NationStates Jolt Archive

Overall an interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/01/gender.women) on the perceived backlash against feminism, from which this paragraph:

On the ridiculous side, for instance, came a survey by Marketing magazine of the nation's most-loved and least-loved celebrities. The respondents' top five most loved were men: Paul McCartney, Lewis Hamilton, Gary Lineker, Simon Cowell and David Beckham. Of the five most hated, the top four were women: Heather Mills, Amy Winehouse, Victoria Beckham and Kerry Katona, with Simon Cowell coming in at number five. On some level, reacting to this at all seemed stupid, and yet ...

This may just be one survey but I often see far greater vitriol, far worse insults hurled at women in the public eye compared to men, and it does seem to be getting worse.

In a way, we may have treated women courteously in the past - though I rather doubt it - and the open manner in which people insult women nowadays is merely recognition that they're in some ways more equal, as one quoted person puts it: "I think that you always get the greatest resistance when you're actually doing something," she says. "I think it signals that there's a slightly stronger sense of feminist organisation and voice than there was 10 years ago. The irony, of course, is that you only get resistance if there's something to be resisted."

However, it's not just in the words we use.

The women's movement of the 70s and early 80s fought for provision for rape victims, a network of Rape Crisis centres, and, by 1984, there were 68 of these essential services across England and Wales. Today, with rapes at an unprecedented high (the tally of recorded rapes rose by 247% between 1991 and 2004), the number of Rape Crisis centres has almost halved - there are now only 38.

Why is real hatred and loathing reserved for women?

I'm not seeing the correlation between reduced government services and hatred for women. Also, polls on celebrities? Not terribly reliable data.

Pretty much all the people that I hate are guys. The only exception is the [english has no words nasty enough for this] who thought the best way to date me was to lie to my girlfriend until I was dumped. :(

I'm not seeing the correlation between reduced government services and hatred for women. Also, polls on celebrities? Not terribly reliable data.

Agreed. I can think of very few people who truly hate women. There are plenty of people who are sexist, but sexism and misogyny (probably spelled that incorrectly) are not the same thing.

I'm not seeing the correlation between reduced government services and hatred for women. Also, polls on celebrities? Not terribly reliable data.

More from the article linked:

I was reminded of this last fact when the Washington Post, a newspaper that rarely picks up on British feminist issues (the US frankly having enough issues of its own) ran a long article about this disgrace in our justice system. The piece pointed out that the rape conviction rate in Britain has plummeted from 33% in the 70s to just 5.7% today, and that the 14,000 rapes reported each year are thought to be the tip of the iceberg - Solicitor General, Vera Baird, suggested that only 10%-20% of all cases are brought to the attention of the authorities. The article quoted a barrister called Kerim Fuad, who has represented many men accused of rape, and who admitted that he had been surprised by some "not guilty" verdicts - including those in which the plaintiff had sustained internal injuries. It alluded to an Amnesty International poll, conducted in 2005, which found that 26% of respondents thought that a woman was totally or partially responsible for being raped if she was wearing revealing clothing, and 30% thought she was totally or partially responsible if she was drunk.

You do have a point on correlation, and there's probably many other points to make such as, are women better off now than they were in, say, 1930 - yet are they better off than they were in 1990 is as relevant in terms of trends?

Overall an interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/01/gender.women) on the perceived backlash against feminism, from which this paragraph:



This may just be one survey but I often see far greater vitriol, far worse insults hurled at women in the public eye compared to men, and it does seem to be getting worse.

In a way, we may have treated women courteously in the past - though I rather doubt it - and the open manner in which people insult women nowadays is merely recognition that they're in some ways more equal, as one quoted person puts it: "I think that you always get the greatest resistance when you're actually doing something," she says. "I think it signals that there's a slightly stronger sense of feminist organisation and voice than there was 10 years ago. The irony, of course, is that you only get resistance if there's something to be resisted."

However, it's not just in the words we use.



Why is real hatred and loathing reserved for women?

LOL Are you joking? The lack of rape centers is due to apathy not hostility, and secondly polls on celebrities apply to those particular celebrities, not every man and woman on the planet. 1 hated male celeb:4 hated female celebs =/= 1 hated man:4 hated women

Well, I blame the fact that men are totally more sexy than women.

And no, I refuse to acknowledge any accusations of bias in my statement.

Seriously, though, I love women and will shred up anyone who dares go the "but the dirty sluts are asking for rape!" route. Seriously. To shreds.

I didn't know Amy Winehouse was British…

Seriously, though, I love women and will shred up anyone who dares go the "but the dirty sluts are asking for rape!" route. Seriously. To shreds.

If they were asking for rape, it wouldn't be rape. ;)

LOL Are you joking? The lack of rape centers is due to apathy not hostility, and secondly polls on celebrities apply to those particular celebrities, not every man and woman on the planet. 1 hated male celeb:4 hated female celebs =/= 1 hated man:4 hated women

Apathy perhaps alludes to an underlying disrespect in terms of not funding rape centers because they're not important, it's only women after all and most of them probably deserve it no?

Again, please don't critique based on the two paragraphs I quoted when there's both an entire article as well as an entire broad subject - it's one of the more lazy habits of NSGers - pot noodle opinions based on scanning a post.

Apathy perhaps alludes to an underlying disrespect in terms of not funding rape centers because they're not important, it's only women after all and most of them probably deserve it no?




Again, please don't critique based on the two paragraphs I quoted when there's both an entire article as well as an entire broad subject - it's one of the more lazy habits of NSGers - pot noodle opinions based on scanning a post.

Women aren't the only ones nowadays. No one cares for either. Its apathy and disrespect for the average human being not for just women.

If they were asking for rape, it wouldn't be rape. ;)
The smiley suggests you are using humor. Good. Then I don't have to shred you up.

Sad thing is, lots of disgusting pigs really think like this.
|
|
V
It alluded to an Amnesty International poll, conducted in 2005, which found that 26% of respondents thought that a woman was totally or partially responsible for being raped if she was wearing revealing clothing, and 30% thought she was totally or partially responsible if she was drunk.

The smiley suggests you are using humor. Good. Then I don't have to shred you up.

*does not want to be soyent green*
I wasn't being entirely humourous. Just overly literal.

It alluded to an Amnesty International poll, conducted in 2005, which found that 26% of respondents thought that a woman was totally or partially responsible for being raped if she was wearing revealing clothing, and 30% thought she was totally or partially responsible if she was drunk.

Yeah, I know. I can't decide which one of those statistics is more laughably pathetic.

Don't drag me into this; I've never had a damn thing against women, and I've not had a reason to.

Seriously, it irks me that a lot of men treat women as if they're a whole other species...

The smiley suggests you are using humor. Good. Then I don't have to shred you up.

Sad thing is, lots of disgusting pigs really think like this.
|
|
V
It alluded to an Amnesty International poll, conducted in 2005, which found that 26% of respondents thought that a woman was totally or partially responsible for being raped if she was wearing revealing clothing, and 30% thought she was totally or partially responsible if she was drunk.


Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.

Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.

You must have an odd view of men if you're equating looking sexy ---> getting raped with hand in toaster ----> hurting yourself.

What of women who just happen to be beautiful? Should they refrain from make up in case they tempt men into an uncontrollable sexual fury? Should they cover their hair? Their eyes?

Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.

No it bloody well is not. Men are not machines incapable of independent thought, and unlike a toaster, they are responsible for their own behavior. Rape is 100% the fault of rapists, not their victims, and to argue otherwise is disgusting.

Because peoples mom's slapped them.

Fuck all if I know. I like women.

No it bloody well is not. Men are not machines incapable of independent thought, and unlike a toaster, they are responsible for their own behavior. Rape is 100% the fault of rapists, not their victims, and to argue otherwise is disgusting.

Agreed.


And posting on two forums simultaneously is always fun.

Nonsense! If I walk into a pub filled with Glasgow Rangers supporters dressed in a Celtic strip I bear absolutely no responsibility if they are violent towards me, it should not even have to cross my mind that it might be a poor choice or may provoke them, I should be entitled to do what I want when I want without any ramifications or self responsibility or caution on my part.

No it bloody well is not. Men are not machines incapable of independent thought, and unlike a toaster, they are responsible for their own behavior…

Next time someone suggests rape is partially the woman's fault, I'll ask them "Why do you hate men?"

Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.

disgusting

I've noticed (this is a bit of a tangent, but related to the main topic), that the insults "dick, prick, cock," etc. are not nearly as offensive as the terms "**** and twat." I've often wondered why that is. Why is it more offensive to be called a vulgar term for a vulva than to be called a vulgar term for a penis?

Nonsense! If I walk into a pub filled with Glasgow Rangers supporters dressed in a Celtic strip I bear absolutely no responsibility if they are violent towards me, it should not even have to cross my mind that it might be a poor choice or may provoke them, I should be entitled to do what I want when I want without any ramifications or self responsibility or caution on my part.

I'm a big, big fan of Pepsi. Pepsi is the best cola that was or could be created, and I'm sure they only indulged in the Cola Wars for some kind of sick entertainment.

The other day, I was innocently going about my business, when this guy walks past drinking from a bottle of Coca-Cola. Actually drinking from it.

So I stabbed him.

He had it coming.

I've noticed (this is a bit of a tangent, but related to the main topic), that the insults "dick, prick, cock," etc. are not nearly as offensive as the terms "**** and twat." I've often wondered why that is. Why is it more offensive to be called a vulgar term for a vulva than to be called a vulgar term for a penis?

It's not a tangent so much, its a good point, similar to the difference between 'bitch' and 'bastard', similar words but one is seen as more offensive than the other.

Could one equate it to the difference between '******' and 'whitey'?

It's not a tangent so much, its a good point, similar to the difference between 'bitch' and 'bastard', similar words but one is seen as more offensive than the other.

Could one equate it to the difference between '******' and 'whitey'?

Probably, in the sense that one has a much dirtier history.

I'm a big, big fan of Pepsi. Pepsi is the best cola that was or could be created, and I'm sure they only indulged in the Cola Wars for some kind of sick entertainment.

The other day, I was innocently going about my business, when this guy walks past drinking from a bottle of Coca-Cola. Actually drinking from it.

So I stabbed him.

He had it coming.

There is a first time for everything.

No it bloody well is not. Men are not machines incapable of independent thought, and unlike a toaster, they are responsible for their own behavior. Rape is 100% the fault of rapists, not their victims, and to argue otherwise is disgusting.

But as you well know men are wired to want to get on with attractive women. If the infatuation level is high enough the instincts take over temporarily. When women show off their stuff it's like waving bacon in front of a dog's nose.

But as you well know men are wired to want to get on with attractive women. If the infatuation level is high enough the instincts take over temporarily. When women show off their stuff it's like waving bacon in front of a dog's nose.


What of women who just happen to be beautiful? Should they refrain from make up in case they tempt men into an uncontrollable sexual fury? Should they cover their hair? Their eyes?.

But as you well know men are wired to want to get on with attractive women. If the infatuation level is high enough the instincts take over temporarily. When women show off their stuff it's like waving bacon in front of a dog's nose.

...so your honest argument is "men have no more self-control than dogs"? Seriously? And you don't think that's maybe just a little insulting to men?

Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.

Some of us are capable of acting like adults. Meaning that we understand and abide by this concept called "self control," and also have an understanding of this novel new idea that's called "consent."

Just because a woman is suggestively dressed doesn't mean that she's automatically consenting to fuck anyone with a penis.

A woman is entirely reasonable for having an expectation that other people are responsible for their own decisions and will decide not to assault her on the basis of what she is wearing. She didn't get all dressed up to get raped, though perhaps she was intending on attracting some attention... I'd guess that usually the kind of attention a woman wants to attract with a sexy outfit is the kind of attention that abides by consent and hopefully is a bit more subtle and advanced in approaches to courtship than a male elephant seal.

But as you well know men are wired to want to get on with attractive women. If the infatuation level is high enough the instincts take over temporarily. When women show off their stuff it's like waving bacon in front of a dog's nose.

Um... no, it's really not. Women aren't bacon, and most of us men have a bit more self control than dogs.

I've never been sent into a raping frenzy by a scantily clad woman. If you fear that you have such pathetic self control, maybe you should admit yourself to a mental institution or perhaps move somewhere where women keep their skin well covered. You know, like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Women aren't bacon

...And here I was, getting my hopes up...

disgusting

Whats disgusting is the fact that some woman will wear clothing thats meant to cause attractions from the other sex and when some git gets attracted then sexually assaults her she gets no blame. What really gets me is if girls are so uptight about men taking advantage of them ect ect, then why do they try so hard to attract strangers they don't even know? Why don't they do themselves a favor and dress modestly so that less pervs get any ideas.

Um... no, it's really not. Women aren't bacon, and most of us men have a bit more self control than dogs.

I've never been sent into a raping frenzy by a scantily clad woman. If you fear that you have such pathetic self control, maybe you should admit yourself to a mental institution or perhaps move somewhere where women keep their skin well covered. You know, like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Bacon is not considered Halal.

It's not a tangent so much, its a good point, similar to the difference between 'bitch' and 'bastard', similar words but one is seen as more offensive than the other.

Could one equate it to the difference between '******' and 'whitey'?

I'd say more like ****** and cracker. Maybe the same type of slur is more offensive to a member of a historically oppressed group. Which is why, in my experience, women get much more angry about being called a **** than men get about being called a prick, though there is nothing more inherently offensive about female genitalia than there is about male genitalia.

But as you well know men are wired to want to get on with attractive women. If the infatuation level is high enough the instincts take over temporarily. When women show off their stuff it's like waving bacon in front of a dog's nose.

Well, women are wired to dress and behave in the most suggestive manner possible. If an article of clothing is revealing enough, then instincts take over temporarily and they can't help but wear it. It's like a shedding cat's reaction to a clean fleece.
:rolleyes:

A quick point about rape: ugly women get raped. It's more about power than it is about being sexually attracted to someone.

But as you well know men are wired to want to get on with attractive women. If the infatuation level is high enough the instincts take over temporarily. When women show off their stuff it's like waving bacon in front of a dog's nose.
If you can't keep your damn penis in your pants just because you see a pretty woman, then you deserve to be fucking neutered.

What really gets me is if girls are so uptight about men taking advantage of them…

:headbang:

Whats disgusting is the fact that some woman will wear clothing thats meant to cause attractions from the other sex and when some git gets attracted then sexually assaults her she gets no blame. What really gets me is if girls are so uptight about men taking advantage of them ect ect, then why do they try so hard to attract strangers they don't even know? Why don't they do themselves a favor and dress modestly so that less pervs get any ideas.

...

...

...I don't even have words. Please, please consider getting yourself into therpay or something if you honestly think of women this way.

Whats disgusting is the fact that some woman will wear clothing thats meant to cause attractions from the other sex and when some git gets attracted then sexually assaults her she gets no blame. What really gets me is if girls are so uptight about men taking advantage of them ect ect, then why do they try so hard to attract strangers they don't even know? Why don't they do themselves a favor and dress modestly so that less pervs get any ideas.

.......

Wow.

This is seriously, seriously fucked up.

A quick point about rape: ugly women get raped. It's more about power than it is about being sexually attracted to someone.

Well, you know. Men are wired to take any opportunity for power and humiliation of others they come across.

A quick point about rape: ugly women get raped. It's more about power than it is about being sexually attracted to someone.

But... but... don't women find powerful men a turn on?

A quick point about rape: ugly women get raped.

and so do ugly men.

But... but... don't women find powerful men a turn on?

Of course, it's well known facts that:

1) rape is about power

2) women like men in power

ergo...the bitch was asking for it.

Um... no, it's really not. Women aren't bacon, and most of us men have a bit more self control than dogs.

I've never been sent into a raping frenzy by a scantily clad woman. If you fear that you have such pathetic self control, maybe you should admit yourself to a mental institution or perhaps move somewhere where women keep their skin well covered. You know, like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

I have enough self control but unfortunately there are alot of people who live by an animalistic, hedonistic, philosophy and there are alot of sickos who lack self control entirely. Sadly I grew up around these kinds of people which has motivated me never to become like them.

But I like being bacon. Eat me and get fat.....oh it's almost too good.

:P

I have enough self control but unfortunately with all these lefty water bottle types going around telling people "if it feels good do it" and other nonsense that wipes the phyche clean of the super-ego. There are alot of people who live by an animalistic, hedonistic, philosophy and there are alot of sickos who lack self control entirely. Sadly I grew up around these kinds of people which has motivated me never to become like them.

All right, that's done it.
I've decided you cannot possibly be serious.

I have enough self control but unfortunately with all these lefty water bottle types going around telling people "if it feels good do it" and other nonsense that wipes the phyche clean of the super-ego it has caused many to fall into those who do lack self control. There are alot of people who live by an animalistic, hedonistic, philosophy and there are alot of sickos who lack self control entirely.
wait hold on, let me make sure I understand this...did you just say that liberals....promote rape?

Sadly I grew up around these kinds of people which has motivated me never to become like them.

First step, when shit like this pop into your head, resist the urge to say it.

But I like being bacon. Eat me and get fat.....oh it's almost too good.

:P

Yeah, but are you hickory, mesquite, or applewood smoked? It matters!

Whats disgusting is the fact that some woman will wear clothing thats meant to cause attractions from the other sex and when some git gets attracted then sexually assaults her she gets no blame. What really gets me is if girls are so uptight about men taking advantage of them ect ect, then why do they try so hard to attract strangers they don't even know? Why don't they do themselves a favor and dress modestly so that less pervs get any ideas.

Because they assume that people will act like civilized adults. If a stranger is interested in them sexually, they assume that the stranger will introduce him/herself and make small talk as is the usual case with humans. They assume that people understand the concept of consent, and that they, by and large, will obey the law in this regard.

It's the same assumption that I make when I walk down the street. I often wear shirts with band names or the name of a particular college on them. I assume that though some people may have their attention drawn to me because of what my clothes declare, that they won't assault me even though they may hate whatever my shirt represents.

You could say the same about someone walking around in an obviously expensive suit. Obviously he has money. People like to have money. However, he has a reasonable assumption that he will not be robbed. If he is robbed, is he to blame or are the criminals who mugged him to blame?

Of course, it's well known facts that:

1) rape is about power

2) women like men in power

ergo...the bitch was asking for it.


Hmm but then again

Knowledge is power which gives a whole new meaning to "knowing" someone eh?

Oh I can be whatever you like. *winks*


Although, I am feeling for some applewood right about now.

But I like being bacon. Eat me and get fat.....oh it's almost too good.

:P


But I don't want to be fat.

If you can't keep your damn penis in your pants just because you see a pretty woman, then you deserve to be fucking neutered.

Why does everyone assume that I'm describing myself?

I'd say more like ****** and cracker. Maybe the same type of slur is more offensive to a member of a historically oppressed group. Which is why, in my experience, women get much more angry about being called a **** than men get about being called a prick, though there is nothing more inherently offensive about female genitalia than there is about male genitalia.

Hmm, yet I am also offended by these words and I'm a white male, there's something in the power of words here, that they're loaded culturally purely as words in some way.

Our brains clearly, in some cases, add greater significance to words for no other reason than the way we see others react to or use those words.

This may tie into upbringing, where one has a mother who will not tolerate these words, we also do not, whereas where a mother, or even female influencers within one's close society, accepts these words for whatever reason, we allow them.

Hence, those with abused mothers may have a higher percentage of using insults towards women because they see them as acceptable.

I could clear up my thoughts on this I think but words in and of themselves have no meaning outside of cultural context.

Women aren't the only ones nowadays. No one cares for either. Its apathy and disrespect for the average human being not for just women.
Perhaps it is similar to the apathy and disrespect for the average human being that you show in your posts here so far.

Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.

But as you well know men are wired to want to get on with attractive women. If the infatuation level is high enough the instincts take over temporarily. When women show off their stuff it's like waving bacon in front of a dog's nose.
Are you aware that these two posts not only blame women for rape but also condone rape as a natural behavior of men?

It boggles the mind that any sane person can think it is a natural impulse for men to commit rape. I find that even more mystifying than the already mystifying notion that a person can be blamed for something someone else does, as in blaming the victim of a crime for the actions of the person who committed the crime.

Understand this:

1) Women are not bacon.

2) Men are not dogs.

3) If some sick bastard chooses to do something, the victim of his sick impulses is NOT -- repeat NOT responsible for his choices. Period. Why? Because sick bastard though he is, he is not a dog and she is not bacon.

4) A good-looking woman getting raped is NOT like a person sticking their hand in a toaster and suing the toaster company for their burns. Why? Because being pretty is not an irresponsible action. Because going out is not consent to be the target of violence. Because men are not dogs, so she is not being unreasonable in not assuming that if she leaves the house she will automatically be raped (whereas toasters are hot, so a person would be unreasonable if they did not assume that if they stuck their hand in there they'd get burned). And if a rape victim calls the police, it is NOT like suing the toaster company because she is reporting someone else's bad action, not her own mistake -- and contrary to whatever it is you might think, civilized societies do not condone rape and do not want rapists running around loose, no matter what women dress like. Your disgusting analogy fails -- and not just because it is disgusting.

Because they assume that people will act like civilized adults. If a stranger is interested in them sexually, they assume that the stranger will introduce him/herself and make small talk as is the usual case with humans. They assume that people understand the concept of consent, and that they, by and large, will obey the law in this regard.

It's the same assumption that I make when I walk down the street. I often wear shirts with band names or the name of a particular college on them. I assume that though some people may have their attention drawn to me because of what my clothes declare, that they won't assault me even though they may hate whatever my shirt represents.

You could say the same about someone walking around in an obviously expensive suit. Obviously he has money. People like to have money. However, he has a reasonable assumption that he will not be robbed. If he is robbed, is he to blame or are the criminals who mugged him to blame?

Depends where he's walking no? Wall street fine, a shanty town in the Congo, not so fine.

Of course, it's well known facts that:

1) rape is about power

2) women like men in power

ergo...the bitch was asking for it.


Yet, women don't like rape. Odd.


I think women like the illusion of power. Afterall, ye who makes the sandwich holds the true power in any relationship. ;)

I have enough self control but unfortunately there are alot of people who live by an animalistic, hedonistic, philosophy and there are alot of sickos who lack self control entirely. Sadly I grew up around these kinds of people which has motivated me never to become like them.

Any sexual antics hinge on consent. With consent, however disgusting, they are legal, and no one is really harmed/violated/whatever.

Without consent, it's sexual assault. You seem to be incapable of understanding this concept. Hence why I think you should check yourself into a mental institution or move to Iran.

But I don't want to be fat.


Says every American eating fast food, drinking soda, and sitting on their lazy asses.

:P

Says every American eating fast food, drinking soda, and sitting on their lazy asses.

:P

Hey-hey, I'm trying to curb that shit!

Seriously. I only had about 32 grams of sugar today. Well, that I counted.

Why does everyone assume that I'm describing myself?

Because you are generalizing about men. You are a man, are you not?

The rest of us men on here seem to have a lot more faith in the self control of our sex than you do. Therefore you must be basing your idea that "women showing their stuff in front of men is like waving bacon in front of a dog" and that "at a certain infatuation level, men just lose all self control and go crazy" on something. The most immediate and obvious explanation is that you are basing such on yourself.

Oh, by the way, don't ever go near any of my female friends or relatives.

Because they assume that people will act like civilized adults. If a stranger is interested in them sexually, they assume that the stranger will introduce him/herself and make small talk as is the usual case with humans. They assume that people understand the concept of consent, and that they, by and large, will obey the law in this regard.

It's the same assumption that I make when I walk down the street. I often wear shirts with band names or the name of a particular college on them. I assume that though some people may have their attention drawn to me because of what my clothes declare, that they won't assault me even though they may hate whatever my shirt represents.

You could say the same about someone walking around in an obviously expensive suit. Obviously he has money. People like to have money. However, he has a reasonable assumption that he will not be robbed. If he is robbed, is he to blame or are the criminals who mugged him to blame?

This is planet earth. Deep down as many of you have stated, we are a horde of power hungry primates with little regard for others. Earth is a savage place and every day it becomes less and less civilized. Of all people you, the posters of NSG should be aware of that. Hey, the guy shouldn't show off his wealth, it'll just get him mugged. And where I come from teenagers are known to make death threats to those who wear shirts that have political messages or sports teams that they hate.

Whats disgusting is the fact that some woman will wear clothing thats meant to cause attractions from the other sex and when some git gets attracted then sexually assaults her she gets no blame. What really gets me is if girls are so uptight about men taking advantage of them ect ect, then why do they try so hard to attract strangers they don't even know? Why don't they do themselves a favor and dress modestly so that less pervs get any ideas.
Why don't they wear burkhas? Why don't they think that every man is a rapist? How can they manage to be so stupid and so slutty at the same time?

I'm sorry but that post is just so full of shit, it's not even funny.

I have enough self control but unfortunately there are alot of people who live by an animalistic, hedonistic, philosophy and there are alot of sickos who lack self control entirely. Sadly I grew up around these kinds of people which has motivated me never to become like them.
No, actually, there aren't. If you were raised by a tribe of rapists, that's very unfortunate, but it is not the societal norm.

Why does everyone assume that I'm describing myself?
Because you're the only one here saying such dumbass BS.

Food for thought:

Why do people argue animal instincts when it suits the arguement?


If we humans had those instincts intact, we'd learn when to shut our mouths, when to back off, when to diet, what foods not to eat based on smell, when to run, when to fight, how to independently live at a very early age.

Since we do none of these....I think it's really safe to assume humans no longer have animal instincts and thus, acting on such said instincts is a load of crap spawned of a guilty conscious. :P

Because you are generalizing about men. You are a man, are you not?

The rest of us men on here seem to have a lot more faith in the self control of our sex than you do. Therefore you must be basing your idea that "women showing their stuff in front of men is like waving bacon in front of a dog" and that "at a certain infatuation level, men just lose all self control and go crazy" on something. The most immediate and obvious explanation is that you are basing such on yourself.

Oh, by the way, don't ever go near any of my female friends or relatives.

No I base it off observations of other men in the vicinity. I however and not like other men and for that I am really thankful. And know that I hope tons of grievous harm on all men that abuse women.

This is planet earth. Deep down as many of you have stated, we are a horde of power hungry primates with little regard for others. Earth is a savage place and every day it becomes less and less civilized. Of all people you, the posters of NSG should be aware of that. Hey, the guy shouldn't show off his wealth, it'll just get him mugged. And where I come from teenagers are known to make death threats to those who wear shirts that have political messages or sports teams that they hate.

I generally hate internet memes, I really do, but sometimes you just have to:

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/2001819576783355739_rs.jpg

Says every American eating fast food, drinking soda, and sitting on their lazy asses.

:P

I don't like fast food, lol.

I don't like fast food, lol.

But some of us don't always have enough money and thus have to get the cheap, fast stuff, you fat fuck. :p

Food for thought:

Why do people argue animal instincts when it suits the arguement?


If we humans had those instincts intact, we'd learn when to shut our mouths, when to back off, when to diet, what foods not to eat based on smell, when to run, when to fight, how to independently live at a very early age.

Since we do none of these....I think it's really safe to assume humans no longer have animal instincts and thus, acting on such said instincts is a load of crap spawned of a guilty conscious. :P

Thats a load of unscientific crap. If we have no instincts then how come men and women don't need to go to classes that teach them how to screw? They know if naturally. On somone's first time they know what they're doing even though no one taught them.

No I base it off observations of other men in the vicinity. I however and not like other men and for that I am really thankful. And know that I hope tons of grievous harm on all men that abuse women.

Not buying it. Generally I find men who fault women for rape do so making some excuse as how "oh men are just animals, it's normal for them to rape women who are dressed attractively, they do it automatically, it's not like it's their deliberate choice or anything." These views usually also correlate with a very low opinion of women in general, and of people in general, as if it were okay to assault someone simply on the basis of what they're wearing.

This is planet earth. Deep down as many of you have stated, we are a horde of power hungry primates with little regard for others. Earth is a savage place and every day it becomes less and less civilized. Of all people you, the posters of NSG should be aware of that. Hey, the guy shouldn't show off his wealth, it'll just get him mugged. And where I come from teenagers are known to make death threats to those who wear shirts that have political messages or sports teams that they hate.

Knowing there are dangers does not mean one has to concern themselves with them, after all they are not responsible apparently.

This is planet earth. Deep down as many of you have stated, we are a horde of power hungry primates with little regard for others. Earth is a savage place and every day it becomes less and less civilized. Of all people you, the posters of NSG should be aware of that. Hey, the guy shouldn't show off his wealth, it'll just get him mugged. And where I come from teenagers are known to make death threats to those who wear shirts that have political messages or sports teams that they hate.

and thats a BAD thing yes? Plus in no way is a women responsible for some asshole idiot raping her. if you truely believe that she is you should be checking yourself into the nearest hospital now! Its sentiment like that that gets women raped in the first place. sicko's who take it just a little farther than YOU and say she had it coming or its all her fault. But it seems like you'd fit right in in Iraq or Iran . . . .maybe you should move there.

And know that I hope tons of grievous harm on all men that abuse women.

Why? I thought they couldn't help it.
Ever read Moby Dick?

Why don't they wear burkhas? Why don't they think that every man is a rapist? How can they manage to be so stupid and so slutty at the same time?

I'm sorry but that post is just so full of shit, it's not even funny.


No, actually, there aren't. If you were raised by a tribe of rapists, that's very unfortunate, but it is not the societal norm.


Because you're the only one here saying such dumbass BS.

2) I wasn't thank God but. I guess the town I live in isn't that much of a beacon of civilization then.

3)Whether I do or not that doesn't automatically make me a rapist, to say so is both flamatory and a load of false bullshit.

But some of us don't always have enough money and thus have to get the cheap, fast stuff, you fat fuck. :p

Nah, when I don't have enough money to buy actual food, I just don't really eat. Besides, it's cheaper to make food than to buy fast food all the time.

Thats a load of unscientific crap. If we have no instincts then how come men and women don't need to go to classes that teach them how to screw? They know if naturally. On somone's first time they know what they're doing even though no one taught them.

ummm...... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education)

This is planet earth. Deep down as many of you have stated, we are a horde of power hungry primates with little regard for others. Earth is a savage place and every day it becomes less and less civilized. Of all people you, the posters of NSG should be aware of that. Hey, the guy shouldn't show off his wealth, it'll just get him mugged. And where I come from teenagers are known to make death threats to those who wear shirts that have political messages or sports teams that they hate.
Seriously, speak for yourself. You do not represent all of humanity (thank the gods). I come from Earth, too. I come from a place on Earth called NYC, and when I lived there, violent crime happened every single day, and it happened for a lot of reasons, but none of them were because of your "primate horde" fantasy. Also, though there was a lot of crime, it was committed by relatively few people out of the millions who lived in that city. So your crazy notions about human nature also clearly do not apply to the majority. You are describing abnormal behavior as if it is the norm. It is not. Please stop because it's making you look bad.

Thats a load of unscientific crap. If we have no instincts then how come men and women don't need to go to classes that teach them how to screw? They know if naturally. On somone's first time they know what they're doing even though no one taught them.



Our cerebrum overrides our base instincts. We have the ability to "think" our way through them. Hence the overwhelming large cerebrum compared to the small brain stem. That's science.

See, I is smart, I knows da brain. I also like to rape women too. It's pretty cool.

Any sexual antics hinge on consent. With consent, however disgusting, they are legal, and no one is really harmed/violated/whatever.

Without consent, it's sexual assault. You seem to be incapable of understanding this concept. Hence why I think you should check yourself into a mental institution or move to Iran.

I wasn't talking about antics and you damn well knew that the people I described abuse for their own pleasure.

Nah, when I don't have enough money to buy actual food, I just don't really eat. Besides, it's cheaper to make food than to buy fast food all the time.

True that. I find it best to make my own bread and such and go from there. Not only is it more filling; it tastes better, too.

It's just like the difference between Uptown and Downtown prostitutes.

2) I wasn't thank God but. I guess the town I live in isn't that much of a beacon of civilization then.

3)Whether I do or not that doesn't automatically make me a rapist, to say so is both flamatory and a load of false bullshit.

You're the only one who thinks it's normal to the point of being acceptable for men to "lose control" and rape women simply because they are dressed scantily. What the hell do you expect us to think?

and thats a BAD thing yes? Plus in no way is a women responsible for some asshole idiot raping her. if you truely believe that she is you should be checking yourself into the nearest hospital now! Its sentiment like that that gets women raped in the first place. sicko's who take it just a little farther than YOU and say she had it coming or its all her fault. But it seems like you'd fit right in in Iraq or Iran . . . .maybe you should move there.

So is rape not a crime in hospitals or the middle east?

True that. I find it best to make my own bread and such and go from there. Not only is it more filling; it tastes better, too.

It's just like the difference between Uptown and Downtown prostitutes.

I don't make my own bread, I usually get it from the local bakery. It's pretty cheap, and tasty. Makes for good sandwiches.

Hey did you know that I got hemrroids from having sex with a guy about a month ago? So much for trusting those instincts there.

Why does everyone assume that I'm describing myself?
Because your posts are telling of a viewpoint who tries to place the blame of a rape on the victim instead of the filthy pigs who committed the rape.

My comment stands for every man to the last.

Seriously, if you're a man and see an attractive woman (or man, if you happen to be gay) and you can't keep your penis in your pants, you are a danger to society and need to either be neutered immediately, or removed from society and sent into a suitable prison/mental institution.

I wasn't talking about antics and you damn well knew that the people I described abuse for their own pleasure.

No, I don't damn well know. I'm not sure what the fuck you're talking about, actually. It would help if you would give some examples.

My main point was about consent. A concept you still seem to be having trouble comprehending.

I don't make my own bread, I usually get it from the local bakery. It's pretty cheap, and tasty. Makes for good sandwiches.


I'm bacon. So in theory I never have to make my own bread or buy it because I can eat myself. Yes, I leave that for your active imaginations to conjure up detailed images.

Does this mean I want to be raped?

Hey did you know that I got hemrroids from having sex with a guy about a month ago? So much for trusting those instincts there.

That sounds like a right pain in the arse.

I don't make my own bread, I usually get it from the local bakery. It's pretty cheap, and tasty. Makes for good sandwiches.

There are no bakeries near my place, oddly enough, so it's still best for me to make my own bread.

And making my own pizza = win. I make outstanding pizza.

A quick point about rape: ugly women get raped. It's more about power than it is about being sexually attracted to someone.

I can sort of grasp this concept, but it leaves me feeling a bit puzzled.
If rape was about power as opposed to sexual attraction/sex, then why bother having sex with the individual? Why not just beat the person into a coma?

Anyway, I don't hate women. I just hate people that I hate, which is currently no one. Though I thoroughly dislike some individuals.

I'm bacon. So in theory I never have to make my own bread or buy it because I can eat myself. Yes, I leave that for your active imaginations to conjure up detailed images.

Does this mean I want to be raped?

Can one rape oneself with bacon?

This may just be the question of our time...

Hey did you know that I got hemrroids from having sex with a guy about a month ago? So much for trusting those instincts there.

How do you get hemorrhoids from having sex?

Unless of course it was... buttsecks?

ummm...... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education)

Okay professor did those classes exist throughout ALL of human history? You need to get a CAT scan or something because last time I checked people didn't need to teach their kids how to have sex. Sex ed classes only teach safe sex and about it, they aren't meant to teach people how to screw.

That sounds like a right pain in the arse.


Wow, I want to hug you right now for that! I shall marry you and Pot! And together we'll have STD babies! But first, let me put on a cute little dress that gives men the right to sex me. :P

There are no bakeries near my place, oddly enough, so it's still best for me to make my own bread.

And making my own pizza = win. I make outstanding pizza.

My friend makes good pizza. I once went over to his place and some other friends of ours had barbecued some meat, and then they put that on the pizza. It was super good.

Can one rape oneself with bacon?

This may just be the question of our time...

Hmmm perhaps thats why it's forbidden meat! After all if, as people here seem to think, Iran is some safe haven for rapists, they wouldn't want bacon spoiling their fun.

2) I wasn't thank God but. I guess the town I live in isn't that much of a beacon of civilization then.
Apparently not, if want you say about it is true.

3)Whether I do or not that doesn't automatically make me a rapist, to say so is both flamatory and a load of false bullshit.
Funny. You get an honest answer to your own question and suddenly you get all defensive and start accusing people of accusing you of stuff. You stated your opinion. What are we supposed to think? That you're really stating someone else's opinion? If so, you should say so. But if it is your opinion, then you are talking about yourself.

Seriously, speak for yourself. You do not represent all of humanity (thank the gods). I come from Earth, too. I come from a place on Earth called NYC, and when I lived there, violent crime happened every single day, and it happened for a lot of reasons, but none of them were because of your "primate horde" fantasy. Also, though there was a lot of crime, it was committed by relatively few people out of the millions who lived in that city. So your crazy notions about human nature also clearly do not apply to the majority. You are describing abnormal behavior as if it is the norm. It is not. Please stop because it's making you look bad.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I'm not describing myself nor basing these opinions off myself, I'm basing purely on the observation of other people. Fine you can all come up with as many false accusations and lies about me as you want. I'm fine with it because sooner or later a Mods going to deal with you all accordingly.

My friend makes good pizza. I once went over to his place and some other friends of ours had barbecued some meat, and then they put that on the pizza. It was super good.

BBQ meat on pizza is quite tasty, and you might not think it, but salami is as well.

How do you get hemorrhoids from having sex?

Unless of course it was... buttsecks?



This is how: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554722

Okay professor did those classes exist throughout ALL of human history? You need to get a CAT scan or something because last time I checked people didn't need to teach their kids how to have sex. Sex ed classes only teach safe sex and about it, they aren't meant to teach people how to screw.

We're not robots. Just because we have an instinct to have sex doesn't mean we aren't capable of thinking and making decisions as to when having sex is appropriate. You know, when it's consensual.

How do you get hemorrhoids from having sex?
Unless of course it was... buttsecks?

*summons Fass*

And together we'll have STD babies!

How can I get in on this?

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I'm not describing myself nor basing these opinions off myself, I'm basing purely on the observation of other people.

Your observations are flawed as they are based on your warped, biased, and utterly twisted version of reality.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I'm not describing myself nor basing these opinions off myself, I'm basing purely on the observation of other people. Fine you can all come up with as many false accusations and lies about me as you want. I'm fine with it because sooner or later a Mods going to deal with you all accordingly.

Not really. To us, you yourself having sexual self control problems is the most obvious source of your attempts to excuse rape and blame it on the victims simply for being attractive. Since none of the other males posting are attempting to excuse rape, what conclusions does your doing so leave us to make?

Hmmm perhaps thats why it's forbidden meat! After all if, as people here seem to think, Iran is some safe haven for rapists, they wouldn't want bacon spoiling their fun.

I didn't say Iran was a safe haven for rapists. Just that women are expected to cover up more there, which might help with SL's self control problems.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I'm not describing myself nor basing these opinions off myself, I'm basing purely on the observation of other people. Fine you can all come up with as many false accusations and lies about me as you want. I'm fine with it because sooner or later a Mods going to deal with you all accordingly.
Are you or are you not expressing your own opinion of human nature?

Okay professor did those classes exist throughout ALL of human history? You need to get a CAT scan or something because last time I checked people didn't need to teach their kids how to have sex. Sex ed classes only teach safe sex and about it, they aren't meant to teach people how to screw.


Instincts or not, one can argue that anyone with the ability to think can come to the conclusion that penis goes in vagina. And explain how those people who are retarded, not handicapped, just retarded, cannot have sex because they do not know how to?

If instincts were instincts, intelligence shouldn't matter, right?

BBQ meat on pizza is quite tasty, and you might not think it, but salami is as well.

Salami is indeed quite tasty on pizza. I should suggest that to my friend the next time he's making some.

How can I get in on this?


You are in!

:D

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I'm not describing myself nor basing these opinions off myself, I'm basing purely on the observation of other people. Fine you can all come up with as many false accusations and lies about me as you want. I'm fine with it because sooner or later a Mods going to deal with you all accordingly.

Why do you excuse the behavior of all those disgusting rapist pigs you so hate, by saying that they are really only animals and couldn't really stop themselves, while blaming the victims for placing themselves in harm's way in front of these animals by wearing revealing clothing, then?

If you feel so much contempt for them because they're behaving like animals, it would seem a rather safe assumption that you would feel empathy towards the victims. Not, you know, "the dirty sluts got what was coming to them, cuz they were wearing short skirts and we all know normal men can't not rape a woman with a short skirt." Because that was how I, and pretty much everyone else in this thread read into your comments.

I didn't say Iran was a safe haven for rapists. Just that women are expected to cover up more there, which might help with SL's self control problems.

Are women expected to cover up more in mental institutions too?

Instincts or not, one can argue that anyone with the ability to think can come to the conclusion that penis goes in vagina.

Look, just because you're some kind of super-genius doesn't mean you have to patronize the rest of us. :p

Are women expected to cover up more in mental institutions too?

Ever seen a skimpy straight-jacket?

Also: awaits gentle wrath of mods.

You are in!

:D

Yeah, but I'm in first.

You are in!

:D

Hrmm.....is this BYOL? :p

Ask all you want, if you can't figure it out, I'm not explaining it.

Are women expected to cover up more in mental institutions too?

No, but perhaps he'd get help with his self control issues there. Or be restrained. Whichever.

Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.

If you are drunk, I will take it as an invitation to bludgeon you to death, steal all your possessions, harvest your organs, and dump the remains into a dumpster. It's your own damn fault for getting drunk.

Why should the "blame the victim" game be limited only to rape victims?

Hrmm.....is this BYOL? :p

Ask all you want, if you can't figure it out, I'm not explaining it.

Bring Your Own Lube?

Instincts or not, one can argue that anyone with the ability to think can come to the conclusion that penis goes in vagina. And explain how those people who are retarded, not handicapped, just retarded, cannot have sex because they do not know how to?

As a gay man, I strongly beg to differ.

Okay professor did those classes exist throughout ALL of human history? You need to get a CAT scan or something because last time I checked people didn't need to teach their kids how to have sex. Sex ed classes only teach safe sex and about it, they aren't meant to teach people how to screw.
Humans don't need lessons to tell them how to piss and crap, either, but we do get toilet training and, amazingly, it seems to make a difference for the vast majority of people.

Now tell me, when the people around you need to take a dump, do they just squat wherever they happen to be -- on the street, in school, at work, in church, wherever? Or do they hold it until they can get to a proper toilet?

And you know what I think? I think that when the VAST majority of men who live around you feel sexual impulses, they actually don't just jump on board the nearest sexy woman walking by or sitting in the bar. Why? For the same reason they don't drop a shit in the middle of the room. Because they know better and they are in charge of themselves.

This is how: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554722

Oh dear.

No, but perhaps he'd get help with his self control issues there. Or be restrained. Whichever.

So ideally you'd sent him to an Iranian mental institution?

Bring Your Own Lube?

*ding ding*

*ding ding*

See, this is why I get to go first.

...Well, there's another reason, but that's neither here nor there.

As a gay man, I strongly beg to differ.

Penis goes in hole. :P There, correction, apologies for generalizating. ;)

See, this is why I get to go first.

...Well, there's another reason, but that's neither here nor there.

Hehe.

Your observations are flawed as they are based on your warped, biased, and utterly twisted version of reality.

And your opinion here is flawed since it is based on posts I posted in the past. I'll admit that I had psychological issues back then mainly due to what that Baptist cult put me through but I'm better now. Your post is just as logical as me posting that you are nothing more than a temperamental bully based on all that trolling you did a year ago.

So ideally you'd sent him to an Iranian mental institution?

I was thinking more of a "choose from A or B" but... I guess...

Look, just because you're some kind of super-genius doesn't mean you have to patronize the rest of us. :p



Ever seen a skimpy straight-jacket?

Also: awaits gentle wrath of mods.


Quote worthy!

:D

And your opinion here is flawed since it is based on posts I posted in the past. I'll admit that I had psychological issues back then mainly due to what that Baptist cult put me through but I'm better now. Your post is just as logical as me posting that you are nothing more than a temperamental bully based on all that trolling you did a year ago.

Naw-awww!!!

But as you well know men are wired to want to get on with attractive women. If the infatuation level is high enough the instincts take over temporarily. When women show off their stuff it's like waving bacon in front of a dog's nose.

Are you proposing that men be treated like dogs then?

I'll admit that I had psychological issues back then

you're shitting me.....

Penis goes in hole. :P There, correction, apologies for generalizating. ;)

Danke, kind sir.

Oh lawd...

I was thinking more of a "choose from A or B" but... I guess...

Even if he did not consent?

Penis goes in hole. :P There, correction, apologies for generalizating. ;)
Or more generically, Tab A goes into Slot B or C.

Are you proposing that men be treated like dogs then?

Bowl of gruel twice a day, frequent walks, trysts with the postman's leg… sounds good to me.

Even if he did not consent?

It was a suggestion, not a command. Obviously he can choose also not to follow it.

Or more generically, Tab A goes into Slot B or C.


But what if I have Tab B? :P

Danke, kind sir.

Actually, she's a ma'am.

What? Huh? *cough* Get on MSN.

Actually, she's a ma'am.

With one devestated bunghole.

But what if I have Tab B? :P

O_o at the implications of that....

No I base it off observations of other men in the vicinity. I however and not like other men and for that I am really thankful. And know that I hope tons of grievous harm on all men that abuse women.

Your statement, and this, are not compatible.

Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.

You are blaming the victim. You do not hope "tons of grievous harm on all men that abuse women."

You are excusing the abuser. You are a hypocrite.

It was a suggestion, not a command. Obviously he can choose also not to follow it.

Ah... I see, so you don't actually consider him a danger, it was just invective?

With one devestated bunghole.


True, tits and cooter, with bigger balls then most guys. And SL talks about being screwed up. :P

Actually, she's a ma'am.

My mistake. *bows*

True, tits and cooter, with bigger balls then most guys. And SL talks about being screwed up. :P

No way, my tits are bigger than yours, easily. Balls, well, we're probably about even there.

Why do you excuse the behavior of all those disgusting rapist pigs you so hate, by saying that they are really only animals and couldn't really stop themselves, while blaming the victims for placing themselves in harm's way in front of these animals by wearing revealing clothing, then?

If you feel so much contempt for them because they're behaving like animals, it would seem a rather safe assumption that you would feel empathy towards the victims. Not, you know, "the dirty sluts got what was coming to them, cuz they were wearing short skirts and we all know normal men can't not rape a woman with a short skirt." Because that was how I, and pretty much everyone else in this thread read into your comments.

I didn't excuse them I merely stating that the rapist is guilty but the woman is partially responsible for egging such people on. If she isn't trying to attract men in any way when the rapist decides to make a move then he is entirely to blame.

I love you Pot!

Another worthy quote!

Ah... I see, so you don't actually consider him a danger, it was just invective?

I do, actually. But I am not an officer of the law, I can only suggest that he do so for the good of society.

Your statement, and this, are not compatible.



You are blaming the victim. You do not hope "tons of grievous harm on all men that abuse women."

You are excusing the abuser. You are a hypocrite.

No I'm saying both are guilty punish the rapist in all rape cases but don't sympathize with those who egg them on.

Ah... I see, so you don't actually consider him a danger, it was just invective?
Can you jail a man you suspect will become a thief, because he says he does not believe in property rights?

No. As long as he commits no crime, he goes free. If he actually acts on his beliefs and take whatever he wants, then he gets jailed. Not before. Because that's how living in a free country with a judiciary system based on laws and liberties work.

I love you Pot!

Another worthy quote!

Well, hey, what can I say? I was born to post that way.


Oh god, I'm sorry for that. Really, I am...

you're shitting me.....

Well I guess at least one of my posts is inaccurate. You still are a neurotic bully aren't ya? I just posted that and it is 100% accurate.

I didn't excuse them I merely stating that the rapist is guilty but the woman is partially responsible for egging such people on. If she isn't trying to attract men in any way when the rapist decides to make a move then he is entirely to blame.

I agree that in some cases there can be an element of responsibility on the part of the woman if she dressed like a prostitute and decided to take a walk downtown. It's like leaving your laptop on the front seat of your car with the window down and wondering why it gets stolen. But the criminal is still ultimately to blame for committing the crime.

Penis goes in hole. :P There, correction, apologies for generalizating. ;)

Penis goes somewhere that would have a surface around the majority of the circumference of said penis.

Can you jail a man you suspect will become a thief, because he says he does not believe in property rights?

No. As long as he commits no crime, he goes free. If he actually acts on his beliefs and take whatever he wants, then he gets jailed. Not before. Because that's how living in a free country with a judiciary system based on laws and liberties work.

No, but, if you are aware that such people exist, should you not be cautious and if you are not cautious, knowing they exist and could potentially harm you, is that not irresponsible?

I agree that in some cases there can be an element of responsibility on the part of the woman if she dressed like a prostitute and decided to take a walk downtown. It's like leaving your laptop on the front seat of your car with the window down and wondering why it gets stolen. But the criminal is still ultimately to blame for committing the crime.

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm rather disturbed that I had to actually post that for the mob[NSG] to figure it out. I never said that the rapist should go free unpunished yet everyone seems to believe that thats what I was saying. I'm not arguing for the rapist and against the woman I'm arguing against the rapist and the victims who egg them on.

No I'm saying both are guilty punish the rapist in all rape cases but don't sympathize with those who egg them on.

Liar. You are putting the blame squarely on the women with your examples. You are still excusing the rapists by saying the women "egg them on".

If so, then you should be excusing me for smashing your skull with a sledgehammer and stealing your valuables while you are drunk because you are egging me on with your possessions and opinions.

I didn't excuse them I merely stating that the rapist is guilty but the woman is partially responsible for egging such people on. If she isn't trying to attract men in any way when the rapist decides to make a move then he is entirely to blame.

So, let me get this straight. If I follow your logic, you're saying this:

Scenario: Say you are interested in cute girl X. You manage to finally get a date with her after weeks of looking at her from afar. Obviously, before the date you shower, comb your hair fashionably, and dress up with clothes that makes you look good.

Now, on your way to pick her up, you are seen by a gay man who happens to find you very attractively attired. He proceeds to grab you by the scruff of the neck, bends you over, and savagely rapes you.

You are partly responsible for this, because you were dressed attractively and should've known better than go out this way, because the animals that we are shouldn't be expected to be able to resist our animal urges and/or shouldn't be the sole responsible of the unlawful, immoral, humiliating and destructive actions we commit upon others.

Correct? Does this not sound far-fetched to you?

No I'm saying both are guilty punish the rapist in all rape cases but don't sympathize with those who egg them on.

Okay, I've been attempting to refrain from making this personal, but I think maybe you need it made personal to understand what you're saying.

I was sexually assaulted by a guy with whom I was romantically involved. I had certainly tried to attract him on numerous occasions. Please, if you believe it to be true, tell me outright that you think that made me "disgusting" and undeserving of sympathy after he ignored me when I cried and told him "no." Please, tell me outright that I was "asking for it" when I wore clothes that made me look pretty around him. Please, tell me outright that he couldn't help himself, and had no choice but to assault me. If that is what you believe, have the balls to say it to someone who's actually been sexually assaulted.

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm rather disturbed that I had to actually post that for the mob[NSG] to figure it out. I never said that the rapist should go free unpunished yet everyone seems to believe that thats what I was saying. I'm not arguing for the rapist and against the woman I'm arguing against the rapist and the victims who egg them on.

I didn't, however what you did state was open to people interpreting it that way.

Hey guys, just a thought. We all agree that every arguement out of SL's mouth is flawed and that we disagree with him, right?

And since there is no way SL is going to change his opinion, why do we keep arguing the same points?


I say, it's time for an official General threadjacking.

:P

Hey guys, just a thought. We all agree that every arguement out of SL's mouth is flawed and that we disagree with him, right?


I think we agreed to that ages ago.

Penis goes somewhere that would have a surface around the majority of the circumference of said penis.

*suddenly feels sorry for people with big ears*

I didn't excuse them I merely stating that the rapist is guilty but the woman is partially responsible for egging such people on. If she isn't trying to attract men in any way when the rapist decides to make a move then he is entirely to blame.
So, you're only picking certain circumstances in which to blame the woman for someone else's actions. I see.

By the way, when I used the term "dumbass BS," this is the sort of thing I was talking about -- blaming the victim and claiming you're not because of some arbitrary standard of "OK" female behavior that exists only in your head.

So let's all agree on something else. Like women being bacon. Because I was quite fond of that argument.

So let's all agree on something else. Like women being bacon. Because I was quite fond of that argument.

I don't know, I think observant Jewish and Muslim women might object. Or maybe they're turkey bacon?

So let's all agree on something else. Like women being bacon. Because I was quite fond of that argument.

But that means Jews can't perform cunnilingus!

I say, it's time for an official General threadjacking.

We need some kind of emergency threadjack tool. Like the jaws of life, but for the internet.

So let's all agree on something else. Like women being bacon. Because I was quite fond of that argument.

Again, women being bacon would certainly explain their treatment in certain bearded cultures.

But that means Jews can't perform cunnilingus!

not kosher!

No, but, if you are aware that such people exist, should you not be cautious and if you are not cautious, knowing they exist and could potentially harm you, is that not irresponsible?
You should always be cautious. And you should also have a reasonable expectation that a) He should not steal your stuff, knowing there are laws against theft and b) Should he steal your stuff anyway, you can fully expect the police and judiciary to prosecute his crime and punish him according to the gravity of his offense.

A person who leaves his front door unlocked is more likely to be victim of burglary than someone who locks it. Yet, who do you hear saying "That guy's responsible for being broken in!". For the record, I live in Canada and have forgotten to lock my door on quite a few occasions in my life. Nobody has ever broken in and stolen my stuff. And that's exactly how I expect things to happen.

Also note that while in my above example "being careful" is pretty straightforward, in the case of rape victims and scantily clad women it is not very much so. What is "being careful"? No short skirts? No makeup? No cleavage? Chin-high, ankles-length gowns? Wearing a Burka? Where do you draw the damn line if you want to blame women?

And what about nudist camps? Plenty of COMPLETELY naked women there, with dozens of men strolling around seeing all their goods. What are the rape figures of nudist camps? I believe we'd be hearing about it if rape was endemic there.

So no, sorry, the state of dress of a woman has strictly nothing, fuck-all to do with responsibility in cases of rape.

not kosher!

Yeah they can't eat clams.

If Jews couldn't perform cunnlingus though.....wow, I'd just say I don't want to know any Jewish man.

not kosher!

That's a horrible pun. Wait, is that a pun? I don't even know, I'm tired.

Hey guys, just a thought. We all agree that every arguement out of SL's mouth is flawed and that we disagree with him, right?

And since there is no way SL is going to change his opinion, why do we keep arguing the same points?


I say, it's time for an official General threadjacking.

:P

How about we threadjack it back to the original discussion, though the bacon analogy is certainly both welcome and entertaining as a sidekick act.

But that means Jews can't perform cunnilingus!

:eek: That is indeed a serious objection.

:eek: That is indeed a serious objection.

Don't worry....I'm not very observant

No, but, if you are aware that such people exist, should you not be cautious and if you are not cautious, knowing they exist and could potentially harm you, is that not irresponsible?
This argument is based on fallacies. The fallacies are assumptions about the victim's behavior and arbitrary limits on the definition of "responsible" or "OK" behavior for the victim.

The basic claim is this: If a woman goes out dressed sexily, she's inciting rape and that's irresponsible of her.

If the people who make such an argument want to defend it, I would challenge them to:

-- Define "sexy." Then account for ugly, old, deformed, infirm, or extremely heavily clothed women (like nuns) who get raped. Then tell me what a woman is allowed to wear in order not to be accused of irresponsibly inciting rape.

-- Define "out." Then account for women who get raped in market parking lots, or while walking their dogs, or in their own houses. Then tell me where a woman is allowed to be in order not to be irresponsibly inciting rape.

-- Define "responsible." And then explain how the victim of a crime can be blamed for the choice of a criminal to commit said crime. In doing so, take the above two questions into account. Then tell me who is responsible for a man's actions -- a woman, or the man himself.

LOL in all my time in forums I never heard the term "threadjack" until I came into these forums!

SL, some people have their minds set on gangbanging your ideas and reputation. If people constantly miss your point regardless of how you put it, it's time to let it go. It's not your fault they don't understand the point you're trying to make because they took something you said wrong, but some responsibility is on you to word your arguments carefully especially when your position on an issue is controversial.

That being said, bacon r0xxorz and so do women, so why not have both simultaneously? :p

This argument is based on fallacies. The fallacies are assumptions about the victim's behavior and arbitrary limits on the definition of "responsible" or "OK" behavior for the victim.

The basic claim is this: If a woman goes out dressed sexily, she's inciting rape and that's irresponsible of her.

If the people who make such an argument want to defend it, I would challenge them to:

-- Define "sexy." Then account for ugly, old, deformed, infirm, or extremely heavily clothed women (like nuns) who get raped. Then tell me what a woman is allowed to wear in order not to be accused of irresponsibly inciting rape.

-- Define "out." Then account for women who get raped in market parking lots, or while walking their dogs, or in their own houses. Then tell me where a woman is allowed to be in order not to be irresponsibly inciting rape.

-- Define "responsible." And then explain how the victim of a crime can be blamed for the choice of a criminal to commit said crime. In doing so, take the above two questions into account. Then tell me who is responsible for a man's actions -- a woman, or the man himself.


With all that being said Mur, it is true that certain activities do increase the chance of being raped. However in society no person should feel the need to change their behavior to avoid having crimes committed against him/her.

It may sometimes be wise to do so, purely out of self interest, but it is certainly no fault if one chooses not to.

Hey guys, just a thought. We all agree that every arguement out of SL's mouth is flawed and that we disagree with him, right?

And since there is no way SL is going to change his opinion, why do we keep arguing the same points?


I say, it's time for an official General threadjacking.

:P

Maybe if you'd actually perceive my arguments correctly rather than twisting them in your heads you'd see some sense in it. In this thread for instance you thought I was supporting the rapist and placing all the blame on the woman when that indeed was untrue.

-- Define "sexy." Then account for ugly, old, deformed, infirm, or extremely heavily clothed women (like nuns) who get raped. Then tell me what a woman is allowed to wear in order not to be accused of irresponsibly inciting rape.
Sexy - adj. - having girly parts
How not to be sexy. Be born a man.

-- Define "out." Then account for women who get raped in market parking lots, or while walking their dogs, or in their own houses. Then tell me where a woman is allowed to be in order not to be irresponsibly inciting rape.
Out - n. - existing
How not to be out. Meet your exact antimatter double.

-- Define "responsible." And then explain how the victim of a crime can be blamed for the choice of a criminal to commit said crime. In doing so, take the above two questions into account. Then tell me who is responsible for a man's actions -- a woman, or the man himself.
Responsible - adj. - being a woman
How not be responsible. Not be a woman.

In this thread for instance you thought I was supporting the rapist and placing all the blame on the woman when that indeed was untrue.

Placing blame, any blame on the victim is disgusting.

If Jews couldn't perform cunnlingus though.....wow, I'd just say I don't want to know any Jewish man.

OK, I didn't want to make this personal, either, but I have to say that I have dated Jewish men and, well... let's just say they were worth knowing.

The basic claim is this: If a woman goes out dressed sexily, she's inciting rape and that's irresponsible of her.

If the people who make such an argument want to defend it, I would challenge them to:

-- Define "sexy." Then account for ugly, old, deformed, infirm, or extremely heavily clothed women (like nuns) who get raped. Then tell me what a woman is allowed to wear in order not to be accused of irresponsibly inciting rape.

-- Define "out." Then account for women who get raped in market parking lots, or while walking their dogs, or in their own houses. Then tell me where a woman is allowed to be in order not to be irresponsibly inciting rape.

-- Define "responsible." And then explain how the victim of a crime can be blamed for the choice of a criminal to commit said crime. In doing so, take the above two questions into account. Then tell me who is responsible for a man's actions -- a woman, or the man himself.

Small problem with this line of logic. I don't think anyone was arguing that *all* rapes are incited by an improperly dressed woman, nor was it claimed that all rapists have the same motivation or MO for committing their heinous crimes. You know you can't have a logical argument if you assume an "all" or "none" situation.

The problem with this argument is that it justifies, in some people's minds, attitudes to rape.

Imagine a court case where this sentiment is common, what effect does it have on the judge and jury in terms of determining guilt and setting a term for sentencing.

Where the sentence is lighter, what message does that send back out to the broader society about the seriousness of rape.

Placing any blame on the rape victim alleviates the seriousness of the rape itself and this has wider cultural effects.

I think it was pointed out that men are raped as well yet we'd never ascribe the way they dress or where they walk to why they were raped, we do with women and that's a difference, a difference with wide effect.

OK, I didn't want to make this personal, either, but I have to say that I have dated Jewish men and, well... let's just say they were worth knowing.

...

so how YOU doin?

Maybe if you'd actually perceive my arguments correctly rather than twisting them in your heads you'd see some sense in it. In this thread for instance you thought I was supporting the rapist and placing all the blame on the woman when that indeed was untrue.

I'm trying to understand your reasoning. But you have yet to answer to this post I made two pages ago:

So, let me get this straight. If I follow your logic, you're saying this:

Scenario: Say you are interested in cute girl X. You manage to finally get a date with her after weeks of looking at her from afar. Obviously, before the date you shower, comb your hair fashionably, and dress up with clothes that makes you look good.

Now, on your way to pick her up, you are seen by a gay man who happens to find you very attractively attired. He proceeds to grab you by the scruff of the neck, bends you over, and savagely rapes you.

You are partly responsible for this, because you were dressed attractively and should've known better than go out this way, because the animals that we are shouldn't be expected to be able to resist our animal urges and/or shouldn't be the sole responsible of the unlawful, immoral, humiliating and destructive actions we commit upon others.

Correct? Does this not sound far-fetched to you?

Your answer to this query will either make you realize you're using double standards to judge situations, or that you consider that men should not be held entirely accountable and the only ones responsible for their own harmful actions committed upon other human beings.

You should always be cautious. And you should also have a reasonable expectation that a) He should not steal your stuff, knowing there are laws against theft and b) Should he steal your stuff anyway, you can fully expect the police and judiciary to prosecute his crime and punish him according to the gravity of his offense.

A person who leaves his front door unlocked is more likely to be victim of burglary than someone who locks it. Yet, who do you hear saying "That guy's responsible for being broken in!". For the record, I live in Canada and have forgotten to lock my door on quite a few occasions in my life. Nobody has ever broken in and stolen my stuff. And that's exactly how I expect things to happen.


Yes I do. Both police AND insurance companies expect you to take reasonable an adequate precaution to secure your property.


Also note that while in my above example "being careful" is pretty straightforward, in the case of rape victims and scantily clad women it is not very much so. What is "being careful"? No short skirts? No makeup? No cleavage? Chin-high, ankles-length gowns? Wearing a Burka? Where do you draw the damn line if you want to blame women?


I do not blame women for being raped. I blame the rapist, but I do think that despite your expectations, there are criminals and thus it would be reasonable to protect yourself from them. For example, not getting so drunk that you go home with someone you met 15 minutes previously.


And what about nudist camps? Plenty of COMPLETELY naked women there, with dozens of men strolling around seeing all their goods. What are the rape figures of nudist camps? I believe we'd be hearing about it if rape was endemic there.

So no, sorry, the state of dress of a woman has strictly nothing, fuck-all to do with responsibility in cases of rape.

I do not disagree. Clothes has very little to do with rape, however behaviour often does especially drunken behaviour, and thus I would say that in certain cases women behave so irresponsibly that they are the co-authors of their own misfortune.

Skaladora, see my post above about all-or-none and how it relates to logic arguments. I'll sum it up - it's intellectually irrelevant.

In response to one of the other posts above - whether the victim was improperly dressed or not, it would be a severe judicial travesty if that was factored in the judgment or sentence.

This argument is based on fallacies. The fallacies are assumptions about the victim's behavior and arbitrary limits on the definition of "responsible" or "OK" behavior for the victim.

The basic claim is this: If a woman goes out dressed sexily, she's inciting rape and that's irresponsible of her.

If the people who make such an argument want to defend it, I would challenge them to:

-- Define "sexy." Then account for ugly, old, deformed, infirm, or extremely heavily clothed women (like nuns) who get raped. Then tell me what a woman is allowed to wear in order not to be accused of irresponsibly inciting rape.

-- Define "out." Then account for women who get raped in market parking lots, or while walking their dogs, or in their own houses. Then tell me where a woman is allowed to be in order not to be irresponsibly inciting rape.

-- Define "responsible." And then explain how the victim of a crime can be blamed for the choice of a criminal to commit said crime. In doing so, take the above two questions into account. Then tell me who is responsible for a man's actions -- a woman, or the man himself.

I did not once make the argument you assumed I was making, it is your assumptions that are entirely fallacious.

Yes I do. Both police AND insurance companies expect you to take reasonable an adequate precaution to secure your property.

The reasonable prudent safeguards of the victim is not an element of rape, or of burglary, or of assault, or murder or theft. Thus what safeguards the victim took are irrelevant.

Thus the police dont care what safeguards you took, when it comes to catching the people who committed a crime against you. The job of the police is to catch criminals, and the fact that you may not have taken prudent safeguards doesn't make the act any less criminal.

OK, I didn't want to make this personal, either, but I have to say that I have dated Jewish men and, well... let's just say they were worth knowing.

...

so how YOU doin?

This explains much.

Maybe if you'd actually perceive my arguments correctly rather than twisting them in your heads you'd see some sense in it. In this thread for instance you thought I was supporting the rapist and placing all the blame on the woman when that indeed was untrue.

See, and you misperceived what I was saying also. You thought that I thought you were supporting the rapist. :P Tricky how that perception arguement works.

Again, careful what you argue. You're in General, not the debate club. If you don't present yourself clearly, you'll be misunderstood and even if you do, you'll be misunderstood.

:P

See, and you misperceived what I was saying also. You thought that I thought you were supporting the rapist. :P Tricky how that perception arguement works.

Again, careful what you argue. You're in General, not the debate club. If you don't present yourself clearly, you'll be misunderstood and even if you do, you'll be misunderstood.

:P

It was my understanding that NSG was devoted to the debate concerning any subject matter.

The reasonable prudent safeguards of the victim is not an element of rape, or of burglary, or of assault, or murder or theft. Thus what safeguards the victim took are irrelevant.

Thus the police dont care what safeguards you took, when it comes to catching the people who committed a crime against you. The job of the police is to catch criminals, and the fact that you may not have taken prudent safeguards doesn't make the act any less criminal.

Actually, well perhaps it's different here, but they do. The FIRST question I was asked by police when my house was burgled was. "Were all the doors and windows locked?" Perhaps because if they weren't is could not be considered the same as if they were, as in "breaking and entering".

It may not make the act less criminal, that is not something I am disputing, but it might lessen the impetus of the authorities to pursue it.

With all that being said Mur, it is true that certain activities do increase the chance of being raped. However in society no person should feel the need to change their behavior to avoid having crimes committed against him/her.

It may sometimes be wise to do so, purely out of self interest, but it is certainly no fault if one chooses not to.
Personal experience time here:

I have been luckier so far than Poli and millions of other women. I have never been date raped. (Go figure. ;)) I did once get sexually assaulted (attempted) by a stranger in a park in the middle of the day, but that didn't go too well for him.

I have known a depressingly large number of women who have suffered sexual assault. Of all of them, only two besides me involved stranger attacks. One fended off an attempted rape by a taxi driver in the cab, and the other was actually raped, and it happened in the apartment building she lived in and she was a young teenager (and not very "pretty") at the time. All the others were assaulted by men they knew -- co-workers, or men they had already been on at least one date with, or their own family members.

I have never known a woman who got raped as a direct result of going out to bars in sexy clothes surrounded by men they didn't know. I know it happens, but I also know that it is not the number one situation in which rape is likely.

According to most US crime statistics, it seems that the majority of violent crimes against women are committed by men the women knew, not by strangers on the street.

A woman who thinks she is safe from being raped OR mugged OR carjacked OR murdered because she is dressed one way and not another way, or because she went to one place and not another, is fooling herself. Caution is good. But false senses of security are bad. And this idiotic notion that women prompt rape by behaving "irresponsibly" or avoid rape by behaving "responsible" will create a false sense of security in any woman foolish enough to buy into it.

General kinds of crime may be more likely in one place than another, but the only thing that is needed for rape to happen is a rapist. It does not matter what the woman wears or where she goes or what she does. If a rapist wants to attack someone and thinks he can get away with it, he will try. Period.

It was my understanding that NSG was devoted to the debate concerning any subject matter.


That is a gross misunderstanding....the biggest one made yet. :P

No offense SL....but people don't debate anything here. They just argue everything. Debate is almost an art. Really....General is not the place for a serious debate.

I have never known a woman who got raped as a direct result of going out to bars in sexy clothes surrounded by men they didn't know. I know it happens, but I also know that it is not the number one situation in which rape is likely.

Never said it was. I only said that certain activities make it more likely.

Sexy - adj. - having girly parts
How not to be sexy. Be born a man.


Out - n. - existing
How not to be out. Meet your exact antimatter double.


Responsible - adj. - being a woman
How not be responsible. Not be a woman.
That seems to sum up SL's argument.

South Liz, this was the post that started it?

Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.

That post is just so wrong I don't know where to start.

Whining about how you have been "misunderstood" is pretty weak ... and I don't think Moderation will go your way. Go edit.

Small problem with this line of logic. I don't think anyone was arguing that *all* rapes are incited by an improperly dressed woman, nor was it claimed that all rapists have the same motivation or MO for committing their heinous crimes. You know you can't have a logical argument if you assume an "all" or "none" situation.

Not so. If the people advocating that women are responsible for any rapes can defend their arguments, then they should be able to explain how their notion of this sub-set of rapes that they blame women for fit into the larger context of rape in general.

It is my contention that, if they cannot, it is because their argument is bull. I call it that because, when tested, their claims about what constitutes "sexy," "out," and "responsible" fall apart.

<snip> You still are a neurotic bully aren't ya? I just posted that and it is 100% accurate.

<snip>Your post is just as logical as me posting that you are nothing more than a temperamental bully based on all that trolling you did a year ago.

<snip>Your observations are flawed as they are based on your warped, biased, and utterly twisted version of reality.

(Plus "Emo Kid" Lolcat. Plus one-liner)

Okay. The flames are even. Now cut it out, both of you.

If you fear that you have such pathetic self control, maybe you should admit yourself to a mental institution or perhaps move somewhere where women keep their skin well covered. You know, like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

You cut it out, too. An "If" doesn't put out a flame.

<snip> Fine you can all come up with as many false accusations and lies about me as you want. I'm fine with it because sooner or later a Mods going to deal with you all accordingly.

True, mods deal with rule-breakers. But remember that there's also a rule about threatening people with mods.

...

so how YOU doin?

Fine, sweetie, how are you? ;)

Never said it was. I only said that certain activities make it more likely.

Except that rape statistics says you're wrong about your assumption that it makes it more likely.

The problem with this argument is that it justifies, in some people's minds, attitudes to rape.

Imagine a court case where this sentiment is common, what effect does it have on the judge and jury in terms of determining guilt and setting a term for sentencing.

Where the sentence is lighter, what message does that send back out to the broader society about the seriousness of rape.

Placing any blame on the rape victim alleviates the seriousness of the rape itself and this has wider cultural effects.

I think it was pointed out that men are raped as well yet we'd never ascribe the way they dress or where they walk to why they were raped, we do with women and that's a difference, a difference with wide effect.
Quoted and bolded for truth.

I did not once make the argument you assumed I was making, it is your assumptions that are entirely fallacious.
Then correct me. What argument were you making?

And I'll let my post stand for SL and anyone else who is making that argument.

Except that rape statistics says you're wrong about your assumption that it makes it more likely.

To be fair, NA only said "certain behavior" without specifying what behavior. I think we can probably reasonably agree that, for example, it is harder to fight off an attacker if you are too drunk to stand up, and that therefore getting too drunk to stand up puts you in more danger of being raped than if you were in the same situation but sober.

Whats disgusting is the fact that some woman will wear clothing thats meant to cause attractions from the other sex and when some git gets attracted then sexually assaults her she gets no blame. What really gets me is if girls are so uptight about men taking advantage of them ect ect, then why do they try so hard to attract strangers they don't even know? Why don't they do themselves a favor and dress modestly so that less pervs get any ideas.

Man, I can't wait to read the responses the enlightened men and women of NSG are gonna have for this tripe.

Except that rape statistics says you're wrong about your assumption that it makes it more likely.

He didn't say what activities make it more likely. He could be referring to "ever having any contact with humans whatsoever".

This explains much.

SLAP!!!

Don't assume.

Fine, sweetie, how are you? ;)

just fine...wanna see how much I don't keep kosher? ;)

Quoted and bolded for truth.

Is it not possible that there's a difference in mindset between a man who is attracted to women vs. one who is attracted to men? I'm by no means an expert, but if you listen to conversations of both sets concerning what they're attracted to, they tend to be very different. So, in the case of a rapist from either set, might not the psychological issues at work be somewhat different?

To be fair, NA only said "certain behavior" without specifying what behavior. I think we can probably reasonably agree that, for example, it is harder to fight off an attacker if you are too drunk to stand up, and that therefore getting too drunk to stand up puts you in more danger of being raped than if you were in the same situation but sober.

see? you understand me.

OK, bed.

Is it not possible that there's a difference in mindset between a man who is attracted to women vs. one who is attracted to men? I'm by no means an expert, but if you listen to conversations of both sets concerning what they're attracted to, they tend to be very different. So, in the case of a rapist from either set, might not the psychological issues at work be somewhat different?

Men aren't raped by just homosexual men. Fuck, they're not raped by just men period.

SLAP!!!

Don't assume.

I wasn't assuming so much as insinuating...

...that didn't really help the situation much, did it? :p

Men aren't raped by just homosexual men. Fuck, they're not raped by just men period.

Good observation. However, I never implied that they were. Just using two groups for a comparison with men as the control factor and what they're attracted to as the variable factor.

You could say the same about someone walking around in an obviously expensive suit. Obviously he has money. People like to have money. However, he has a reasonable assumption that he will not be robbed. If he is robbed, is he to blame or are the criminals who mugged him to blame?

Just a question before I get screamed at again. If I go to a extremely poor area where crime is very high and people are robbed all the time, should I still go their in my expensive suit flashing my Rolex? Or should I know that their will be a good chance that I will be mugged and perhaps takes some responsibility to try and prevent a wrong being committed against me and maybe not wear the Rolex?

I know that the muggers have done a wrong thing but shouldn't I still try to protect myself and prevent myself from being targeted?

Never said it was. I only said that certain activities make it more likely.

Except that rape statistics says you're wrong about your assumption that it makes it more likely.
Skala makes my point, Neo.

The fact is that some activities increase one's potential exposure to ALL kinds of crime, not just rape. But another fact is that stranger rape accounts for a minority of sexual assaults. So putting oneself out there among strangers does not actually increase one's likelihood of getting raped over the likelihood of it happening on date with someone you already know, or in the workplace, or at a shopping mall, or at home. Just because you know that the streets are dangerous places, that does not mean they are more dangerous than other places or that other places are less dangerous for that one kind of crime.

So one of my objections to the "responsible/irresponsible" argument is that it creates the utterly false notion that, if women would just dress modestly and stay close to home, sober, with people they know, they'd be less likely to get raped. That is just not true, and it goes to show the falseness of the argument.

Also, it's not my only objection to it, but it's the one we're discussing at the moment.

Just a question before I get screamed at again. If I go to a extremely poor area where crime is very high and people are robbed all the time, should I still go their in my expensive suit flashing my Rolex? Or should I know that their will be a good chance that I will be mugged and perhaps takes some responsibility to try and prevent a wrong being committed against me and maybe not wear the Rolex?

(god damn it this conversation is preventing me from sleeping)

and here we see the problem inherent in the system. Define "should"

(god damn it this conversation is preventing me from sleeping)

and here we see the problem inherent in the system. Define "should"

Posting instead of sleeping, posting from your blackberry.

Man, really taking one for the team today, huh? :p

Just a question before I get screamed at again. If I go to a extremely poor area where crime is very high and people are robbed all the time, should I still go their in my expensive suit flashing my Rolex? Or should I know that their will be a good chance that I will be mugged and perhaps takes some responsibility to try and prevent a wrong being committed against me and maybe not wear the Rolex?

I know that the muggers have done a wrong thing but shouldn't I still try to protect myself and prevent myself from being targeted?

Sure, it would be a reasonable choice on your part to avoid flashing your Rolex in crime-ridden areas. However, if you did so and someone mugged you and stole your Rolex, the fault is entirely on the part of the mugger. You didn't make him mug you. You didn't "egg him on" into mugging you. You weren't "asking" to be mugged. You have every right to wear your Rolex wherever the hell you want. He chose to mug you, and that's entirely on him.

Just a question before I get screamed at again. If I go to a extremely poor area where crime is very high and people are robbed all the time, should I still go their in my expensive suit flashing my Rolex? Or should I know that their will be a good chance that I will be mugged and perhaps takes some responsibility to try and prevent a wrong being committed against me and maybe not wear the Rolex?

I know that the muggers have done a wrong thing but shouldn't I still try to protect myself and prevent myself from being targeted?

Luckily, as a back up to your point, 99% of rapes occur in sexually aggressive male areas where a woman has gone in wearing nothing but a bikini and high heels.

Oh wait a minute...

though there is nothing more inherently offensive about female genitalia than there is about male genitalia.

Oh, but there is, isn't there? Women have "penis envy". Men never have "vagina envy". Plenty of men make jokes about how a woman's crotch smells; I've yet to hear a woman say she refuses to perform oral sex because of the way a man's balls smell. Etc etc.

Because sick bastard though he is, he is not a dog and she is not bacon.

Hell, if I left bacon out and my dog ate it, I'd still put her on time out because she knows full well she isn't to eat it. My dog apparently has more self-control than the men SL knows.

This is planet earth. Deep down as many of you have stated, we are a horde of power hungry primates with little regard for others.

Really? Primates are power-hungry and have little regard for one another? How is it then that bonobos, our closest primate relatives, live in a peaceable matriarchal society where the females choose which individual they'll have sex with? How is it that all primates and a good number of other animals display verifiable concern and affection for one another? Or is it possible you saw a documentary on lions once and now base all your bullshit on our "animal instincts"?

Skala makes my point, Neo.

Only if you assume that I was trying to apply the "if she got raped she was dressed like a slut" argument. You should know me better than that Mur. All I said was that certain activities can increase the chances of you being a victim of certain crimes, and if you don't commit those activities, your chance of being a victim of that crime is less.

May not substantially less, maybe not noticably less, but less. Now does that mean that we should stop engaging in all behavior that carry risk of...something?

No, of course not, it merely means that like intelligent adults we should recognize when our actions increase the chances that "something bad" (whatever the something bad may be in that circumstance) will occur, and act as we see fit.

Does it mean we're at fault if someone does commit a crime upon us? No, of course not. I merely point out that certain actions increase the chance of certain crimes being committed against you, and as intelligent people, we should be aware of what those are.

And, perhaps just as importantly, as you point out, what they are not.

Is it not possible that there's a difference in mindset between a man who is attracted to women vs. one who is attracted to men? I'm by no means an expert, but if you listen to conversations of both sets concerning what they're attracted to, they tend to be very different. So, in the case of a rapist from either set, might not the psychological issues at work be somewhat different?
No. Because many crime studies also indicate that, while there are many different reasons why rapists rape, none of those reasons has anything to do with finding the victim attractive. Also, many violent rapists -- the ones who inflict extra physical damage on their victims -- rape both men and women, but only find one sex attractive for relationships. How is this possible? Because as all crime experts have been saying for decades, rape is about power and domination, not sex.

I think everyone can agree to the following:

1) People should take reasonable measures to reduce the possibility of attracting the attention of a criminal and to make themselves a harder target.

2) Failure to do so does not excuse a criminal who takes advantage of the person who failed to reasonably protect themselves.

3) Criminals do not always choose a softer target.

Is there anyone who disagrees with these points taken together?

(god damn it this conversation is preventing me from sleeping)


You're not going to have any energy left for your un-kosher activities at this rate. :p

I wasn't assuming so much as insinuating...

...that didn't really help the situation much, did it? :p

Nope. SLAP!!! ;)

I think everyone can agree to the following:

1) People should take reasonable measures to reduce the possibility of attracting the attention of a criminal and to make themselves a harder target.

2) Failure to do so does not excuse a criminal who takes advantage of the person who failed to reasonably protect themselves.

3) Criminals do not always choose a softer target.

Is there anyone who disagrees with these points taken together?

Yes, as I asked before, define "should"

Sure, it would be a reasonable choice on your part to avoid flashing your Rolex in crime-ridden areas. However, if you did so and someone mugged you and stole your Rolex, the fault is entirely on the part of the mugger. You didn't make him mug you. You didn't "egg him on" into mugging you. You weren't "asking" to be mugged. You have every right to wear your Rolex wherever the hell you want. He chose to mug you, and that's entirely on him.

Yes I know and I am not making any excuses for the mugger but it would it not be advisable that I didn't show off my Rolex in a high crime area?

No. Because many crime studies also indicate that, while there are many different reasons why rapists rape, none of those reasons has anything to do with finding the victim attractive. Also, many violent rapists -- the ones who inflict extra physical damage on their victims -- rape both men and women, but only find one sex attractive for relationships. How is this possible? Because as all crime experts have been saying for decades, rape is about power and domination, not sex.

Can you point me to your source for your position? (Not calling you a liar, just wanting to have the same information you do to read for myself.)

Nope. SLAP!!! ;)

Well, at least I'm now getting slapped for the right reasons.

*scurries off the interwebs to bed, away from public slappage*

(god damn it this conversation is preventing me from sleeping)

and here we see the problem inherent in the system. Define "should"

Should (verb) the past tense of shall, an action that is considered to be obligatory.

Yes, as I asked before, define "should"

I don't see how redefining a commonly known word is relevant to the conversation. Can you please explain how it is, and then explain why that produces a logical disagreement?

Luckily, as a back up to your point, 99% of rapes occur in sexually aggressive male areas where a woman has gone in wearing nothing but a bikini and high heels.

Oh wait a minute...

Yeah your so funny Barry at least other posters decided to respond reasonably.

Just a question before I get screamed at again. If I go to a extremely poor area where crime is very high and people are robbed all the time, should I still go their in my expensive suit flashing my Rolex? Or should I know that their will be a good chance that I will be mugged and perhaps takes some responsibility to try and prevent a wrong being committed against me and maybe not wear the Rolex?

I know that the muggers have done a wrong thing but shouldn't I still try to protect myself and prevent myself from being targeted?

Poliwanacraca (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13805322) has already answered this well, but I'd like to try too.

We start with the assumption of enlightened self-interest. This may not be a reasonable assumption (the rapist for instance risks years in jail for what may be a quite unsatisfactory sexual encounter) but it's an assumption which underlies the whole idea of punishment preventing crime. It's an unavoidable assumption!

From self-interest you "should" avoid situations where you may be mugged or raped. But it's not a moral question! It's entirely your business.

If you go into a "bad" neighbourhood wearing your Armani and your Rolex, you have taken a risk, and taken responsibility for the consequences entirely on your own terms. This is a question of self-interest, and if you have misjudged your own interests and something bad happens, by all means take responsibility and modify your behaviour in future. But this does not affect the blame belonging to the mugger, it is more a correction of your own perceptions.

If the victim takes some of the blame for the crime, this can only mean that the blame ascribed to the perpetrator of the crime is lessened. Why should it be? In what possible way is "he had good stuff and I wanted it" a defence of robbery, let alone violence?

Hating feminism =/=hating women.

I don't see how redefining a commonly known word is relevant to the conversation. Can you please explain how it is, and then explain why that produces a logical disagreement?

There is a world of difference between "should" as in "I think it's a good idea" (e.g. "You should wear your blue dress to dinner tonight; it really looks nice on you.") and "should" as in a responsibility or obligation (e.g. "Parents should make sure their children receive essential medical care."). Which do you mean?

Hating feminism =/=hating women.

Really? 'Cause I'd say that hating the idea that men and women are equals and should be treated as such inherently implies, if not hate, at least pretty significant disrespect to one gender or the other.

There is a world of difference between "should" as in "I think it's a good idea" (e.g. "You should wear your blue dress to dinner tonight; it really looks nice on you.") and "should" as in a responsibility or obligation (e.g. "Parents should make sure their children receive essential medical care."). Which do you mean?

I have stated it would be considered to be an obligation as in I should look both ways before crossing the street.

If Jews couldn't perform cunnlingus though.....wow, I'd just say I don't want to know any Jewish man.

Do you mean "know" in the biblical sense?

It's not a tangent so much, its a good point, similar to the difference between 'bitch' and 'bastard', similar words but one is seen as more offensive than the other.

Could one equate it to the difference between '******' and 'whitey'?

Well, considering the two terms "bitch" and "bastard", it's not that hard to figure out really.

"Bastard" refers to an illigitimate child. The reason why it is still insulting today, although illegitimate children are not viewed in a poor light really, is that back when it *was* insulting to use, it was a big deal. Thus, it being an insult stayed, however over time the overall severity may have dropped due to changes in values.

"bitch", however, can be construed as far more demeaning, as it in turn refers to an animal, a female dog to be exact. I honeslty don't know the origin of the insult itself, however it's dehumanizing intent is likely why it is a much more severe term to use.

However, when call a male a "bitch", it is a *very* severe term to use, as it is in fact insulting masculinity(Now, before you go off on men are stupid for being macho and what not, I'm going to give a bit of background info. Females and males compete in totally different ways. We seem to be hard wired for this. Females compete to be "more similar", if you will, to each other. It appears to be how they *biologically* work. Do know why, not going to say on that, it's unimportant for the discussion at hand. Males, however, tend to try to one-up each other when competing. The most common, due to it being the most easily visible, is to be more "masculine" than the next person. Hence why it is such sever term, not that it is because being female is necessarily "bad", per se, but instead it is used as a way to demean a male into a lower, subordinate, position. Now, I'm not saying that it is used because males think that *females* are subordinate. That is not the case. However, less masculine *males* are considered subordinate. HUGE difference.).

One of my friends actually did a research paper on insults. I should get ahold of it, he did quite the amazing job on it.

If the victim takes some of the blame for the crime, this can only mean that the blame ascribed to the perpetrator of the crime is lessened. Why should it be? In what possible way is "he had good stuff and I wanted it" a defence of robbery, let alone violence?

I never said it was. But I think that if you know that by going down a certain street will see you get mugged even though it is wrong for them to do it why would you do it?

Okay, I've been attempting to refrain from making this personal, but I think maybe you need it made personal to understand what you're saying.

I was sexually assaulted by a guy with whom I was romantically involved. I had certainly tried to attract him on numerous occasions. Please, if you believe it to be true, tell me outright that you think that made me "disgusting" and undeserving of sympathy after he ignored me when I cried and told him "no." Please, tell me outright that I was "asking for it" when I wore clothes that made me look pretty around him. Please, tell me outright that he couldn't help himself, and had no choice but to assault me. If that is what you believe, have the balls to say it to someone who's actually been sexually assaulted.

That's really horrible. Of him, not you. Looking pretty is not something that makes one deserving of ill deeds.

Also... wait, I didn't know you were a girl. Wow.

It's not a tangent so much, its a good point, similar to the difference between 'bitch' and 'bastard', similar words but one is seen as more offensive than the other.

Could one equate it to the difference between '******' and 'whitey'?

It's a bit like Slut and Stud the mean the same thing except one is in regards to a woman the other in regards to a man.