NationStates Jolt Archive

It's the old Mike Tyson argument. "She went up to his room, what do you think he was expecting?" Little note to some of you out there, most men do not think all women are whore who just can't be alone with us without stripping down and doing the horizontal tango. Most women, rightfully so, think it should be reasonable to be alone with a man and expect to be safe from harm whether or not she is interested in sex.

again, he was to blame, but come on! Would you go up to a room alone with little miky? Hell i would not. He was not exactly known for his soft and cuddly was he?

Unfortunately... it seems to be popular on the forum, at the moment, for people to try to defend the Mike Tyson mentality.... :(

your right there.... :mad:

ok lets see. she'd known him for a week? Curious, was she seeing him everyday? (i don't know). If not, yes, should not have been that stupid. AGAIN, its not her fault, those bastards did what they did.

From what I understand they had seen these boys ever night and often during the day as well.

You know no-one thats been raped? interesting, i know no-one harmed by drugs, yet a few that have been attacked.

I didn't say no one that's been raped. I said not in this type of situation. My ex-girlfriend was raped by her boyfriend after they'd been dating for a year. My cousin was raped by a boy she'd literally been going to school with for ten years. He hit her in the head and sodomized her with a tree branch. I personally was victimized by a female babysitter who my parents had seen born. My father had gone to school with her mother. I know no one who has been victimized by someone they met that night or even very recently. That holds with the statistics related to this type of crime.

Also, some stats, provided earlier by someone, said that most rapes were committed by people they know and acquaintances (sp?). Would he not be an acquaintance?

If you look at more defined stats, typically murder, rape and sexual assualt victimizers have known the victim for more time than in this situation.

again, he was to blame, but come on! Would you go up to a room alone with little miky? Hell i would not. He was not exactly known for his soft and cuddly was he?

Maybe she thought she was safe... after all... his reputation usually only involves biting ears off, etc... IN the ring...

Jocabia, please don't think that I blame her, as i have repeatedly said it was their fault.
But had she followed the points i'd made earlier, this would not have happened. A drunk women should not go off with several drunk men she barely knows. Someone pointed out that people do stupid things when their drunk. Yes they do. And remember, men that respect women and see them as equals make up an extreme minority in this world unfortunately.

again, he was to blame, but come on! Would you go up to a room alone with little miky? Hell i would not. He was not exactly known for his soft and cuddly was he?

Mike Tyson was different, of course. Mike Tyson was well-known for sexual assaulting and generally assualting women. I actually know a woman that Mike Tyson grabbed will walking down a hallway at NBC. She was walking in one direction and he was walking in the other and he just reached out and grabbed her breast and kept walking. She was pursuaded by the network not to file charges (read paid and threatened). This was not the case with this case in Aruba. There is and was no evidence that these boys have a history of sexual abuse and certainly not murder.

Also, in the case of Mike Tyson, it's likely she was enamored with his celebrity and let that cloud her judgement. That also does not appear to be the case here.

The point is that in the Mike Tyson case there is no evidence that she intended to go up and have sex with Mr. Tyson. People just like to make the assumption that it's completely reasonable to 'expect' sex when a woman goes into an enclosed space alone with a man (car, hotel, house, etc.). That is generally not the case with both the man and the woman.

Maybe she thought she was safe... after all... his reputation usually only involves biting ears off, etc... IN the ring...

:rolleyes: ahhh that's different then :rolleyes:

Maybe she thought she was safe... after all... his reputation usually only involves biting ears off, etc... IN the ring...

Actually, I believe the ear incident happened after he did time for this. But he was well-known for abusing his wife and for attacking women fairly frequently.

question to Grave_n_idle and Jacobia.

How far would you trust people in the same situation.
You'd know someone for a few days and will be going home in a day or 2.
Would you...

1. lend them money, say... $100/80€
2. put yourself in the situation N.H. did.
3. let girlfriend/sister to go off with them while you go home
4. trust them driving your car

question to Grave_n_idle and Jacobia.

How far would you trust people in the same situation.
You'd know someone for a few days and will be going home in a day or 2.
Would you...

1. lend them money, say... $100/80€
2. put yourself in the situation N.H. did.
3. let girlfriend/sister to go off with them while you go home
4. trust them driving your car
1. The money thing would depend on information I don't have.
2. Yes, I would have went with them.
3. I would have went with my friend/sister
4. If they were sober and covered by my insurance, absolutely.

She was a teenager..You don't send your teenage daughter to Aruba. I still think it was her parents who made the initial mistake here. Her family is from Alabama. Last I checked, things in Alabama aren't very different from things in Georgia. Most parents I know would think twice about sending a teenager off with a large group to another country -- at least for a graduation party.

Honestly, what were her parents thinking?

A. They weren't strangers. She'd known them for a week. She'd met their friends and families.Proof?

Proof?
I don't see the relevance of this being true or not. Knowing someone for a week is hardly "knowing someone" in my most humble opinon.

this thread keeps on making me think of a repeating theme from the ...way way long ago...

The situation where someone takes some pills (ecstacy, speed, etc..), normally nothing bad happens, but [insert name] had a bad reaction to it tonight a died.
Who's fault is it?

1. the dealer? yes, selling illegal drugs, tut, tut...
2. [insert name]? yes, maybe he/she has taken it before, but its known to be dangerous.
3. friends? depends on whether they were involved or not.

If someone takes a drug that millions of people take, yet can be potentially harmful, then they are not blameless if something happens.

But then again, she might have left a very nice sheltered existance, and expected only kindness and friendship from strangers. Who knows? :confused:
If You take xtacy/speed...anything that happens to you that nite IS YOUR FAULT.

dont go crying to CNN...dont send your momy to cry at CNN...
cos its all your Fault.

She was a teenager..You don't send your teenage daughter to Aruba. I still think it was her parents who made the initial mistake here. Her family is from Alabama. Last I checked, things in Alabama aren't very different from things in Georgia. Most parents I know would think twice about sending a teenager off with a large group to another country -- at least for a graduation party.

Honestly, what were her parents thinking?
Its done in Alabama regularly, and in less affluent areas than where she was from

If You take xtacy/speed...anything that happens to you that nite IS YOUR FAULT.

dont go crying to CNN...dont send your momy to cry at CNN...
cos its all your Fault.

So eloquent. :p

I don't see the relevance of this being true or not. Knowing someone for a week is hardly "knowing someone" in my most humble opinon.
you are rigth of course...(I stand corrected)

I would not allow my daugter to go away...in the midle of the nigth...on a Car with 3 guys she met a week ago .

and if she does...she would have to get a job and go live elsewhere.

if I ever have a Daugther..

The point in this whole thing is that the vast majority of people are not violent criminals even in so-called bad neighborhoods. It is completely reasonable to expect to be safe when alone with another individual. We here about crime every night in the news and it makes us think that this is a commonplace occurance, but again, violent crime just isn't in most people. This girl was hanging out with what appeared to be a clean-cut young man, and his friends, who was native to the area, well-known, from a prominent family that these women had met members of. If there was ever a time when a woman should have been relatively confident in her safety it was here. I, myself, have gone off with people I have known for less time, had less ties to the community, and of whom I knew much less about. The fact that I fared well and she didn't does not make her behavior more risky. It just makes all that would judge her a bunch of armchair quarterbacks who find it difficult to sympathize with the plight of the victim. The idea that any of you would call her a whore (you know who you are) or refer to her as stupid says a lot about your personal moral fiber. Those that make these assumptions are particularly the kind of juror a defense attorney is looking for when trying a rape case. Many of you not only suggest that men and women can't be alone and not have sex, but you also suggest that this girl must have been into gangbangs since there was more than one man in the car. It's an invalid assumption upon which many of your judgements of her are based and it's sickening.

Proof?

I'm not unwilling to admit when I make a mistake. She had in fact only met them about twelve hours earlier. It makes this a poorer decision, but still does not land blame on her shoulders in my mind.

As I said before, people who are trusting and expect people not to be criminals are not idiots or whores. They are almost always right. The number of violent criminals per capita is ridiculously small.

I could likely avoid being the victim of a crime ever by never leaving my house, but what kind of life would that be. We all gamble to extent and the odds were very much in her favor in this case. There was absolutely no reason for her or anyone else to suspect she was in danger.

I'm not unwilling to admit when I make a mistake. She had in fact only met them about twelve hours earlier. It makes this a poorer decision, but still does not land blame on her shoulders in my mind.

As I said before, people who are trusting and expect people not to be criminals are not idiots or whores. They are almost always right. The number of violent criminals per capita is ridiculously small.

I could likely avoid being the victim of a crime ever by never leaving my house, but what kind of life would that be. We all gamble to extent and the odds were very much in her favor in this case. There was absolutely no reason for her or anyone else to suspect she was in danger.
Except, as I keep telling you and you keep ignoring, HER FRIENDS URGED HER NOT TO GO WITH THE BOYS.

Was it because they felt pretty sure that the boys were violent and had a history of crime? No, probably not.
Was it because it was the girl's bed time and if she didn't get to the hotel her chaperone (which, by the way, what the hell were the chaperones up to this whole time, if not watching over the girls while they were out getting drunk at some party?) would be mad? Again, probably not.
Was it because they weren't as trusting as Natalee and saw pretty clearly that 1 drunk girl getting into a car with 3 drunk guys (that know each other well) that she doesn't know hardly at all (I don't care if she spent every last minute of her week on the island with him, again, it's only a week) by herself was a genuinely bad idea? Yes, probably so.

Jocabia, no one gives a fuck how many times you've made the same bad decision as this girl and nothing bad has happened, the fact remains it is a bad decision, and it's irresponsible of you to think that nothing bad will ever happen to you despite making dipshit-esque decisions like you've told use you make.

If I were a judge for this case, and in the end they found Natalee alive, but taken hostage in some sort of way, and it was proven the boys were the ones who did it, I'd still convict them, but if Natalee was in the court room, I'd make sure she knew how much of a dipshit she was for not listening to her friends.

Oh and by the way, I'd also tell her friends how much of a dipshit they are, because this also probably could've been prevented if they would have went with Natalee so it was more than 3 (liker stronger than her) males to have their way with 1 outnumbered female--irregardless of what was on Natalee's mind when she went with the boys.

Honestly, what were her parents thinking?
Well, they didn't go alone. They had chaperones, presumably responsible adults. I think they are the ones who may have dropped the ball here, by not making sure who she was going with and where. Or she could have simply slip by them, she was an adult after all.

Nevertheless, remember that there's still no evidence of wrongdoing and no body has been found. Maybe she is dead but without any evidence she could have just as easily gotten lost, drowned or had any other type of misfortune. Let's see what the research brings out before pointing fingers.

^- I wouldn't be surprised if she actually died from some sort of overdose and the boys have been covering it up all this time because they think they'll be held responsible--or maybe because if they do find out what kind of drug she OD-ed on, then the boys will get in trouble too..

[QUOTE=Iztatepopotla]Well, they didn't go alone. They had chaperones, presumably responsible adults.[QUOTE]
I think the number quoted in here was 7 chaperones for 130 students. Sheesh. That means every adult has to watch out for 20 kids, in an enviorment that is NOT controlled and restricted, like a classroom.
Someone really dropped the ball on this one.

...-irregardless of what was on Natalee's mind when she went with the boys.what do you think?
what she was looking for?

I think she was looking for a Joy ride...sex and Drugs...

and I think the overdose theory is very possible.

Except, as I keep telling you and you keep ignoring, HER FRIENDS URGED HER NOT TO GO WITH THE BOYS.

And I acknowledged that the fact they said it doesn't make them right. We have no indication that there suggestion was based on any knowledge that Natalee didn't have.

Was it because they felt pretty sure that the boys were violent and had a history of crime? No, probably not.
Was it because it was the girl's bed time and if she didn't get to the hotel her chaperone (which, by the way, what the hell were the chaperones up to this whole time, if not watching over the girls while they were out getting drunk at some party?) would be mad? Again, probably not.
Was it because they weren't as trusting as Natalee and saw pretty clearly that 1 drunk girl getting into a car with 3 drunk guys (that know each other well) that she doesn't know hardly at all (I don't care if she spent every last minute of her week on the island with him, again, it's only a week) by herself was a genuinely bad idea? Yes, probably so.

Jocabia, no one gives a fuck how many times you've made the same bad decision as this girl and nothing bad has happened, the fact remains it is a bad decision, and it's irresponsible of you to think that nothing bad will ever happen to you despite making dipshit-esque decisions like you've told use you make.

If I were a judge for this case, and in the end they found Natalee alive, but taken hostage in some sort of way, and it was proven the boys were the ones who did it, I'd still convict them, but if Natalee was in the court room, I'd make sure she knew how much of a dipshit she was for not listening to her friends.

Oh and by the way, I'd also tell her friends how much of a dipshit they are, because this also probably could've been prevented if they would have went with Natalee so it was more than 3 (liker stronger than her) males to have their way with 1 outnumbered female--irregardless of what was on Natalee's mind when she went with the boys.
Well, I'm glad that not everyone has a blame the victim mentality. You still can't show that getting the cars with these boys was any more dangerous than going to the bar in the first place which you're not condemning them for or than going to Aruba in the first palce which you're not condemning them for or than any number of things you and I do and she did on a regular basis. You make the argument that this had anything to do with the amount of time she knew them which doesn't hold when compared with crime statistics, that this had anything to do with them being drunk which neither you nor I can know, that this had anything to do with their being three boys which again doesn't follow crime statistics and, again, you nor I can't know. Basically, you wish to call her names and no one is going to deter you. Name-call away. Enjoy yourself. I still say you're exactly the type of person that defender counts on in a jury case.

Quite simply it's completely reasonable to expect to be safe when around people you know or when around people you don't. I also let delivery persons into my house without checking with the company to prove they are actually with the delivery company. I'm crazy like that. I've let maids into my room when I'm in a hotel even though people have in fact been robbed by people posing as maids. I'm crazy like that. Once I even took a very sick homeless person to the hospital in my car. He could have been faking and just waiting to stab me or mug me, but I'd like to err on the side of trusting people. And I could do these things every day for years and reasonably expect to survive it. I'm crazy like that.

Do we know that she didn't make bad decisions here, nope. She may have OD'ed for all we know. We do know a few things. You have higher odds of dying in a car wreck, better not drive. You have higher odds of dying in a fire, better not live indoors. There are tons of things we do that are more dangerous than what this girl did and somehow that justifies calling her names, most likely posthumously. Forgive me if I regard you as a sick person just seeking to justify your own callousness.

^- I wouldn't be surprised if she actually died from some sort of overdose and the boys have been covering it up all this time because they think they'll be held responsible--or maybe because if they do find out what kind of drug she OD-ed on, then the boys will get in trouble too..I wouldn't be surprised either.

after all...they did not need to rape her...she left willingly with them.

Except, as I keep telling you and you keep ignoring, HER FRIENDS URGED HER NOT TO GO WITH THE BOYS.

And I acknowledged that the fact they said it doesn't make them right. We have no indication that there suggestion was based on any knowledge that Natalee didn't have.

Was it because they felt pretty sure that the boys were violent and had a history of crime? No, probably not.
Was it because it was the girl's bed time and if she didn't get to the hotel her chaperone (which, by the way, what the hell were the chaperones up to this whole time, if not watching over the girls while they were out getting drunk at some party?) would be mad? Again, probably not.
Was it because they weren't as trusting as Natalee and saw pretty clearly that 1 drunk girl getting into a car with 3 drunk guys (that know each other well) that she doesn't know hardly at all (I don't care if she spent every last minute of her week on the island with him, again, it's only a week) by herself was a genuinely bad idea? Yes, probably so.

Jocabia, no one gives a fuck how many times you've made the same bad decision as this girl and nothing bad has happened, the fact remains it is a bad decision, and it's irresponsible of you to think that nothing bad will ever happen to you despite making dipshit-esque decisions like you've told use you make.

If I were a judge for this case, and in the end they found Natalee alive, but taken hostage in some sort of way, and it was proven the boys were the ones who did it, I'd still convict them, but if Natalee was in the court room, I'd make sure she knew how much of a dipshit she was for not listening to her friends.

Oh and by the way, I'd also tell her friends how much of a dipshit they are, because this also probably could've been prevented if they would have went with Natalee so it was more than 3 (liker stronger than her) males to have their way with 1 outnumbered female--irregardless of what was on Natalee's mind when she went with the boys.
Well, I'm glad that not everyone has a blame the victim mentality. You still can't show that getting the cars with these boys was any more dangerous than going to the bar in the first place which you're not condemning them for or than going to Aruba in the first palce which you're not condemning them for or than any number of things you and I do and she did on a regular basis. You make the argument that this had anything to do with the amount of time she knew them which doesn't hold when compared with crime statistics, that this had anything to do with them being drunk which neither you nor I can know, that this had anything to do with their being three boys which again doesn't follow crime statistics and, again, you nor I can't know. Basically, you wish to call her names and no one is going to deter you. Name-call away. Enjoy yourself. I still say you're exactly the type of person that defender counts on in a jury case.

Quite simply it's completely reasonable to expect to be safe when around people you know or when around people you don't. I also let delivery persons into my house without checking with the company to prove they are actually with the delivery company. I'm crazy like that. I've let maids into my room when I'm in a hotel even though people have in fact been robbed by people posing as maids. I'm crazy like that. Once I even took a very sick homeless person to the hospital in my car. He could have been faking and just waiting to stab me or mug me, but I'd like to err on the side of trusting people. And I could do these things every day for years and reasonably expect to survive it. I'm crazy like that.

Do we know that she didn't make bad decisions here, nope. She may have OD'ed for all we know. We do know a few things. You have higher odds of dying in a car wreck, better not drive. You have higher odds of dying in a fire, better not live indoors. There are tons of things we do that are more dangerous than what this girl did and somehow that justifies calling her names, most likely posthumously. Forgive me if I regard you as a sick person just seeking to justify your own callousness.

I think it's a sad state of affairs if we think it's likely that 3, not 1, but THREE boys would find it acceptable to rape a young woman and then kill her (which is what you're suggesting occurred) and that we view this as so likely that all women should view all men as suspect until they are proven otherwise. I think it's a sad state of affairs when we consider it 'dipshit-esque' to believe that the vast, vast, vast majority of men find victimizing women to be grotesque and that the odds of finding three men that would find it acceptable all working together in a country that has a lower per capita violent crime rate than just about any state in the US. I think it's a sad state of affairs when you would consider your position even remotely defensible.

Moreso, you haven't done the work. You haven't shown that how long she had known them played a part in the crime. You haven't shown that the fact there was three of them played a part in the crime. Therefore, if it was a justifiably bad decision in retrospect (as you claim) then it should have been a justifiably bad decision if she had known these gentlemen for ten years or there was only one of them or both. You wouldn't be condemning her if that were the case and you know it. SO in order to prove your these you have the burden of showing that there is indication that the length of time she knew these boys played into it or that number of boys played into it.

I wouldn't be surprised either.

after all...they did not need to rape her...she left willingly with them.

So every woman that gets in a car with a man is expecting to have sex? It's really hard not to question the intelligence of someone who makes such an assinine statement.

Well, I'm glad that not everyone has a blame the victim mentality.

While I don't know who has thrown names and who has not here, you shouldn't be so quick to use this phrase. Someone who points out that a victim was engaged in a dangerous activity that she should not have been is not necessarily blaming the victim. In fact, someone who points these things out might simply be trying to avoid having something similar happen again.

Women are instructed in any self-defense class to avoid situations like these, to practice the buddy system, etc. It is irresponsible to suggest that she should have gotten into the car, or that she should have left her friends.

You still can't show that getting the cars with these boys was any more dangerous than going to the bar in the first place which you're not condemning them for or than going to Aruba in the first palce which you're not condemning them for or than any number of things you and I do and she did on a regular basis.

Jocabia, it is clearly more dangerous, simply based on the numbers. In the bar, or in Aruba in the first place, she had people who she actually knew. I don't know if the chaperones were at the bar, but there were people there she knew - from home - and had known for some time. There were also people that she didn't know - but who were everyday people - witnesses should anyone around her be attempting to harm her. When she removed herself from that crowd, and from the presence of those she knew - to go off alone with strangers, she was in a more dangerous situation.

Quite simply it's completely reasonable to expect to be safe when around people you know or when around people you don't.

Not really. It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where you could expect to be safe, but we don't. People are attacked, mugged, raped, and murdered every day. You certainly should look for the good in people, but that doesn't require putting yourself in dangerous situations.

I also let delivery persons into my house without checking with the company to prove they are actually with the delivery company. I'm crazy like that. I've let maids into my room when I'm in a hotel even though people have in fact been robbed by people posing as maids. I'm crazy like that. Once I even took a very sick homeless person to the hospital in my car. He could have been faking and just waiting to stab me or mug me, but I'd like to err on the side of trusting people. And I could do these things every day for years and reasonably expect to survive it. I'm crazy like that.

None of these things are the same as being a young, pretty, and drunk girl getting into a car with three guys she doesn't really know without (as far as I have heard) telling anyone where she is going, what they are doing, or when she intends to be back.

Jocabia, it is clearly more dangerous, simply based on the numbers. In the bar, or in Aruba in the first place, she had people who she actually knew. I don't know if the chaperones were at the bar, but there were people there she knew - from home - and had known for some time. There were also people that she didn't know - but who were everyday people - witnesses should anyone around her be attempting to harm her. When she removed herself from that crowd, and from the presence of those she knew - to go off alone with strangers, she was in a more dangerous situation.

Look at the numbers. What numbers? Can you show me the percentage of victimizations that occur where the guys are someone the girl barely knows. I already posted the statistics. They don't agree with you. The numbers suggest she was more likely to be victimized by people she knew. Staying around people that we knew didn't help me, my cousin or my ex-girlfriend avoid being victimized. In fact, everyone I've ever known to have been a victim of this kind of crime knew the attacker for time that would be measured in years, not days or hours.

Not really. It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where you could expect to be safe, but we don't. People are attacked, mugged, raped, and murdered every day. You certainly should look for the good in people, but that doesn't require putting yourself in dangerous situations.

I still haven't seen any statistics that suggest this situation should have been considered dangerous. Given the per capita violent crime in Aruba she should have been safer statistically than she would be in almost any city in the US.

None of these things are the same as being a young, pretty, and drunk girl getting into a car with three guys she doesn't really know without (as far as I have heard) telling anyone where she is going, what they are doing, or when she intends to be back.
So basically she needs to be afraid of men because she's a young and pretty girl. I don't buy that. Maybe we can start having women wear burkas to prevent these pretty, young things from being so tempting to all those victimizing young men out there.

Look at the numbers. What numbers? Can you show me the percentage of victimizations that occur where the guys are someone the girl barely knows. I already posted the statistics. They don't agree with you. The numbers suggest she was more likely to be victimized by people she knew. Staying around people that we knew didn't help me, my cousin or my ex-girlfriend avoid being victimized. In fact, everyone I've ever known to have been a victim of this kind of crime knew the attacker for time that would be measured in years, not days or hours.

All of this is completely irrelevant.

The numbers I was referring to were the number of people around. As I pointed out, one is much less likely to get attacked when there are witnesses (including people you know) to see it. She went from a place where there were lots of people to a place where she was alone with strangers that she had no real reason to trust.

You tell me - what do the statistics show about how often those who commit violent crimes try to minimize the number of witnesses?

I still haven't seen any statistics that suggest this situation should have been considered dangerous. Given the per capita violent crime in Aruba she should have been safer statistically than she would be in almost any city in the US.

As a woman, I would say that this situation is dangerous in any city. I am safer statistically if I get in a car with three strange men in my hometown than in the town I now live in. I still wouldn't do it. It's the "three strange men" and "isolated from others" parts that make it dangerous. Where you are has little to do with it.

So basically she needs to be afraid of men because she's a young and pretty girl. I don't buy that. Maybe we can start having women wear burkas to prevent these pretty, young things from being so tempting to all those victimizing young men out there.

Not afraid. Cautious. While I share your wish to trust people inherently - it simply isn't reasonable to do so. There are people out there who victimize others and it simply isn't responsible to act like they aren't out there because they are a small number. You've seen the numbers on how many people have been sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Do you honestly think one shouldn't do what they can to prevent it happening?

People with HIV are a small percentage compared to the entire population - does that mean you would have sex with any and every woman you found attractive without a protection? Of course not! You would do what you could to protect yourself. Getting into a car with three strange men and going off alone with them is much like having sex with people unprotected. The statistics say you will probably be alright. However, you are still doing something irresponsible.

All of this is completely irrelevant.

The numbers I was referring to were the number of people around. As I pointed out, one is much less likely to get attacked when there are witnesses (including people you know) to see it. She went from a place where there were lots of people to a place where she was alone with strangers that she had no real reason to trust.

You tell me - what do the statistics show about how often those who commit violent crimes try to minimize the number of witnesses?

So if you are just never alone, particularly with those most likely to victimize you, then you'll be fine. Please try to avoid ever being alone with people you know very well.

As a woman, I would say that this situation is dangerous in any city. I am safer statistically if I get in a car with three strange men in my hometown than in the town I now live in. I still wouldn't do it. It's the "three strange men" and "isolated from others" parts that make it dangerous. Where you are has little to do with it.

Odd. My cousin was just walking with one man she'd known all her life. Your theory doesn't seem to hold. Again, no matter where you are you are more likely to be victimized by people you know very well, and by only one guy. The number of guys should have made her safer not in more danger as you would claim. It's not more likely that in a larger group she would be in more danger as people continually suggest.

Not afraid. Cautious. While I share your wish to trust people inherently - it simply isn't reasonable to do so. There are people out there who victimize others and it simply isn't responsible to act like they aren't out there because they are a small number. You've seen the numbers on how many people have been sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Do you honestly think one shouldn't do what they can to prevent it happening?

I don't act like they don't exist. I act like the number of people just looking to victimize random people is actually very slim. I've seen the numbers on how many people have been sexually assaulted in their lifetimes and you and I are both in that group. I've also seen that the vast majority of those people were victimized by people they knew.

People with HIV are a small percentage compared to the entire population - does that mean you would have sex with any and every woman you found attractive without a protection? Of course not! You would do what you could to protect yourself. Getting into a car with three strange men and going off alone with them is much like having sex with people unprotected. The statistics say you will probably be alright. However, you are still doing something irresponsible.
I wouldn't have sex with every woman, period. However, my reasons for wearing protection are not to prevent getting AIDS. The difference here is that wearing a condom or being abstinent would prevent AIDS, but there is evidence to suggest that your odds of being a victim are not improved by avoiding being alone with strangers. You have to do the work here.

I wouldn't be surprised either.

after all...they did not need to rape her...she left willingly with them.


That is so unGodly offensive. Because a woman willingly leaves with someone they are obligated to have sex with them? My God! What is wrong with you?

I have never heard anything so insane... I swear I haven't. I'm incensed at your comment. You must be one piece of work. Damn. *shakes head*

I wouldn't be surprised either.

after all...they did not need to rape her...she left willingly with them.

Sick. I hope it never happens to your sister, girlfriend, or wife.

So every woman that gets in a car with a man is expecting to have sex? It's really hard not to question the intelligence of someone who makes such an assinine statement.I stand by my post.

XElegant_Egotistx']That is so unGodly offensive. save it for next sunday.

I stand by my post.

So you admit that you prefer to argue from emotion rather than information. This certainly makes it easier to stomach your posts. Thank you for being so clear.

So you admit that you prefer to argue from emotion rather than information. This certainly makes it easier to stomach your posts. Thank you for being so clear.I did not mean to trouble your ..err ...stomach.

but if assuming that I am an emotional animal...(which I am not going to argue...cos maybe I am.. :confused: ) ...if assuming that makes you feel better...By all means make yourself at home.

actually, there is more chances of it happening to your sister, GF, or Wife.
By the way, this was incredibly sick thing to say.

I have no sympathy for her, but for a different reason.

Every day, THOUSANDS of kidnapings happen all around the world. But does the media report on them? Noooooo. But when White Girl gets kidnapped in a small foreign country, everyones like "Oh my god! How awfull!" and all the new stations report on it. I bet during the time of this case, there has been at least ONE other kidnapping in Aruba, but no one reports on that, do they?

By the way, this was incredibly sick thing to say.Its what I call a mirror post...I reflected his own post on him.

lets see how he deals with it.

Its what I call a mirror post...I reflected his own post on him.

lets see how he deals with it.

Um, no it's not. He said, and was most likely sincere in saying, he hopes this never happens to anyone you care about and you said that it was more likely to happen to someone he cares about. What kind of mirror is that? You meant for it be hateful and ridiculous. I reported it to the mods.

You meant for it be hateful.how is that hateful?

First, I do hope that tragedy never happens...to anyone..

also, There its extremely little chances of it happening to me...cos I do not have a GF...and I do not plan to ever get Married.

question to Grave_n_idle and Jacobia.

How far would you trust people in the same situation.
You'd know someone for a few days and will be going home in a day or 2.
Would you...

1. lend them money, say... $100/80€
2. put yourself in the situation N.H. did.
3. let girlfriend/sister to go off with them while you go home
4. trust them driving your car

1. I wouldn't lend money to most of the people I DO know... let alone those I don't know. Maybe that's just me... I'm not a wealthy man.

2. We don't ACTUALLY know for sure WHAT situation she DID put herself in, do we? We can all make assumptions, and believe the hearsay.. but we still don't REALLY know. We don't know if she was drugged, for example.

Of course... it doesn't matter in my case... being 6'4" and more than 100 kilos puts me in a very different category anyways.

3) I wouldn't have let my girlfriend or sister just wander off with people I didn't implicitly trust. But, this is a different issue. You are now placing the blame at the feet of her so-called friends.

Still you refuse to blame the potential rapist... which I find somewhat disturbing.

4) I let my wife drive my car. That's it... nobody else.

I have no sympathy for her, but for a different reason.

Every day, THOUSANDS of kidnapings happen all around the world. But does the media report on them? Noooooo. But when White Girl gets kidnapped in a small foreign country, everyones like "Oh my god! How awfull!" and all the new stations report on it. I bet during the time of this case, there has been at least ONE other kidnapping in Aruba, but no one reports on that, do they?

So - because it happens a lot, we shouldn't care about individuals?

I think most people here objected to Ryanania's apparent blame of whatever happened on the victim... rather than saying what a particularly special tragedy it was...

So if you are just never alone, particularly with those most likely to victimize you, then you'll be fine. Please try to avoid ever being alone with people you know very well.

Do you know why you are most likely to be victimized by someone you know?

Because you are alone with them much more often than with strangers! Most of those who will victimize others will try to get the person to trust them first - because it makes it possible to get them alone.

That doesn't mean you should simply go off and be alone with someone you have absolutely no idea about, however.

Odd. My cousin was just walking with one man she'd known all her life. Your theory doesn't seem to hold. Again, no matter where you are you are more likely to be victimized by people you know very well, and by only one guy. The number of guys should have made her safer not in more danger as you would claim. It's not more likely that in a larger group she would be in more danger as people continually suggest.

Your statistics don't support this, my dear. Out of all possible situations, you are more likely to be vicitimized by someone you know - that is true. This is because you are more likely to be alone with and let your defenses down around someone you know. This is unavoidable, as a life without anyone you feel you can trust would be a very unhealthy life indeed.

However, you have not provided statistics specific to people who go off alone with random strangers. I doubt there are even any such statistics. The vast majority of people avoid being alone and vulnerable with strange people. Thus, there is very little chance for such people to attack them. I'm sure that if we had statistics for people who make a habit of being alone with complete strangers, we would find that they are much more likely to be victimized than when they are alone with people they truly trust. Fortunately, most people don't put themselves in that situation - so there won't be much by way of statistics for it.

I don't act like they don't exist. I act like the number of people just looking to victimize random people is actually very slim.

The number of people mugged is pretty slim too. That doesn't mean I pull wads of money out of my purse in a dark alleyway filled with people, though.

I've seen the numbers on how many people have been sexually assaulted in their lifetimes and you and I are both in that group. I've also seen that the vast majority of those people were victimized by people they knew.

This is true, again, because you are much more likely to be alone with people you know. Very few people get into intimate situations with strangers. I'm quite certain, however, that those who frequently put themselves in that situation are much more likely to be victimized than those who don't.

The difference here is that wearing a condom or being abstinent would prevent AIDS, but there is evidence to suggest that your odds of being a victim are not improved by avoiding being alone with strangers. You have to do the work here.

No, you are making the claim - provide evidence. Show me a study on people who frequently spend time alone with strangers vs. those who do not.

Common sense dictates that you don't place inherent trust in people you don't know. What evidence do you have to counteract that common knowledge?

Do you know why you are most likely to be victimized by someone you know?

Because you are alone with them much more often than with strangers! Most of those who will victimize others will try to get the person to trust them first - because it makes it possible to get them alone.

That doesn't mean you should simply go off and be alone with someone you have absolutely no idea about, however.

Your statistics don't support this, my dear. Out of all possible situations, you are more likely to be vicitimized by someone you know - that is true. This is because you are more likely to be alone with and let your defenses down around someone you know. This is unavoidable, as a life without anyone you feel you can trust would be a very unhealthy life indeed.

However, you have not provided statistics specific to people who go off alone with random strangers. I doubt there are even any such statistics. The vast majority of people avoid being alone and vulnerable with strange people. Thus, there is very little chance for such people to attack them. I'm sure that if we had statistics for people who make a habit of being alone with complete strangers, we would find that they are much more likely to be victimized than when they are alone with people they truly trust. Fortunately, most people don't put themselves in that situation - so there won't be much by way of statistics for it.

The number of people mugged is pretty slim too. That doesn't mean I pull wads of money out of my purse in a dark alleyway filled with people, though.

This is true, again, because you are much more likely to be alone with people you know. Very few people get into intimate situations with strangers. I'm quite certain, however, that those who frequently put themselves in that situation are much more likely to be victimized than those who don't.

No, you are making the claim - provide evidence. Show me a study on people who frequently spend time alone with strangers vs. those who do not.

Common sense dictates that you don't place inherent trust in people you don't know. What evidence do you have to counteract that common knowledge?
First, common sense dictates no such thing. I trust people until they give me a reason not to. I refuse to look at people as criminals until they give me a reason to see them as good people.

Second, you suggest that people being victimized by people they know is simply because they are alone with them. Of course, being alone is a prerequisite since it's highly unlikely that you will be raped in a room full of people. However, do you have any figures that say that most rapes occur the first time they are alone? I know, for example, that in cases of abuse it's very unlikely that a guy immediately starts beating a woman. Much of the victimization comes from a sense of entitlement that comes with relationship the victimizer creates with the victim. It comes with a gradual escalation of the abuse. The murder statistics are definitely not just because they finally got them alone for the first time. Most times these victimizations are crimes of passion and, generally, it requires time to build that passion towards another human being.

Third, your ideas are dangerous. "Hey, there, rape victim. Yes, the rapist was an evil man, but you're an idiot because you didn't keep yourself safe. Have fun blaming yourself for your victimization for the rest of your life." Oh, wait, that already happens specifically because of the ideas you profess. Your comparison of Natalee Holloway to someone who pulls out wads of cash in a dark alley is in essense saying she was asking for it. Forgive me if I show more compassion. You've seen the prevelance of people on this forum who suggest that if she went off alone with these guys she was asking for it, from all of them, and she just got more than she bargained for. When are we going to stop revictimizing people by suggesting that the entire and total responsibility for the act does not fall on the victimizer but instead a healthy portion falls on the victim for being 'so stupid'.

Fourth, since it is a given that your ideas place some responsibilty on the victim this places the burden of proof on you that this level of responsibility is deserved. You can't say I'm partly responsible for a car accident with no evidence and then suggest I'm required to prove I'm not. My claim is that the victim is not responsible for being victimized in any way. If you suggest otherwise, the burden of proof is clearly on your shoulders.

Fifth, we are all often alone with strangers. We inherently trust cab drivers, maids, repair people, delivery people, interviewers, etc. We trust them because we know that the vast majority of people find violent crime to be completely unacceptable. Make that violent crime against strangers and that number grows significantly (since many (not most or anywhere close to a majority) accept it when it's spouses/significant others physically, emotionally and mentally abusing one another).

If I were a judge for this case, and in the end they found Natalee alive, but taken hostage in some sort of way, and it was proven the boys were the ones who did it, I'd still convict them, but if Natalee was in the court room, I'd make sure she knew how much of a dipshit she was for not listening to her friends.

"Hey, Natalee, I realize you just went through a kind of hell I could never understand, but allow me to revictimize you by telling you should have avoided this. I know you'll spend years in therapy trying to figure out why you blame yourself, so I might as well be completely insensitive and put the blame on you as well."

First, common sense dictates no such thing. I trust people until they give me a reason not to.

So you would invite random stranger 001 into your house, show them where your valuables were stored, and invite them to sleep in your bed? You don't bother using any type of security whatsoever? No alarm, you never lock your doors?

I refuse to look at people as criminals until they give me a reason to see them as good people.

You are making a black and white issue out of something far from it. Some trust can be afforded to people on an automatic basis. However, there are levels of trust that have to be earned. I'm not suggesting that you "look at people as criminals", but that you realize that they could possibly be criminals - and that, while you may give them preliminary trust, that is something you have to watch out for.

Second, you suggest that people being victimized by people they know is simply because they are alone with them.

Actually, I didn't suggest any such thing. I said that the reason more people are victimized by people they know is because they are more likely to be alone with them. I'm not saying that being alone, in and of itself, will cause victimization.

Of course, being alone is a prerequisite since it's highly unlikely that you will be raped in a room full of people.

Funny, you acted like this was an insane statement when I made it.

Third, your ideas are dangerous. "Hey, there, rape victim. Yes, the rapist was an evil man, but you're an idiot because you didn't keep yourself safe. Have fun blaming yourself for your victimization for the rest of your life." Oh, wait, that already happens specifically because of the ideas you profess.

Bullshit. I have not placed blame on the victim. When someone commits a crime, that crime is entirely their own fault.

However, that does not mean that people should not avoid dangerous situations.

Your comparison of Natalee Holloway to someone who pulls out wads of cash in a dark alley is in essense saying she was asking for it.

No, it isn't.

Are you saying that someone who needs to make sure they have enough money for dinner before getting to the restaraunt is asking to get mugged? Forgive me if I show more compassion.

Forgive me if I show more compassion.

Compassion:
sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

Let's see. I am sympathetic with this woman, whatever happened to her. I would like to alleviate her distress and prevent it happening to other people. You seem to take the tack, "People are going to get attacked, so they should never do anything to protect themselves." Hmmmm.....

When are we going to stop revictimizing people by suggesting that the entire and total responsibility for the act does not fall on the victimizer but instead a healthy portion falls on the victim for being 'so stupid'.

I have yet to suggest that the entire and total responsibility for the act does not fall on the victimizer.

However, your chomping at the bit to jump to this claim for everyone demonstrates your problem throughout this thread. You want so badly to be able to argue against someone who "blames the victim" that you accuse everyone of it, even to the point of condoning irresponsible behavior simply because this woman engaged in it.

Fourth, since it is a given that your ideas place some responsibilty on the victim this places the burden of proof on you that this level of responsibility is deserved. You can't say I'm partly responsible for a car accident with no evidence and then suggest I'm required to prove I'm not. My claim is that the victim is not responsible for being victimized in any way. If you suggest otherwise, the burden of proof is clearly on your shoulders.

Well, gee, I haven't suggested otherwise, so I guess there's no burden of proof on me here.

Meanwhile, you have claimed that your statistics prove something that they have no bearing on whatsoever. If you withdraw that claim, there won't be any argument here.

Fifth, we are all often alone with strangers. We inherently trust cab drivers, maids, repair people, delivery people, interviewers, etc. We trust them because we know that the vast majority of people find violent crime to be completely unacceptable.

And because it is their job to be there.

Meanwhile, we don't generally go to places with cab drivers, maids, repair people, delivery people, interviewers, etc. where others do not know where we are or will be. We also know that their respective bosses will likely know where they are. With the exception of cab drivers, we also do not generally find ourselves alone with these people when we are intoxicated.

Edit: And let me also point out that I am cautious around these people. When repair or maitenance people are coming to my house - my boyfriend knows it, whether he is there or not. I go about my business while they are there, but I am aware or where in my house they are. I watch a cab driver to make sure his eyes are on the road and he is going where I want him to be going. While I am not really worried that any of them will attempt to victimize me, I am prepared for the possibility.

About the whole "revictimizing" bit -- parents do that anyway.

When I was 14, I was attacked by a so-called friend, and he ended up being charged with attempted rape (justly, of course). My parents --to this day-- berate me for even speaking to the guy. I had known him since I was 8 years old. We had been close friends since I was 10. Logically, I expected I could trust him.

In spite of that logic, my parents continue to 'remind [me] how much of a dipshit [I] was' at every opportunity.

Even if the court doesn't do it, someone will.

About the whole "revictimizing" bit -- parents do that anyway.

When I was 14, I was attacked by a so-called friend, and he ended up being charged with attempted rape (justly, of course). My parents --to this day-- berate me for even speaking to the guy. I had known him since I was 8 years old. We had been close friends since I was 10. Logically, I expected I could trust him.

In spite of that logic, my parents continue to 'remind [me] how much of a dipshit [I] was' at every opportunity.

Not all parents are like that. I'm sorry that yours are.

So you would invite random stranger 001 into your house, show them where your valuables were stored, and invite them to sleep in your bed? You don't bother using any type of security whatsoever? No alarm, you never lock your doors?

I grew up with no lock on the doors of my house. My place automatically locks. Anyone who comes to my door sees about fifty thousand dollars worth of equipment. It's not really avoidable. I do not lock my car, but that's less about trust than the fact that I would prefer if someone does choose to steal from it that they not break the window or cut the ragtop. My car has never been stolen from.

You are making a black and white issue out of something far from it. Some trust can be afforded to people on an automatic basis. However, there are levels of trust that have to be earned. I'm not suggesting that you "look at people as criminals", but that you realize that they could possibly be criminals - and that, while you may give them preliminary trust, that is something you have to watch out for.

You're right there are levels of trust that have to be earned. I don't hold being alone with me as something that has to be earned. I suspect that almost anyone would take a bauble from my dresser or carseat before they would rape, molest, physically attack or kill a person.

Actually, I didn't suggest any such thing. I said that the reason more people are victimized by people they know is because they are more likely to be alone with them. I'm not saying that being alone, in and of itself, will cause victimization.

I didn't suggest you said that. The point is that intimates don't victimize people more simply because they are the only ones that were alone. I addressed what I think the cause is.

Funny, you acted like this was an insane statement when I made it.

No, I acted like you can't always remain in a roomful of people and the time comes when you will choose to be alone with someone. You're right that this is more often an someone you know better than a stranger, but there is no evidence that knowing someone longer before you are alone with them will prevent victimization.

Bullshit. I have not placed blame on the victim. When someone commits a crime, that crime is entirely their own fault.

Really? Entirely? Then no responsibility for being victimized can be placed on the victim? In that case, we agree.

However, that does not mean that people should not avoid dangerous situations.

Dang, I thought we were agreeing. Either they are responsible for avoiding the dangerous situation or not.

No, it isn't.

Are you saying that someone who needs to make sure they have enough money for dinner before getting to the restaraunt is asking to get mugged? Forgive me if I show more compassion.

First, I disagreed with your analogy and captured your intent. You can't try to place your intent on me. Well, you can, but don't expect me not to call you on it. I don't hold that they are responsible for the actions of criminals. I am not careful about not allowing people to see that I have money unless I see some indication that I should be careful. You suggest that a dark alley is more dangerous than a banquethall, but I am much more concerned that the people at a banquet will get into my pocket.. As far you suggesting you didn't have that intent, let's look again, in case I missed it.

The number of people mugged is pretty slim too. That doesn't mean I pull wads of money out of my purse in a dark alleyway filled with people, though.

Then what exactly were you saying here? Was your intent to say that this is a completely reasonable act? You weren't condemning them for encouraging people to victimize them?

Compassion:
sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

Let's see. I am sympathetic with this woman, whatever happened to her. I would like to alleviate her distress and prevent it happening to other people. You seem to take the tack, "People are going to get attacked, so they should never do anything to protect themselves." Hmmmm.....

No, I don't. I think people should take self-defense courses. I think IF people give you an indication that they may be dangerous or a threat you should leave and not associate with those people. I do not, however, hold that all people should be treated as threats until they convince you they are not. You pretend that the only way to defend oneself is to not trust people. This simply is not true. You can't suggest I think it's impossible to avoid being victimized simply because I preach trust.

As far as your compassion, how does telling her that she shouldn't have gone with this gentlemen alleviate her distress? It would in fact multiply it. "If you hadn't been irresponsible, it is far less likely that they would have victimized you." How would that alleviate her distress? "Oh, yes, I feel much better knowing that if I hadn't acted so irresponsibly, I wouldn't be in this mess." Yes, I can see how you would suggest that's not placing any responsibility on the victim/sarcasm.

As far as your suggestion that you are alleviating the distress of future victims by encouraging them not be alone with strangers, do the work. How are you preventing them from becoming victims? Can you show that they are less likely to be victimized if they follow your advice?

I have yet to suggest that the entire and total responsibility for the act does not fall on the victimizer.

If that were true, we would be in agreement. Your suggestion is that the victim is at fault for giving the victimizer the opportunity to victimize them. How is that not placing any responsibility on the victim?

However, your chomping at the bit to jump to this claim for everyone demonstrates your problem throughout this thread. You want so badly to be able to argue against someone who "blames the victim" that you accuse everyone of it, even to the point of condoning irresponsible behavior simply because this woman engaged in it.

I don't condone irresponsible behavior. Prove that it would generally decrease one's chances of being victimized if they stop being alone with people they barely know and will accept that oing off with a boy you're interested in is irresponsible. Until you can establish that it is irresponsible then I won't hold that it is.

Well, gee, I haven't suggested otherwise, so I guess there's no burden of proof on me here.

Wow, really? I think the word responsibility does not mean what you think it means.

Meanwhile, you have claimed that your statistics prove something that they have no bearing on whatsoever. If you withdraw that claim, there won't be any argument here.

They have an absolute bearing unless you don't consider related crimes to have bearing on this. You suggest the cause of those statistics is because these people are alone, but your claim does align with reality. Are you suggesting that male spousal abusers would rape and attack any woman that was alone with them? If not, your argument does not hold.

And because it is their job to be there.

So if they are being paid, then all their victimizing tendencies just go right out the window? Victimizers only victimize for free? Good to know. So then it's not about opportunity then. Good to know I won't hear that argument again.

Meanwhile, we don't generally go to places with cab drivers, maids, repair people, delivery people, interviewers, etc. where others do not know where we are or will be. We also know that their respective bosses will likely know where they are.

Again, you say it's not just about being alone with potential victimizers. Again, I hope that means I won't hear that argument again. It's about being alone where people do not expect you to be? Hmmm... how does that jive with most victimizers being intimates? You're trying to argue from two different positions because you can't choose one and hold up your case.

With the exception of cab drivers, we also do not generally find ourselves alone with these people when we are intoxicated.

You haven't conducted very many interviews, have you? ;)

Edit: And let me also point out that I am cautious around these people. When repair or maitenance people are coming to my house - my boyfriend knows it, whether he is there or not. I go about my business while they are there, but I am aware or where in my house they are. I watch a cab driver to make sure his eyes are on the road and he is going where I want him to be going. While I am not really worried that any of them will attempt to victimize me, I am prepared for the possibility.

And yet you go off alone with them. Can you show that Natalee was not also prepared? We don't know what happened once she left with them. For all you know they were just supposed to be headed to another bar, but as soon as they pulled away they bonked her on the head and she could no longer make sure their eyes were on the road and that they were going where they were supposed to be going. There is no evidence that another girl there might not have resulted in two missing girls. There is no evidence that she would have been safer if she'd known them longer. Therefore, there is no evidence that any responsibility can be placed on NH. Certainly she could have avoided the victimization by not going with the boys, by not going on the trip, by not ever leaving her room, however, there is no evidence that she had any reason to avoid any of those things.

As much as I sympathize with her family, I have never nor will I ever do anything THAT stupid.
I tend to think "let's wait and see" when I see or hear someone say something like this. It's like saying "I'm not going to have an accident".

About the whole "revictimizing" bit -- parents do that anyway.

When I was 14, I was attacked by a so-called friend, and he ended up being charged with attempted rape (justly, of course). My parents --to this day-- berate me for even speaking to the guy. I had known him since I was 8 years old. We had been close friends since I was 10. Logically, I expected I could trust him.

In spite of that logic, my parents continue to 'remind [me] how much of a dipshit [I] was' at every opportunity.

Even if the court doesn't do it, someone will.

It wasn't your fault. It was unfortunate that you were a victim but it's highly unlikely that he gave you or would have ever given you any indication that you were in danger until it was too late. You more than liekly couldn't have culled this victimizer from the general population of people who have no with to harm you. I do recommend that you learn self-defense so that if you are ever in a similar situation it will not be you who is victimized.

.... any indication that you were in danger until it was too late. Sometimes your parents are able to see danger you cant see...

thats why when Daddy says "don't talk to that guy"...or "don't dress like a whore" or "dont drink and Drive" .....maybe its a good idea to listen...

It wasn't your fault. It was unfortunate that you were a victim but it's highly unlikely that he gave you or would have ever given you any indication that you were in danger until it was too late. You more than liekly couldn't have culled this victimizer from the general population of people who have no with to harm you. I do recommend that you learn self-defense so that if you are ever in a similar situation it will not be you who is victimized.


I have learned self-defense, and I still attend workshops on campus. I'm pretty much the only serious person in the room, aside from the campus police who are directing the session. It seems stupid to joke around about such things when you've had them happen, or even known someone who had them happen.

Sometimes your parents are able to see danger you cant see...

thats why when Daddy says "don't talk to that guy"...or "don't dress like a whore" or "dont drink and Drive" .....maybe its a good idea to listen...


My parents weren't even in agreement about him -- my mother didn't like him (mostly because my mother didn't like anyone that age), and my father saw no problem with him -- so they didn't even see it.

You're right there are levels of trust that have to be earned. I don't hold being alone with me as something that has to be earned.

So you would invite a completely random person into your house, get drunk with them, and then go somewhere with them when you didn't know the area?

I didn't suggest you said that. The point is that intimates don't victimize people more simply because they are the only ones that were alone. I addressed what I think the cause is.

But you didn't address what I actually said. Never mind though, you obviously don't wish to address my points.

No, I acted like you can't always remain in a roomful of people and the time comes when you will choose to be alone with someone. You're right that this is more often an someone you know better than a stranger, but there is no evidence that knowing someone longer before you are alone with them will prevent victimization.

How many people do you think climb into a car with random strangers in, say, NY, and come out of it unscathed?

Here's another question: Why do we tell our children not to talk to strangers?

If you ever have children, are you going to say, "Son, go ahead and get into a car with a stranger if he offers you candy. After all, you're much more likely to get attacked by me than you are by any stranger"?

Really? Entirely? Then no responsibility for being victimized can be placed on the victim? In that case, we agree.

Yup.

Dang, I thought we were agreeing. Either they are responsible for avoiding the dangerous situation or not.

Responsibility for avoiding a dangerous situation and responsibility for committing a crime are two different things.

Like I said, I would love to live in a world where one could place complete trust in random people and be safe. I resent the fact that I don't live in that world. I resent the fact that it isn't safe for me to take a walk in downtown Altanta at 3 in the morning if I want to. That doesn't mean it would be safe for me to do so. Of course, if I did so, and got mugged - that blame for that mugging would be completely and entirely placed on the mugger.

Suppose I told a child not to talk to strangers. Suppose that child was offered candy by a nice looking man if she came with him to his car. Suppose he kidnapped that child. It is not the child's fault that she was kidnapped - in any way, shape, or form. However, she was still doing something dangerous that she was told not to do.

Then what exactly were you saying here? Was your intent to say that this is a completely reasonable act? You weren't condemning them for encouraging people to victimize them?

Condemning? No. Counting your money is a completely reasonable act. There really isn't any other way of knowing how much you have - unless you have a perfect memory. However, we live in a world where people get mugged every day. One can hardly be villianized for pointing out that there are those out there who will steal from you, and that there are measures you can take to decrease the risk.

No, I don't. I think people should take self-defense courses.

Funny, I’ve taken self-defense courses. You know what kinds of things they tell you? Don’t put yourself in a situation where you aren’t in control. Make sure others know where you are. Don’t get into situations where you are alone with people you don’t know. Don't hitchhike or pick up hitchhikers. After all of that instruction, they move to, “If someone attacks you, do this…”

According to you, such instruction places the blame for being attackd on the victim. Obviously then, you would say that self-defense classes shouldn't say these things?

You pretend that the only way to defend oneself is to not trust people. This simply is not true.

I don't pretend - or even suggest - any such thing.

As far as your compassion, how does telling her that she shouldn't have gone with this gentlemen alleviate her distress?

Who says I would tell her any such thing? If NH is alive, she is well aware that she made a poor choice. I would hardly compound her distress by pointing it out to her, any more than I would yell at a child who went to see the puppies or get the candy that a stranger offered them. That doesn't mean that I won't suggest to others that they avoid similar situations.

As far as your suggestion that you are alleviating the distress of future victims by encouraging them not be alone with strangers, do the work. How are you preventing them from becoming victims? Can you show that they are less likely to be victimized if they follow your advice?

I can show you an entire history of human beings in which people were encouraged not to go off alone with strangers. Of course, most people tend to follow this advice, so I guess we can't know for sure if it helps or not. All of the numbers we have are with the majority of people following this advice.

If that were true, we would be in agreement. Your suggestion is that the victim is at fault for giving the victimizer the opportunity to victimize them. How is that not placing any responsibility on the victim?

I haven't suggested any such thing. Try again.

They have an absolute bearing unless you don't consider related crimes to have bearing on this.

They aren't related enough to pertain to the question at hand - whether or not it is safe to go off alone with strange people. They don't demonstrate the proportion of people who go off with strangers who get attacked v. the same type of people who don't. The vast majority of people in your statistics wouldn't get into a car with a bunch of strange people.

You suggest the cause of those statistics is because these people are alone, but your claim does align with reality. Are you suggesting that male spousal abusers would rape and attack any woman that was alone with them? If not, your argument does not hold.

Actually, that question is completely and entirely irrelevant to my argument. The source of my argument is not the intentions of the abuser, but the situation they must attain in order to perpetrate certain types of abuse. You have created a wonderful strawman, but it doesn't hold up to what I have actually said.

So if they are being paid, then all their victimizing tendencies just go right out the window? Victimizers only victimize for free? Good to know.

Strawmen are popular in your area today, are they?

However, someone whose livelihood relies on not harming their customers are unlikely to do so. The type of person who victimizes others generally does it when they feel that they will not be suspected - or the actions will not come to light. A repairman, maid, etc. cannot expect that.

Again, you say it's not just about being alone with potential victimizers. Again, I hope that means I won't hear that argument again.

You haven't heard that argument even once. Yet another strawman. Are you having fun?

I never once said "it's just about being alone with potential victimizers." I said that the fact that much abuse necessitates being alone with potential victimizers affects the statistics. Obviously most cases are going to be people who can easily get their victims alone - because they need to get their victims alone to perpetrate the abuse.

It's about being alone where people do not expect you to be? Hmmm... how does that jive with most victimizers being intimates?

It doesn't. Of course, I never said any such thing, so I don't know why you're so upset about it.

You're trying to argue from two different positions because you can't choose one and hold up your case.

No darling. As usual, you are making up arguments that I haven't made so that you can argue, and generally ignoring the actual points I make.

You haven't conducted very many interviews, have you? ;)

No, but I have been interviewed more than once. I've never been a journalist.

Can you show that Natalee was not also prepared?

No, but my discussion has never been about NH specifically. She provided a possible example, but, as many have pointed out - we don't know all the details.

I addressed you and what you were saying because you were suggesting that it is perfectly safe to regularly go off with strange people. I think such a suggestion is a very irresponsible one to make, akin to telling children, "Sure, go to the nice man's van with him and see the puppies."

We don't know what happened once she left with them.

True.

For all you know they were just supposed to be headed to another bar, but as soon as they pulled away they bonked her on the head and she could no longer make sure their eyes were on the road and that they were going where they were supposed to be going.

True. But, if I wanted to go to another bar, away from everyone I had come into town with, I would tell them where I was going. I would tell them when I might be back (even if I was planning on it being next morning).

Therefore, there is no evidence that any responsibility can be placed on NH.

Of course there isn't. The only evidence that any responsibility for being abducted could ever possibly be placed on the victim is if they go willingly - and then it wouldn't be abduction, now would it?

Sometimes your parents are able to see danger you cant see...

thats why when Daddy says "don't talk to that guy"...or "don't dress like a whore" or "dont drink and Drive" .....maybe its a good idea to listen...

You presume much. They were chastising after the fact. Not really very helpful is it. And some of us are respectful enough to tell anyone that they dress like a 'whore'. I think you would be better served by learning how to communicate better and maybe you wouldn't have all these pent-up bitter feelings toward women. Psychologists really aren't very expensive. I recommend you visit one and work through these issues. No healthy person goes around calling people whores or suggesting that the only reason to be alone with someone is to have sex.

I have learned self-defense, and I still attend workshops on campus. I'm pretty much the only serious person in the room, aside from the campus police who are directing the session. It seems stupid to joke around about such things when you've had them happen, or even known someone who had them happen.

I find self-defense to be very empowering. I'm glad you chose to learn it. Perhaps rather than suggesting you're responsible for what happened to you, your parents should be commending you for growing through this event in your life and allowing it to make you stronger. Good for you.

I find self-defense to be very empowering. I'm glad you chose to learn it. Perhaps rather than suggesting you're responsible for what happened to you, your parents should be commending you for growing through this event in your life and allowing it to make you stronger. Good for you.


Thanks. Parents aren't always the most intelligent people in the world, nor the most understanding. *shrug* Nobody's perfect, I guess.

So you would invite a completely random person into your house, get drunk with them, and then go somewhere with them when you didn't know the area?

Not a random person, because I don't generally talk to random people. However, I would happily invite a person I find interesting into my home. Absolutely.

But you didn't address what I actually said. Never mind though, you obviously don't wish to address my points.

I didn't? Let's see what you said.

Do you know why you are most likely to be victimized by someone you know?

Because you are alone with them much more often than with strangers!

It sounds to me like you said that being alone more is the difference between being victimized by a stranger or an intimate. I believe I addressed that point. Do I need to quote myself or would you specifically like to point out which point I did not address?

How many people do you think climb into a car with random strangers in, say, NY, and come out of it unscathed?

Millions, I'm thinking. They're called cabs.

Here's another question: Why do we tell our children not to talk to strangers?

Interesting choice of topics. I was just reading about this.

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=242#5
The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children does not ascribe to the "stranger-danger" message. We have learned that children do not have the same understanding of who a stranger is as an adult might; therefore, it is a difficult concept for the child to grasp. It is much more beneficial to children to help them build the confidence and self-esteem they need to stay as safe as possible in any potentially dangerous situation they encounter rather than teaching them to be "on the look out" for a particular type of person. The "stranger-danger" message is not effective and, based on what we know about those who harm children, danger to children is greater from someone they or their family knows than from a "stranger."

But, hey, what do they know? They're just the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Oh, come on, you have to give me that one. I nailed you to the wall.

If you ever have children, are you going to say, "Son, go ahead and get into a car with a stranger if he offers you candy. After all, you're much more likely to get attacked by me than you are by any stranger"?

No. But not because I'm worried that he'll get attacked necessarily. Children are less capable of making educated decisions about who is dangerous and who is not. I would therefore expect my children to make me aware of who they are with and where they are at all times. This would include getting in a car. However, if my child was seventeen, I suspect I would have lifted such a restriction by that time.

Responsibility for avoiding a dangerous situation and responsibility for committing a crime are two different things.

Wow, thanks for the clarification. Where did I claim you were saying they were responsible for committing a crime? Oh, wait, I didn't. What I said was that you were placing responsibility on them by saying it never would have occurred if they were more careful. That's blame, friend.

Like I said, I would love to live in a world where one could place complete trust in random people and be safe. I resent the fact that I don't live in that world. I resent the fact that it isn't safe for me to take a walk in downtown Altanta at 3 in the morning if I want to. That doesn't mean it would be safe for me to do so. Of course, if I did so, and got mugged - that blame for that mugging would be completely and entirely placed on the mugger.

This guy wasn't random. She didn't just say hey some people are leaving I'll jump in the car. She got in the car with a boy she'd been hanging out with all day.

Atlanta? I've done it. And Harlem. And Cabrini Green. In two of those places, I was asked very nicely if I was lost, once by an elderly woman also on the street in the middle of the night. Near Cabrini I stopped into a bar and asked to use the phone. They literally shut off the music and you could hear crickets. I was advised to leave, but mostly I thought it was funny. I have had people try to mug me twice. Both times I was very near to the house I grew up in, but in a better neighborhood than my home was in. Both attempts failed.

Suppose I told a child not to talk to strangers. Suppose that child was offered candy by a nice looking man if she came with him to his car. Suppose he kidnapped that child. It is not the child's fault that she was kidnapped - in any way, shape, or form. However, she was still doing something dangerous that she was told not to do.

Would you tell that child they were behaving irresponsibly? Because that's what you said of NH. I'm enjoying that you're comparing the average 17-year-old girl to small child. What's next? You gonna say women shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Condemning? No. Counting your money is a completely reasonable act. There really isn't any other way of knowing how much you have - unless you have a perfect memory. However, we live in a world where people get mugged every day. One can hardly be villianized for pointing out that there are those out there who will steal from you, and that there are measures you can take to decrease the risk.

Your wording is getting better. However, you're hyperbole was obvious. You were pointing out the victim's level of responsibility for not being more careful. You can dancing around it all you like, but you are saying that.

Funny, I’ve taken self-defense courses. You know what kinds of things they tell you? Don’t put yourself in a situation where you aren’t in control. Make sure others know where you are. Don’t get into situations where you are alone with people you don’t know. Don't hitchhike or pick up hitchhikers. After all of that instruction, they move to, “If someone attacks you, do this…”

And those instructions statistically will prevent you from being victimized what percentage of the time? I'm curious. These instructions are based on an unreasonable belief that murder, rape, molestation, kidnapping is usually caused by icky people in vans or hitchhikers in long trench coats with jagged scars on their cheek. In fact, you are much more likely to be murdered/raped/molested/kidnapped by someone you know and have known for some time.

Most people are afraid of sharks too, does that make them maneaters? When SCUBA diving I find seeing a shark to be an exciting opportunity to watch a great beast in its natural habitat. Of course, if I stayed out of the water I'm much less likely to be attacked by a shark, but given the odds of an attack, the very few types of sharks that actually intentionally attack people and the general case that sharks want nothing to do with me, I don't find this to be necessary. I'm irresponsible like that.

According to you, such instruction places the blame for being attackd on the victim. Obviously then, you would say that self-defense classes shouldn't say these things?

I think they're wrong. None of those things have ever been shown to dramatically decrease your chances of being attacked. They introduce an unhealthy fear of strangers that is not based on objective evidence.

I don't pretend - or even suggest - any such thing.

Good. Then we agree that I do believe women should and can defend themselves, though you said the opposite. I'm glad we're finally on the same page.

Who says I would tell her any such thing? If NH is alive, she is well aware that she made a poor choice. I would hardly compound her distress by pointing it out to her, any more than I would yell at a child who went to see the puppies or get the candy that a stranger offered them. That doesn't mean that I won't suggest to others that they avoid similar situations.

I would tell her the same thing as I told the earlier poster. She couldn't have known. And again you compare her to a small child. I think you're not doing on purpose, but because you feel like the child argument is strong so you're trying to really bring it home. You're gonna hate me when you read that link.

I can show you an entire history of human beings in which people were encouraged not to go off alone with strangers. Of course, most people tend to follow this advice, so I guess we can't know for sure if it helps or not. All of the numbers we have are with the majority of people following this advice.

So in other words, you can't support your position. I referred you to a link to a major child protection organization that does not believe that, in general, teaching children to avoid strangers is beneficial. Maybe they're just confused like me, huh?

I haven't suggested any such thing. Try again.

Are you sure? "Responsibility for avoiding a dangerous situation" Again, how can you say they are responsible but can't be faulted? You're trying to seperate the two, but it can't be done.

They aren't related enough to pertain to the question at hand - whether or not it is safe to go off alone with strange people. They don't demonstrate the proportion of people who go off with strangers who get attacked v. the same type of people who don't. The vast majority of people in your statistics wouldn't get into a car with a bunch of strange people.

While the derivitives are logical, they are based on the illogical belief that crime occurs based on opportunity. It's simply not true. The part you seem to dismiss is that victimizers don't go, "oh, well, I came to the bar waiting for Jane to get in my car so we could go off alone so I could rape her." If a victimizer goes to a bar to just randomly victimize some girl, he'll find one. Much like a child molestor will find children to molest. There is not less crime because people don't trust strangers. Look around, there are always targets of opportunity. Your claim relies on the idea that crime is only based on opportunity. You can't support this claim.

Actually, that question is completely and entirely irrelevant to my argument. The source of my argument is not the intentions of the abuser, but the situation they must attain in order to perpetrate certain types of abuse. You have created a wonderful strawman, but it doesn't hold up to what I have actually said.

Really? It seems like in the quote above you said that the majority of victimizers are intimates simply because victims are alone more often with them. Maybe you didn't. Let's look again since quoting you is so much fun

Do you know why you are most likely to be victimized by someone you know?

Because you are alone with them much more often than with strangers!


What was my strawman, again? Let's see what I said.

You suggest the cause of those statistics is because these people are alone, but your claim does align with reality.

I am not and was not suggesting that you said the abuse is caused by being alone. I am suggested that you said the percentages of the abuse are simply based on intimates offering better targets of opportunity because they are alone with these victimizers more often. You did say that, suggesting that if random women were alone with these same people they would also be victimized and thus the statistics would be more even. Is rewording your argument a strawman? I thought it was called debate.

Strawmen are popular in your area today, are they?

However, someone whose livelihood relies on not harming their customers are unlikely to do so. The type of person who victimizes others generally does it when they feel that they will not be suspected - or the actions will not come to light. A repairman, maid, etc. cannot expect that.

At least the improper use of the word strawman seems to be popular. Hey, perhaps you should have said the above statement in the first place, instead of, "because it is their job to be there." When you actually state your position rather than forcing me to assume it, it makes it much easier to make you look silly. You do want to look silly, don't you?

Meanwhile, how does this align with the majority of victimizers being intimates? Again, your claims don't align with reality. Certainly, intimates have the same possibility for being caught as a repairman. Seems to support my argument that it's more related to the majority of these crimes being crimes of passion and that strangers simply don't have that sort of passion towards other strangers.

You haven't heard that argument even once. Yet another strawman. Are you having fun?

Yes, I'm having fun. Do I need to quote you again? I've already quoted it twice in this post.

I never once said "it's just about being alone with potential victimizers." I said that the fact that much abuse necessitates being alone with potential victimizers affects the statistics. Obviously most cases are going to be people who can easily get their victims alone - because they need to get their victims alone to perpetrate the abuse.

Yet, when I claimed that if this were true why wouldn't they just victimize anyone they were alone with, you called it a strawman. Nice way to avoid the point. I'll ask again. In order to affect the statistics, victimizers would have to be just as likely to victimize strangers if the opportunity arose. If this is true, why isn't it just as common for men who abuse their wives to abuse other women when they get them alone?

It doesn't. Of course, I never said any such thing, so I don't know why you're so upset about it.

Hmmm... You know I love quoting you. Thank you for keeping on denying what you said.

Meanwhile, we don't generally go to places with cab drivers, maids, repair people, delivery people, interviewers, etc. where others do not know where we are or will be. We also know that their respective bosses will likely know where they are.

It's about being alone where people do not expect you to be? Hmmm... how does that jive with most victimizers being intimates?

What part of that was what you didn't say? You suggested that being alone with random people is okay unless you are somewhere where others don't know were you are or will be, in other words, being alone where people do not expect you to be.

No darling. As usual, you are making up arguments that I haven't made so that you can argue, and generally ignoring the actual points I make.

I love when you call me darling, even when you make grammar mistakes. It's really unfortunate you have a boyfriend. Meanwhile, I'll let your words speak for themselves. They debate your claims in this post so much better than I ever could.

No, but I have been interviewed more than once. I've never been a journalist.

I will skip the obvious joke here about your English skills. Tell me you're not enjoying this just a little bit.

No, but my discussion has never been about NH specifically. She provided a possible example, but, as many have pointed out - we don't know all the details.

Not about NH. Again I quote you.

If NH is alive, she is well aware that she made a poor choice.

Why didn't you qualify the above statement to say if she was alive and what some have speculated is true? Oh, wait, because you were suggesting that she made a bad decision. And, yes, bad decision suggests that she should have known not to go. But I'm glad we agree that we don't know enough details to assume she made a bad decision.

I addressed you and what you were saying because you were suggesting that it is perfectly safe to regularly go off with strange people. I think such a suggestion is a very irresponsible one to make, akin to telling children, "Sure, go to the nice man's van with him and see the puppies."

I refer to the above link again. This wasn't a random choice. I suggest that there is no reason to randomly fear strangers or even being alone with them. The NCMEC agrees with me.

I skipped the rest because it's repetitive and this is getting really long.

Edit: I was rather in a hurry when I wrote this post, so I'm going to make some modifications. I will only address anything that was not modified hereafter.

Here's the closest example I can think of to explain the fact that one can advocate caution without blaming any victims:

Suppose I am driving down the freeway. The person driving in front of me decides that they wish to cause an accident. To do so, they slam on their brakes and start spinning the wheel. If I get in an wreck with them, it is not my fault - it is completely and in every way their fault - as they caused the situation. However, there are certain precautions I could have taken to prevent it. For instance, I could have made sure to have plenty of room between my car and theirs, so that I could stop, even in the case of them slamming on their brakes. I could have made sure that my breaks were working properly. I could be sure to know whether or not the car I am in has anti-lock brakes, so that I know the proper action to take when I need to stop suddenly. All of these things might help me to stay out of the accident. However, regardless of whether or not I do these things, the accident is still completely and totally the fault of the person causing it.

It sounds to me like you said that being alone more is the difference between being victimized by a stranger or an intimate. I believe I addressed that point. Do I need to quote myself or would you specifically like to point out which point I did not address?

No, you didn't address the point. You talked around it by trying to suggest that I thought the attacker was attacking specifically because the person was alone - something I never suggested. Like I said, the intentions of the victimizer are not the issue here. However, the fact remains that people are generally not in intimate situations with strangers. Thus, your statistics cannot be used to make the distinction you are making. From a purely statistical viewpoint, the strangers you meet are just as likely to be victimizers as those you are close to - unless you are going to suggest that those who are victims somehow choose to get close to victimizers. However, whatever victimizers you are close to are likely the ones who are going to attack you - because they do have the opportunity to do so.

Millions, I'm thinking. They're called cabs.

Again, not the same thing, although later in the post you pretend it is.

Interesting choice of topics. I was just reading about this.

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=242#5
The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children does not ascribe to the "stranger-danger" message. We have learned that children do not have the same understanding of who a stranger is as an adult might; therefore, it is a difficult concept for the child to grasp. It is much more beneficial to children to help them build the confidence and self-esteem they need to stay as safe as possible in any potentially dangerous situation they encounter rather than teaching them to be "on the look out" for a particular type of person. The "stranger-danger" message is not effective and, based on what we know about those who harm children, danger to children is greater from someone they or their family knows than from a "stranger."

But, hey, what do they know? They're just the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Oh, come on, you have to give me that one. I nailed you to the wall.

I never said we should teach our children "stranger-danger". I have yet to suggest that anyone - even children - should be taught to fear strangers. That was one of your strawmen. I simply said that we shouldn't encourage them to get into confined situations with strangers. Do you honestly think that this organization would say, "Yeah, tell your kids to get into cars with strangers!" I don't.

No. But not because I'm worried that he'll get attacked necessarily. Children are less capable of making educated decisions about who is dangerous and who is not. I would therefore expect my children to make me aware of who they are with and where they are at all times. This would include getting in a car. However, if my child was seventeen, I suspect I would have lifted such a restriction by that time.

No one makes perfect decisions about who is dangerous and who is not. This is the reason that I suggested that people, when planning on going out with someone they do not know, should make sure that others know where they are going - and that the person they are with is aware of this as well.

You don't gain perfect judgement of character magically at 17 - nor do you become an autonomous being with no need for other human beings.

Wow, thanks for the clarification. Where did I claim you were saying they were responsible for committing a crime? Oh, wait, I didn't.

If they are not responsible for the commission of a crime, then they are not responsible for what happened to them. Glad we agree.

What I said was that you were placing responsibility on them by saying it never would have occurred if they were more careful. That's blame, friend.

Actually, I never said that. I did suggest that it would be less likely to have occurred if they had been more careful. However, like I said, when one commits an evil act - the full responsibility for that act lies on them.

This guy wasn't random. She didn't just say hey some people are leaving I'll jump in the car. She got in the car with a boy she'd been hanging out with all day.

That's still pretty random, especially when you consider the fact that anyone who has traveled to tourist sites knows that the locals specifically watch for women willing to leave with them. Not all of them are going to attack you, of course, but they often expect sex.

Would you tell that child they were behaving irresponsibly?

If they were actually kidnapped? No.

I'm enjoying that you're comparing the average 17-year-old girl to small child.

We learn these lessons as children because we are more vulnerable as children. It doesn't mean that they cease to be valuable the minute we come of age.

Your wording is getting better. However, you're hyperbole was obvious. You were pointing out the victim's level of responsibility for not being more careful. You can dancing around it all you like, but you are saying that.

No, I was pointing out that we live in a dangerous world and there is nothing wrong with encouraging people to be cautious.

You are the only one worried about victim's responsibility here. I've already stated more than once that no blame can be placed on them.

And those instructions statistically will prevent you from being victimized what percentage of the time? I'm curious.

Hard to tell, since most people follow them. Like I said, I am not aware of any study that would tell us.

These instructions are based on an unreasonable belief that murder, rape, molestation, kidnapping is usually caused by icky people in vans or hitchhikers in long trench coats with jagged scars on their cheek.

No, they aren't. In fact, there was no talk at all of icky people in vans or scary looking hitchhikers.

Most people are afraid of sharks too, does that make them maneaters? When SCUBA diving I find seeing a shark to be an exciting opportunity to watch a great beast in its natural habitat.

Do you swim up to it and place your hand in its mouth? Or is there some sort of safe distance you keep?

I think they're wrong. None of those things have ever been shown to dramatically decrease your chances of being attacked. They introduce an unhealthy fear of strangers that is not based on objective evidence.

You seem to have a big problem with the distinction between fear and caution. You should work on that.

Edit: Meanwhile, I find it very interesting that when someone else gives these instructions, you say that they aren't blaming the victim, they're simply wrong. When I say the exact same thing, I'm somehow blaming the victim. Way to demonstrate the fact that you're simply digging for an argument here.

Good. Then we agree that I do believe women should and can defend themselves, though you said the opposite. I'm glad we're finally on the same page.

Now you really are making things up, considering that I never once suggested that women cannot or should not defned themselves.

Are you sure? "Responsibility for avoiding a dangerous situation" Again, how can you say they are responsible but can't be faulted? You're trying to seperate the two, but it can't be done.

Actually, it can. The fact that there is any dangerous situation at all is the fault of the person committing the crime. Thus, the responsibility fully rests on their shoulders. There are things people can do to avoid those situations - but they cannot be held responsible if they don't do them - because the situation shouldn't be there in the first place.

While the derivitives are logical, they are based on the illogical belief that crime occurs based on opportunity. It's simply not true. The part you seem to dismiss is that victimizers don't go, "oh, well, I came to the bar waiting for Jane to get in my car so we could go off alone so I could rape her." If a victimizer goes to a bar to just randomly victimize some girl, he'll find one. Much like a child molestor will find children to molest. There is not less crime because people don't trust strangers. Look around, there are always targets of opportunity. Your claim relies on the idea that crime is only based on opportunity. You can't support this claim.

No, it doesn't. Again with your black and whites. But crime does need opportunity. Someone goes into a bar looking for a girl to rape. There's no girl there. Do they get to rape a girl from that bar? The opportunity has to be there for someone to do this.

I am suggested that you said the percentages of the abuse are simply based on intimates offering better targets of opportunity because they are alone with these victimizers more often. You did say that, suggesting that if random women were alone with these same people they would also be victimized and thus the statistics would be more even. Is rewording your argument a strawman? I thought it was called debate.

Again, you misword things. I never said they were "simply based on" that at all. I pointed out that it is a factor that you were ignoring.

Meanwhile, how does this align with the majority of victimizers being intimates?

Because the majority doesn't matter. There are people out there who are not intimates and attack people - and this is more likely to happen if you are alone with them than if you are not.

If no one was ever attacked by someone they didn't know, your point would stand. This is not, however, the case.

Certainly, intimates have the same possibility for being caught as a repairman.

Wrong. Most people won't turn in an intimate. Most will try to find a reason that it is their own fault, etc. Most will try to rationalize it more with an intimate.

If this is true, why isn't it just as common for men who abuse their wives to abuse other women when they get them alone?

How often do you think men who abuse their wives are alone with other women? How often are those women just as unlikely to do anything about it as their wives?

Hmmm... You know I love quoting you. Thank you for keeping on denying what you said.

I have never once denied anything I actually said - simply your illogical extrapolations.

What part of that was what you didn't say? You suggested that being alone with random people is okay unless you are somewhere where others don't know were you are or will be, in other words, being alone where people do not expect you to be.

Incorrect again. I suggested that being alone with someone you do not know is better if others are aware of where you be. In other words, you are taking some precaution.

I love when you call me darling, even when you make grammar mistakes.

Oh noes! I forgot a comma!

Not about NH. Again I quote you.

Yup, an example. Lookie there.

Why didn't you qualify the above statement to say if she was alive and what some have speculated is true? Oh, wait, because you were suggesting that she made a bad decision. And, yes, bad decision suggests that she should have known not to go. But I'm glad we agree that we don't know enough details to assume she made a bad decision.

Getting in a car with three strange guys in a foreign country without telling anyone you know where you are going is likely to be a bad decision - no matter who makes it.

Besides that fact, the fact that something has happened to NH means that she made a "bad decision", whether or not that decision was avoidable. When I dated my ex-boyfriend, I made a "bad decision" in trusting him. That doesn't make it my fault he was an asshole and I don't regret anything I did because, had I known only what I knew then, my decision wouldn't have been different. However, dating him was, in retrospect, a bad decision.

Wrong. Most people won't turn in an intimate. Most will try to find a reason that it is their own fault, etc. Most will try to rationalize it more with an intimate.

How often do you think men who abuse their wives are alone with other women? How often are those women just as unlikely to do anything about it as their wives?

Perfect, you made my point for me. I was addressing your points, point by point, but why bother? We're nearly at the same point on the responsibility thing and it's really kind of a silly point anyway, though I'm sure you can see how making a victim feel like they could have been more responsibility might make them feel at fault, even if that is not your intent.

And once I got to the two above statements, why continue? You just explained why intimates are more likely to be victimizers than strangers. It's because "most people won't turn in an intimate". As you said, how often are strangers as "unlikely to do anything about it as their wives"? Thank you for making my point. I avoided saying it because I knew it would make you more likely to make the argument. That was fun. Let's do it again sometime. I'll also add that there is the secondary reason that many of these crimes are crimes of passion and not premeditated. That is also another reason. But whether you agree with me or not, we've established it's not about opportunity as you suggested. I'm glad we've settled that.

...In spite of that logic, my parents continue to 'remind [me] how much of a dipshit [I] was' at every opportunity.

Even if the court doesn't do it, someone will.
My parents weren't even in agreement about him -- my mother didn't like him (mostly because my mother didn't like anyone that age), and my father saw no problem with him -- so they didn't even see it.
I was not talking specifically about your case...my general opinion is that you should not be in a hurry to dismiss parents, family, teachers or friends advice.

And that if your parents still pay for you expenses...they are pretty much entitled to set home and personal safety rules.

Having say that...If you Dad never told you anything that could have prevented you being raped...I don't see why he would "continue to 'remind [you] how much of a dipshit [you] were'...at every opportunity."

...he must be a nut case.

And once I got to the two above statements, why continue? You just explained why intimates are more likely to be victimizers than strangers.

...which is still irrelevant - as I pointed out.

I am only talking about avoiding the cases when the victimizer is not an intimate. I have never suggested that one can avoid all victimization - by doing anything. In the car example above, no matter what I do, I may get in an accident. However, I am less likely to get in an accident with that person if I take the precautions I listed.

If one is cautious about people they don't know, that person is less likely to be victimized by someone they don't know. It may still happen, but it is less likely.

But whether you agree with me or not, we've established it's not about opportunity as you suggested. I'm glad we've settled that.

No, we've established that an unrelated set of cases - the cases in which an intimate perpetuates the crim - are not completely about opportunity. Obviously, the opportunity still has to be there.

For those who don't wait to develop an intimate relationship with their victims, opportunity may be all that is needed. I don't really know - it's a bit hard to get into the psyche of such people.

You want to lump all cases in together and say, "You're more likely to get harmed by someone you trust, so just trust everyone from the start! Throw caution to the wind because it won't help you." In the example in my edit above, this is like saying, "Most accidents happen within a mile of your home, so caution isn't needed when you're driving on the freeway further than a mile from where you live."

I'm saying, "You're more likely to get victimized by someone you know and trust. However, there are those who victimize people they don't know. Those are people you might be able to avoid if you are cautious around people you don't know." In the example above, this is like saying, "Most accidents do happen within a mile of your home. However, some accidents happen on the freeway. To avoid them, you should try and keep plenty of stopping distance between your car and the car in front of you. You should make sure you know what type of brakes you have, and that they are maintained properly."

...which is still irrelevant - as I pointed out.

I am only talking about avoiding the cases when the victimizer is not an intimate. I have never suggested that one can avoid all victimization - by doing anything. In the car example above, no matter what I do, I may get in an accident. However, I am less likely to get in an accident with that person if I take the precautions I listed.

If one is cautious about people they don't know, that person is less likely to be victimized by someone they don't know. It may still happen, but it is less likely.


No, we've established that an unrelated set of cases - the cases in which an intimate perpetuates the crim - are not completely about opportunity. Obviously, the opportunity still has to be there.

For those who don't wait to develop an intimate relationship with their victims, opportunity may be all that is needed. I don't really know - it's a bit hard to get into the psyche of such people.

You want to lump all cases in together and say, "You're more likely to get harmed by someone you trust, so just trust everyone from the start! Throw caution to the wind because it won't help you." In the example in my edit above, this is like saying, "Most accidents happen within a mile of your home, so caution isn't needed when you're driving on the freeway further than a mile from where you live."

I'm saying, "You're more likely to get victimized by someone you know and trust. However, there are those who victimize people they don't know. Those are people you might be able to avoid if you are cautious around people you don't know." In the example above, this is like saying, "Most accidents do happen within a mile of your home. However, some accidents happen on the freeway. To avoid them, you should try and keep plenty of stopping distance between your car and the car in front of you. You should make sure you know what type of brakes you have, and that they are maintained properly."

See now we're in agreement. We just disagree about what amounts to caution. I don't feel like it's necessary to assume it's a bad idea to go out alone with a couple of guys because you've only known them a day. We don't have the information to assess that she was irresponsible in her decision to enter the car with these men. We don't know for sure that they killed her or even that she's dead (though odds are obviously that she is).

The accidents analogy is perfect for what I'm proposing. I don't take any precautions on the highway that aren't necessary within a mile of my home and that is specifically the reason that they give that statistic. People, in fact, take more precautions on the expressway where there is less likelihood of an accident than they do near their home where accidents are more common. Intimate relationships are near your home and strangers are the expressway. The way to protect yourself with intimate relationships is to not be around guys that give you some indication they'll be dangerous. And to LEAVE and REPORT them if they do choose to victimize you. I suggest this is the exact same precautions that should be taken with strangers.

actually, there is more chances of it happening to your sister, GF, or Wife.

And you say that because? Maybe it already has happened, and that is why I am so sickened by your total lack of empathy.

And you say that because? cos I dont have a GF...and I have absolutely no plans of ever getting married.
.
.
OMG...maybe it has happened?...
Damn...I had no idea...that possibility never crossed my mind. :(

I was looking at my situation(relatively less exposed)...and not thinking at all about your situation.

the only thing I can do now is delete that mirror post...