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.
Gee I wonder if you would cry if you were run over by a DWI while you took the risk of walking outside.
I would cry, and my family would cry.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
But there's a difference between accidents and intentional acts.
I exercise free will and an accident befalls me...so be it. I exercise free will and a negative intentional act befalls me...that's the fault of another.
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.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-05-2018 at 04:42 PM..
Not at all. Your post falls under the same mantra.
Don't wear short skirts and you mitigate the risk.
Don't go out alone and you mitigate the risk.
Don't get too drunk and you mitigate the risk.
Don't lead men on and you mitigate the risk.
Don't be sexy and you mitigate the risk.
Don't go to a man's residence and you mitigate the risk.
Don't go to parties and you mitigate the risk.
Don't appear weak and you mitigate the risk.
It can happen to anyone whether you mitigate the risk or not.
The victim does not cause it.
You're asking the wrong people to change their behavior.
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 to 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.
Not at all. Your post falls under the same mantra.
Don't wear short skirts and you mitigate the risk.
Don't go out alone and you mitigate the risk.
Don't get too drunk and you mitigate the risk.
Don't lead men on and you mitigate the risk.
Don't be sexy and you mitigate the risk.
Don't go to a man's residence and you mitigate the risk.
Don't go to parties and you mitigate the risk.
Don't appear weak and you mitigate the risk.
It can happen to anyone whether you mitigate the risk or not.
The victim does not cause it.
You're asking the wrong people to change their behavior.
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.
Not at all. Your post falls under the same mantra.
Don't wear short skirts and you mitigate the risk.
Don't go out alone and you mitigate the risk.
Don't get too drunk and you mitigate the risk.
Don't lead men on and you mitigate the risk.
Don't be sexy and you mitigate the risk.
Don't go to a man's residence and you mitigate the risk.
Don't go to parties and you mitigate the risk.
Don't appear weak and you mitigate the risk.
It can happen to anyone whether you mitigate the risk or not.
The victim does not cause it.
You're asking the wrong people to change their behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowne
Those who get off on control and power over victims are more likely to target someone they perceive as weak. Stop living in fear as you are sending an easy victim message to psychos and rapists. There are no guarantees but you are less likely to be their prey. No one says “nothing bad will happen to you” if you “don’t do those wrong things” but you can certainly help limit the likelihood.
Less likely. Quite frankly, I don’t appreciate you as a man telling me that I don’t know how to keep myself safer. As I said before, it can happen to anyone but we can take steps to limit our risk. It isn’t victim blaming no matter how much you try to push your agenda.
You can “ask” rapists to change their behavior just as you can “ask” murderers to change. Good luck with that. What you CAN do which will have a positive impact is practice situational awareness. If you don’t (or do) and are raped I will not judge the victim. Why do you men try to push victimhood on women? When did we regress from female empowerment into fragile flowers?
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 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 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.
I suspect men who think this don't get much attention from attractive women and don't like women who do get attention. They don't like the party scene so no one should. If you go to that party Stacy you might get raped by Chad. So stay home and be safe alone in your room. That'll show her.
Kids are gonna go to parties, at least normal kids.
Yes most attacks are by someone you know when you are just going about your business.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I suspect men who think this don't get much attention from attractive women and don't like women who do get attention. They don't like the party scene so no one should. If you go to that party Stacy you might get raped by Chad. So stay home and be safe alone in your room. That'll show her.
Kids are gonna go to parties, at least normal kids.
Yes most attacks are by someone you know when you are just going about your business.
"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.
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.
