oh yeah, I forgot the testimonies showed that meant nothing .
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What was that statistic again? Oh, it is here. Apparently, “nearly 1 in 5 women – or nearly 22 million – have been raped in their lifetimes”, and “One study found that 7% of college men admitted to committing rape or attempted rape”
So, if about one out of 14 college men are rapists, are you going to just assume those you know are not? Maybe because they are nice guys, and you know them, and they would not do that… oh yeah, I forgot the testimonies showed that meant nothing .
Well, It really matters on the guy. What do they look like.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What was that statistic again? Oh, it is here. Apparently, “nearly 1 in 5 women – or nearly 22 million – have been raped in their lifetimes”, and “One study found that 7% of college men admitted to committing rape or attempted rape” So, if about one out of 14 college men are rapists, are you going to just assume those you know are not? Maybe because they are nice guys, and you know them, and they would not do that… oh yeah, I forgot the testimonies showed that meant nothing .
Holy cow, you really are one hell of a one-minded person. Like...damn. Or baiting.
Context. As usual. You're not (willingly?) seeing it. Guess why students rank so high on the non-completely-willingly-sex scale? Because they tend to get wasted. A lot.
Now...if only there was a way to avoid getting wasted. If only. Science, where art thou?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, let me just quote HiveFleetPlastic to get an idea of how an hypothetical rape can take place.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: So if I'm in college and I go to a party (and this is a nice party full of reputable students) and I have a bit to drink and I feel nice and a friend comes up and sits next to me and we talk a little, and he's sitting close next to me but we're friends so that's okay, and then he puts his arm around me in a hug and that's sweet and I'm smiling and feeling nice and not really noticing his arm is up against my breasts and then his hand goes down my pants, I'm wondering at what stage in this process do I punch him in the balls and how doing so rewinds time to make it all not have happened (and how I protect myself from retaliation by him afterwards, like when he goes around and tells everyone what a bitch I am, including possibly making up a story about how I led him on and who knows what else).
I feel creeped out even writing that.
At which point do you rip the guy's ball off, and how do you explain to the other people around you why you have his balls in your hand and is pissing blood on the carpet.
As a Dad I'd say the moment he sits next to you.
"Nuke the boy from orbit, its the only way to be sure."
-Frazzled to his daughter on the subject of boys.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, let me just quote HiveFleetPlastic to get an idea of how an hypothetical rape can take place.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: So if I'm in college and I go to a party (and this is a nice party full of reputable students) and I have a bit to drink and I feel nice and a friend comes up and sits next to me and we talk a little, and he's sitting close next to me but we're friends so that's okay, and then he puts his arm around me in a hug and that's sweet and I'm smiling and feeling nice and not really noticing his arm is up against my breasts and then his hand goes down my pants, I'm wondering at what stage in this process do I punch him in the balls and how doing so rewinds time to make it all not have happened (and how I protect myself from retaliation by him afterwards, like when he goes around and tells everyone what a bitch I am, including possibly making up a story about how I led him on and who knows what else).
I feel creeped out even writing that.
At which point do you rip the guy's ball off, and how do you explain to the other people around you why you have his balls in your hand and is pissing blood on the carpet.
As a Dad I'd say the moment he sits next to you.
"Nuke the boy from orbit, its the only way to be sure."
-Frazzled to his daughter on the subject of boys.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: What this means is that you don't live your life in fear of other people, you are instead judge a threat based on actions. In a similar vein that would shift the focus from all men are potential rapists to being wary of the guy who has been following you for three blocks, keeping a steady pace a short distance behind you, and who crosses the street every time that you do, even when unnecessarily.
That is exactly the problem. If you do that, you are ignoring people that are statistically the most likely to rape you. How stupid is that?
You seem to have taken my example and ignored the point that the example was being made in relation to. Allow me to restate it - instead judge a threat based on actions
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, let me just quote HiveFleetPlastic to get an idea of how an hypothetical rape can take place.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: So if I'm in college and I go to a party (and this is a nice party full of reputable students) and I have a bit to drink and I feel nice and a friend comes up and sits next to me and we talk a little, and he's sitting close next to me but we're friends so that's okay, and then he puts his arm around me in a hug and that's sweet and I'm smiling and feeling nice and not really noticing his arm is up against my breasts and then his hand goes down my pants, I'm wondering at what stage in this process do I punch him in the balls and how doing so rewinds time to make it all not have happened (and how I protect myself from retaliation by him afterwards, like when he goes around and tells everyone what a bitch I am, including possibly making up a story about how I led him on and who knows what else).
I feel creeped out even writing that.
At which point do you rip the guy's ball off, and how do you explain to the other people around you why you have his balls in your hand and is pissing blood on the carpet.
As a Dad I'd say the moment he sits next to you.
"Nuke the boy from orbit, its the only way to be sure."
-Frazzled to his daughter on the subject of boys.
May I take this from your vast wisdom Frazzled?
Go ahead. Now the actual quote is more better paraphrased as this.
"I don't care who you date but if they with you you them up and then call us (me and mom) and we'll them up some more. "
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, let me just quote HiveFleetPlastic to get an idea of how an hypothetical rape can take place.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: So if I'm in college and I go to a party (and this is a nice party full of reputable students) and I have a bit to drink and I feel nice and a friend comes up and sits next to me and we talk a little, and he's sitting close next to me but we're friends so that's okay, and then he puts his arm around me in a hug and that's sweet and I'm smiling and feeling nice and not really noticing his arm is up against my breasts and then his hand goes down my pants, I'm wondering at what stage in this process do I punch him in the balls and how doing so rewinds time to make it all not have happened (and how I protect myself from retaliation by him afterwards, like when he goes around and tells everyone what a bitch I am, including possibly making up a story about how I led him on and who knows what else).
I feel creeped out even writing that.
At which point do you rip the guy's ball off, and how do you explain to the other people around you why you have his balls in your hand and is pissing blood on the carpet.
As a Dad I'd say the moment he sits next to you.
"Nuke the boy from orbit, its the only way to be sure." -Frazzled to his daughter on the subject of boys.
May I take this from your vast wisdom Frazzled?
Go ahead. Now the actual quote is more better paraphrased as this.
"I don't care who you date but if they with you you them up and then call us (me and mom) and we'll them up some more. "
Grey Templar wrote: Frazz is part of the "Boy must be willing to go through Hell to get you; I am Hell" dating school of thought.
Yes but non gender specific. For the record I wasn't cleaning a shotgun when I met the first person I thought she was dating. I was cleaning a table full of pistols.
-Shrike- wrote: If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
Do you see a difference between considering every man could be a rapist, and considering every man is a rapist?
Yes, most of us do. However there is an extremist minority that sees every man as a potential rapist, reality be damned. These are also the minority that believe that all men are dirty pigs, so, you know.....
-Shrike- wrote: If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
Do you see a difference between considering every man could be a rapist, and considering every man is a rapist?
Yes, most of us do. However there is an extremist minority that sees every man as a potential rapist, reality be damned. These are also the minority that believe that all men are dirty pigs, so, you know.....
-Shrike- wrote: If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
Do you see a difference between considering every man could be a rapist, and considering every man is a rapist?
Yes, most of us do. However there is an extremist minority that sees every man as a potential rapist, reality be damned.
Is “every man could be a rapist” the same thing as “every man is a potential rapist”, as opposed to “every man is a rapist”?
-Shrike- wrote: If you go about your life considering every man to be a rapist just because you read some testimonies, you have some serious mental problems. Which I believe might have been the original point.
Do you see a difference between considering every man could be a rapist, and considering every man is a rapist?
Yes, most of us do. However there is an extremist minority that sees every man as a potential rapist, reality be damned.
Is “every man could be a rapist” the same thing as “every man is a potential rapist”, as opposed to “every man is a rapist”?
R is that she said as a black belt she felt confident in fending off college sexual assaults and thought other women should be encouraged along the same lines.
.
.
I'm still not a fan of the Brady Campaign. 
I met there."
