Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Normal kids" are NOT going to parties anymore. I am mentoring a recent college grad fellow alumni and can confirm my school and the 3 schools next to it no longer have large parties at all - There is a big fear and a big divide happening on college campuses and regular guys are playing it safe. There are Women willing to sign written consent forms and everything. I don't know your age - but believe me things have changed and it's mostly for the worse.
Yeah, all this stuff that's been happening the last few years isn't going to do much for the war of the sexes.....
[quote=Tencent;53285466]Correct - Yet the national media creates this frenzy and specifically puts Women forward who have been allegedly raped in college and at parties by "strangers".
Now in regards to the vast majority of Women who are sexually assaulted by relatives, spouses and close friends - we have the issue that they want to claim they are psychologically distraught but refuse to come forward and send their Uncle or Father to jail due to family pressures. So the reality is that they are not fighting against oppression by some politician or outside entity - They are fighting against their own family and friends. This is my problem with this movement - It attempts to identify an "Other" when the reality is THE REAL ENEMY IS WITHIN!!!!
This whole #MeToo movement encourages Women to interpret benign comments and behavior by unrelated acquaintance Males at work and school in offensive ways all the while covering up and letting the real perpetrators go scott free - And perhaps the REAL criminal who assaulted Dr. Ford who was probably someone MUCH closer to her.
Men are in danger of Women lashing out and pointing the finger at THEM in situations of ambiguous consent when the reality is the Woman has UNRESOLVED issues from molestation at an earlier age that were never addressed. This is PRECISELY why I explain to many young Men DO NOT engage with Women who have expressed they have been abused in any way shape or form. Because they WILL be the scapegoat and take the blame for what Daddy did to her when she was 10. I have seen it first hand.[/quote]
What a load of cr*p. You impugn women who have been sexually assaulted by a loser men and hold the women out as lunatics. Dude, what's the origin of your hatred for women?
You don't have to do any of those things, anything "risky" at all to get sexually assaulted. That's the difference.
Most women are not assaulted at bars and clubs while drunk. They're assaulted by people they know in the safety of their or other's homes, in respectable suburbia, not in the wilds of the friggin woods (ie bars clubs and parties). The idea that if women just behave differently the assaults will stop is a dangerous fallacy.
You are correct, and thank you for pointing this out to the ones who don't seem to grasp this.
To all of you who think women should "do more" to stave off sexual assault, I will have to tell the woman I know who was 86 years old and raped in her own house, in the middle of the night, by her 20-something neighbor. Yep, I'll let her know.
But when normal people learn about all the car-accidents, they buy a car with air bags and seatbelts, they tell their children not to text-and-drive, to not drive when the bars let out because there will be a lot of drunk-drivers on the road. They tell them to always watch out for the other cars, to assume the guy merging isn't going to see you, or even that the people in the other cars are insane, and they'll pull a gun on you because of road-rage.
Usually we call this "defensive-driving".
But when someone gets sexually-assaulted after getting black-out drunk at a party where they didn't know most of the people, and you say "maybe that was a bad idea". All of these annoying lefties then start ranting about how you are victim-blaming. And saying, why should they have to protect themselves, why can't men just stop raping, etc.
Whether someone does something intentionally or accidentally, they are still at fault. So I'm not sure your point.
And whether someone kills you intentionally or accidentally, you are still dead. And to the people who love you, and wish you weren't dead, I am sure that they wish that in many cases, you had done more to protect yourself.
I drove a motorcycle for a while. My family hated it. Why? Because the risk of getting killed driving a motorcycle is much higher than the risk of getting killed driving a car.
Everything we do in life, from what we drive, to our occupation, to where we go, to who we associate with, to what we eat, drink, and smoke, increases our risks of being harmed, or dying.
The question is to what extent a person is responsible for protecting themselves. And in this case, to what degree is a person at fault for making bad decisions which lead, intentionally or unintentionally, to physical harm.
If I were to drive to Juarez, Mexico, and I got kidnapped and ransomed by the cartels, might it be reasonable to say that maybe going wasn't a good idea?
If I were to take a job in Iraq, and I get kidnapped and killed by ISIS. Well certainly, they are to blame, but does that make me blameless? If I join the military, and get sent to Afghanistan, and I get shot. Certainly they are to blame, but shouldn't I have expected it?
The question is, to what extent do you have a duty to protect yourself. Whether that be while walking down the street, whether you decide to drive a Hummer or a Smart car or a motorcycle, or to go out and drink too much around people you don't know, or go home with some man you only met a few hours ago, etc.
The answer is a resounding YES, absolutely. That doesn't make you at fault, or solely at fault. It doesn't mean you deserved it. But if does mean you should have expected it.
If I drive a $100,000 car and leave it parked in the ghetto, should I be shocked when it gets stolen? Should I be angry if someone tells me it was a bad idea? Telling them they are victim-blaming?
Whether they should or not, not everyone is going to follow the NAP. And there is nothing that is going to change that.
It's easier, in my opinion, to accept and deal with a negative experience when it is by accident rather than an intentional act. Much, much easier.
That doesn't negate the fact that you must deal with it. That's why preparation and awareness are so valuable: not because you've reduced your chances of being a victim of a NAP-breaker but because these same precautions almost always help reduce risk of accidents (getting drunk at a party also increases the odds of you falling down, saying something regretful, being cited for unlawful behavior...but these are all actions that don't violate the NAP).
You should expect anything at any time. Accidents and aggression rain down on all of us.
Of course not everyone is going to follow the NAP but the NAP also puts the same weight on your right to defend yourself and prepare yourself for possible victimization as well as accidents. That's something we don't have the right to do to the fullest extent under Statism. Not even close.
This is akin to going into the Wild unarmed into bear/wolf territory and saying:
"I am human hear me ROAR".
"A Human should be able to walk freely in the Woods and not be accosted by Wild Wolves or Bears."
"Don't bother me and I won't bother you"
"Here I am going to cook this steak and you better stay away buddy or I'm gonna get mad!"
The man is subsequently eaten by a Grizzly Bear and his remains are taken away by hungry wolves and vultures.
What is the lesson here?
1) In general I respect mother nature. I live in human communities and I don't go into the Wild expecting a warm welcome.
2) If I were to go into the woods I would go with a tour guide and limit my visit to "safe areas".
3) If I were to go without a tour guide I would use the buddy system and carry the appropriate weaponry to defend myself
4) I would re-evaluate why exactly I'm going into the woods and what I hope to accomplish there. Can I get the same thing elsewhere in a safer place ? (i.e. - meditation)
Replace "Woods" with parties/shady bars and clubs. All of which where attendance is purely optional. All of which where a large quantity of these events of ambiguous consent occur.
The further humans stray from hunter gatherer instincts the more problems we will have. 100,000 years ago I am very sure Women were not eagerly looking for random parties to attend with strange Men they do not know. This facade of civilization - People need to awaken from it. We are primitive organisms in a dream world trying to make sense of it with a brain that evolved during times when large animals were still a widespread and regular threat.
You just equated the NATURAL behavior of animals reacting to something in their environment to men raping women. Do you really think it is natural for men to rape women?
The reality is that many many young people (all age people, actually) drink too much. That's not going to change anytime soon. What we should be doing, IMHO, instead of lecturing women about their drinking habits, is to teach kids to look out for each other. We should teach them that if they see a passed out girl on a couch at a party, or a guys egging on a drunk dude to do something stupid, that the best course of action as a decent human being is to get the inebriated home and safe. Call an Uber, a taxi, drive them. If you see a situation get out of hand, do something about it. If there's a designated driver, have them watch out for those incapacitated. There's often enough non-nefarious people about to prevent bad situations. It's when they don't speak up that things progress and take a nasty turn.
I wouldn't tell my college aged daughter it was okay to get smashed, I don't know why that would be necessary, firstly, and I don't know that my college aged daughter would ask me for permission if she's of age. But I would let her know that it's always okay to call for help or to get home. And I'd be a blazing hypocrite if I gave her any grief for doing it. And super naive to think she won't at some stage in her life. It happens to people even if they didn't intend it.
Regardless, you missed my point - which is that people are sexually assaulted far more frequently NOT indulging in "risky" behavior than when they do. You want women to be accountable. But for what exactly? Living life?
Assault by strangers is pretty rare. And they can be assaulted in the parking lot at the local Walmart going for milk in their fuzzy slippers.
Assault by known and trusted members of their community is not rare at all, and far more likely.
You're missing my point and the point of the thread, which is asking if women have a duty to protect themselves from being assaulted.
I gave specific instances where women might be letting their guard down and said they were not doing what they should to keep themselves safe. And your response is to ask if I want women to be accountable....for living life.
Are you suggesting women cannot live their lives without drinking until they lose their faculties or black out????? Because that is the ONLY situation I've referenced.
Last edited by MPowering1; 10-05-2018 at 07:19 PM..
Correct - Yet the national media creates this frenzy and specifically puts Women forward who have been allegedly raped in college and at parties by "strangers".
Now in regards to the vast majority of Women who are sexually assaulted by relatives, spouses and close friends - we have the issue that they want to claim they are psychologically distraught but refuse to come forward and send their Uncle or Father to jail due to family pressures. So the reality is that they are not fighting against oppression by some politician or outside entity - They are fighting against their own family and friends. This is my problem with this movement - It attempts to identify an "Other" when the reality is THE REAL ENEMY IS WITHIN!!!!
This whole #MeToo movement encourages Women to interpret benign comments and behavior by unrelated acquaintance Males at work and school in offensive ways all the while covering up and letting the real perpetrators go scott free - And perhaps the REAL criminal who assaulted Dr. Ford who was probably someone MUCH closer to her.
Men are in danger of Women lashing out and pointing the finger at THEM in situations of ambiguous consent when the reality is the Woman has UNRESOLVED issues from molestation at an earlier age that were never addressed. This is PRECISELY why I explain to many young Men DO NOT engage with Women who have expressed they have been abused in any way shape or form. Because they WILL be the scapegoat and take the blame for what Daddy did to her when she was 10. I have seen it first hand.
The people women meet through work or know socially are absolutely part of the non stranger category of sexual assaults. You are trying to move the goal posts so you can pretend he work environment is some how unique. It is not. Many, many women meet the people who will assault them through work. Pretending otherwise is self deception on your part.
If I say your behavior is foolish, you can turn around and say it wasn't foolish. And so long as the definition of foolish-behavior is subjective, no one can prove anyone is right, and no one can prove anyone is wrong.
If that is the way you want to play it, then I'll play it that way. But I promise you, if I was giving advice to my daughter, I would tell her to be careful when drinking, and I wouldn't want her in skimpy clothes out walking the streets at night(hell I wouldn't want her in skimpy clothes at all).
You can scream to high-heaven about how unfair it is, or that it is sexist because I'm not telling my son the same things. But frankly, I just don't care.
Again, you can call it victim-blaming. I'll call it reality. And since I live in the real world, instead of some utopian fantasy-land, I am far less-likely to be a victim than the people who cry about victim-blaming. And when they do something I think is stupid, I'm going to scream to everyone I know just how stupid it was, in the hopes that they won't do the same thing.
Where does this walking in a ghetto street alone at night in skimpy clothing thing even come from? Who does that? How and why?
"Normal kids" are NOT going to parties anymore. I am mentoring a recent college grad fellow alumni and can confirm my school and the 3 schools next to it no longer have large parties at all - There is a big fear and a big divide happening on college campuses and regular guys are playing it safe. There are Women willing to sign written consent forms and everything. I don't know your age - but believe me things have changed and it's mostly for the worse.
Whoa, you are mentoring a whole student! That makes you the worlds leading expert on this subject then. No Dunning Krueger here at all.
We should definitely listen to that wealth of direct nonhearsay evidence over the statistics and research on the subject.
Your entire argument is, "Even if women wore ankle-length dresses, and never left their homes except with a male chaperone, there would still be rape."
Which is true, but no one is arguing that.
They are asking whether a woman's behavior and dress might increase the odds of her being raped.
For instance, let us pretend for a moment that women never drank alcohol or used drugs. Would there be fewer rapes?
Let us pretend that women never went to bars/clubs, would there be fewer rapes?
Let us pretend that every woman dressed in ankle-length dresses, and only went out with men their families knew and approved of. And never went to houses of strangers their families wouldn't approve of. Would there be fewer rapes?
There are at least a hundred ways you could reduce the probability of rapes occurring. The only debate is, what are reasonable precautions and what are unreasonable precautions?
To a leftist, there are no reasonable precautions, men just shouldn't rape. To a right-winger, the number of reasonable precautions is almost endless.
No, it won't increase the odds, that's not how individual odds work. A woman could stay in her house 24/7 with her husband and STILL BE RAPED BY HER HUSBAND.
A woman could be single, a virgin, never meet a man in her life, and someone could STILL BREAK INTO HER HOUSE AND RAPE HER.
It is not up to women to control the behavior of rapists. There is a certain amount of risk inherent in just being alive. There is little point to women changing the way they live in order to not get raped, because it can happen under even the most mundane of circumstances.
The odds are that most women will NOT be raped, per se, in a violent attack, at a party, a bar, or walking the street. Millions and millions of women do these things on a daily basis without being raped.
The odds that women (girls especially) will be sexually assaulted, molested, or otherwise interfered with in an everyday perceivably safe setting, however, are extremely high and it's exceptionally common. There are few reasonable precautions one can take to mitigate that risk, and women shouldn't be asked to live less of a life in order to accommodate the assaulters.
That's the whole premise of patriarchal religious extreme cultures. I, for one, would rather live a free life and have the rapers, molesters and assaulters be held to the same decent standard as the rest of society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
