Speaking of "reading the whole thing first", have you read my whole post? I'm saying that I'm starting to understand the other point of view, and that it may be correct.
Have you even skimmed through my last paragraph?
Rape and the "Civilized" World
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Speaking of "reading the whole thing first", have you read my whole post? I'm saying that I'm starting to understand the other point of view, and that it may be correct.
Have you even skimmed through my last paragraph?
Also, do you ever review what you have just written to ensure that it makes some sort of sense? It might be a good idea. "...the rape crime is from normal people because of pure sexual attraction"--wtf?! "Unlike Rapists who's occupation is to rape. Like serial killers."
Can you describe this "logic" which normal people (apparently) use for "ranking women they want to 'just' have sex with"? Is there an algorithm you follow, or some sort of data you weigh?
See above. Please try to express yourself in a slightly more coherent fashion.
On consideration--and after deciphering your coded speak--I thought that might have been what you were trying to say, but I wasn't sure.
Although, that you say "point of view" does suggest that you still are not fully comprehending reality--it's got nothing whatsoever to do with a "point of view," it's simply what is: rapists do not rape on the basis of how a woman is dressed, and this is well established by statistics.
But you decided to be mean just in case.
And just now I was hasseling myself trying to show you here;
..That I already provided something you said nobody provided. I'm not.
How about the length and duration of the boner you get from looking at them?
Last edited:
Only because Bells and Balerion had already provided you with the information you were lacking. Had you not insisted upon repeating your misinformation...
Surely you're not suggesting that this:
is an adequate response to that which was solicited?
The thing is, what you are talking about here has little to do with rape. I'll be brief, largely because I shouldn't even be responding in the first place--my mind is elsewhere: at the moment I'm more concerned with figuring out a way to extract a fundamental frequency for a sort of "pitch follower (freq to voltage) and analog synth" thing I'm making (with a very[i/] small parts count, and slightly more efficient than a basic low-pass filter). Anyways, I figure someone more invested, patient, and knowledgeable will come along and explain this more thoroughly.
You've probably encountered some form of the expression, "rape is about power, not sex," ja? If someone seduces another person with the sole intention of having sex with them, they're not (necessarily) a rapist--they may be, but that is independent of the preceding.
Well, you're ignorant, but at least your ignorance is consistent.
try and find these quotes where I have supposedly said this and you will find that you either imagining stuff (yet again) or alternatively, adopting such a hyper sensitive radical stance that it finds no parallel in the "real world" (IOW its not an outlook even remotely shared by anyone interested in dealing with practical solutions for this issue)
And you have consistently failed to respond to the details of "risk assessment" ... which in fact dictate not only when a woman can expect not to get raped but also when a person can expect not to get their car stolen, attacked by a polar bear, squashed by a NASA satellite that plummets to earth (nb - not that any of these examples are cited as being moral examples for equating women with motor vehicles, polar bears that adopt a warning stance and growl aggressively or man-made objects that drop out of geostationary positions ... just in case you want to re-troll those points also) or any other hazard you could cite for any particular individual/s from any particular era in - oooohhh ... let's say :scratchin: - the history of the universe (at least amongst living entities with any smattering of a trace of cognition in their environments ...)
:shrug:
the benefit of such "harping" is that individuals can actually prevent themselves from getting raped and also negotiate the world in a more confident and intelligent manner. Thats kind of the empowering aspect of knowledge .... as opposed to the pitfalls of having no other alternative other than to subscribe to ineffective preventative strategies (the default position of an absence of effective ones) and of course victim counselling and all the other "tons of cure" means brought to the fore in the absence of "ounces of prevention".
Tell us bells, would you rather be "right" or "raped"?
Unfortunately, rape is one of those examples. Before a woman is sexually assaulted, her emotions, pride and anger seem overwhelmingly important. Enough to to blind her to the fact that she's standing on the railroad tracks trying to argue with a runaway train about its behavior.
Never mind her reasons for doing so, that is not a behavior that is conducive to not getting raped.
Right or Raped?
We have a basic question that we ask: What would you rather be, right or raped?
When after the woman replies that she doesn't want to get raped, we reply: Then you better quit trying to "win" and focus more on doing something that will keep you from getting raped.
In a long list of statements about rape that twists off advocates, this is pretty much the topper. Wow... the outrage, the anger, the barrage of "I HAVE A RIGHT TO....!" and "Why should I be the one who ...?" or "I'm not going to ..." But, our personal favorite "He's the one who's in the wrong ..."
Wow, they're not only going to try to argue with a run away train, they're going to start defending their right to do so then and there. It doesn't take too much of psychic to guess the outcome if she finds herself alone with a man intent on sexually assaulting her.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/escape.html
Last edited:
Ba-Doomed
eg:
To hit or not to hit
Hitting someone is not in and of itself bad. However, the problem is that a woman should never hit a man with any other purpose than to knock him out.
In other words: If you aren't striking to "deck him," don't hit him.
etc etc
It was quite a feat of (perverted) intelligence to scroll through that entire article and only focus on the cons ... much less composing as somewhat lengthy response that doesn't even move in the general direction of the pitfalls of adopting cerebral attitudes in the face of imminent danger (and much less even more, how advocating such words of caution somehow puts one in league with the type of criminals one is trying to help others protect themselves from ....) .
Congratulations.
:shrug:
actually, still trying to make the case for people actually responding to topics instead of splitting hairs over irrelevant details as some sort of compensation for a lack of detail and structure in their statements
yeah - marketing rape prevention tactics to people who have a vested interest in not being a rape victim is just crazy, isn't it?And this one?
Trust us: Marc "The Animal" MacYoung and Dianna "Mrs. Velocoraptor" [sic] MacYoung, self-defense experts.
Not encouraging, I admit. But I did want to know what kind of operation is so low as to devise straw men in order to denigrate women as part of their sales pitch. As they state at the outset, "A basic rule of salesmanship is you market to the people who have the money." And while they use that to set up a counterpoint, we need to remember that they're playing to a market.
actually that entire article (that you just mangled with a sort of macabre blog-inspired myopia that you are increasingly becoming famous for on this site) is actually about the pro's and con's of using violence to avoid becoming a victim.
eg:
To hit or not to hit
Hitting someone is not in and of itself bad. However, the problem is that a woman should never hit a man with any other purpose than to knock him out.
In other words: If you aren't striking to "deck him," don't hit him.
etc etc
Is that an innate ability of yours or something you have picked up through extensive blogging?
It was quite a feat of (perverted) intelligence to scroll through that entire article and only focus on the cons ... much less composing as somewhat lengthy response that doesn't even move in the general direction of the pitfalls of adopting cerebral attitudes in the face of imminent danger (and much less even more, how advocating such words of caution somehow puts one in league with the type of criminals one is trying to help others protect themselves from ....) .
Congratulations.
:shrug:
Last edited:
erm
I just provided you with a quote which talks about the precise sort of attitude one wouldn't want to have in a sexually violent situation.
I guess you must have somehow missed it and vast portions of the site when you made these conclusions about it having nothing to do with rape
so you can't understand that fine tuning points of moral indignity with an aggressor is not something one should stick around to carry through to conclusion?
...... and you can't understand how jeopardizing one's safety is what is likely to lead to an array of "unsafe" scenarios?
No, what you provided was a misogynist manifesto blaming women for getting themselves raped. Because, apparently, rape only happens to women who won't shut up.
Because that's how rape occurs in your mind, isn't it? Bitches who won't keep their damn mouths shut, right?
If that's too cryptic, let's get literal: The scenario upon which this "prevention" protocol is based doesn't even include an aggressor. There is, at best, a jilted admirer. Baseless assumptions are made that he not only arrived back at the school to rape the object of his affection, but also a threat to rape any woman who chanced to stray into his den.
In your world, "jeopardizing one's safety" amounts to "running one's mouth." The message the website is trying to get across--and the one that you're endorsing--is "Shut up, bitch, and know your place."
Well, no, it's not.pick one said:
It's one of the critical questions facing any woman who wants to live a reasonable life of ordinary doing and saying things. You guys expect her to take precautions against the threat of rape, whenever she - and I quote - "anticipates that she might be raped". If she does not, you regard her as irresponsible, immature, provoking, perhaps not a victim of "legitimate rape" or "extreme rape" or whatever the real thing is. She obviously can't count on being supported by her community in such a case - when lots of people think she has been "asking for it" or failing to be "responsible" and properly "anticipating that she might be raped".
Now one of the standard techniques of oppression is to subject the victims to arbitrary disparagement and punishments for crossing lines left undefined - to make the victim anticipate and guess and oppress themselves while maintaining plausible deniability for the oppressor (of course we tolerate teenage screwing around, it's just hooliganism we punish; free speech is something we completely support, it's just sedition we persecute; we didn't mean she couldn't go to the door of her own home if a man might be there; we only require modesty, not that women dress in such hot and crippling clothing, it's just what they all choose; etc etc).
It's not the only technique - the oppressor can also be perfectly explicit about their onerous rules of conduct and muster the force to back them, say - but it's one often chosen by those who recognize that something isn't quite right about what they are doing, who lack the physical dominance to simply ignore objections, who don't want to be clear about and thus accountable for the implications and consequences of what they advocate.
So inquiring minds want to know, from the advocates of precaution: how are you avoiding oppression in that form? That is: In what major arenas of a woman's ordinary life, when and where, can she not bother with "anticipating that she might be raped" and curbing her behavior, watching her speech, managing her circumstances, in a precautionary fashion with rape in mind: and still be classified as a responsible adult doing what is expected of her, what she can rely on community backing in light of?
A curious question, and a random thought;
- If what a woman wears in no way affects the plausibility of her being chosen as a rape victim, then why do so many people think that?
- maybe the reason why people don't fully support a rape victim who was flaunting her assets yesterday, is because of envy, to a degree. But also because people don't like those who think they are better than everyone else. People like and celebrate the modest, among the attention hogging and the attention seeking masses. And so they like to see those who boast and puff themselves so high take a nosedive?
this all goes back to why do women try to be sexy? why do they go out of their way to show skin, to wear uncomfortable high heels and put so much effort into looking beautiful to people they do not know, and walk about between us saying to the loudest our eyes can bear "look at me". Demanding our attention, climbing above us and making us feel less, or at least trying to, and believing in succeeding, to think they are better than us for what they display.
Maybe rape brings about humility we all wanted those people to experience.
In the same way what people may feel when a rich guy drives around in his super fancy car wearing expensive jewelry and cloths, for no reason but to show off, to steal people attention, and believe he makes people feel bad for not having what he has. Even though they may not envy him and may be content with what they have, but do not appreciate the supremacy he exercises on them. and so they would feel some satisfaction when somebody steals his car from him.
The act of trying to look pretty may be seen as equivalent to trying to be above others, noticed among others, steal the attention others might/should get.
Maybe.
actually they talk about rape occurring (or at least increasing the probability of it) to women who jeopardize their opportunity for escape in favor of trying to win the fight.
I guess it boils down to a sort of equation where the more prolonged the risk management, the more likely the occurrence of an incident.
err ... no.
But I guess its your mind that is more of a worry .... since you think that there is no way to bring risk assessment to a scenario that precludes violence
nope
jeopardizing an opportunity for escape from violence has nothing to do with whether the offender is a jilted admirer or even a polar bear for that matter.
:shrug:
Its difficult to find a single effective example of risk assessment brought to volatile situation where a good opportunity to run or conclude a risk management is abstained in favour of prolonging it (regardless whether its through running one's mouth or anything else .... ) particularly if the other party has the upper hand in strength
Here are some good examples to illustrate this subtle point of failing a bit in terms of risk assessment.
I've got to ask , can you think of any risk prevention strategies that one could apply to prevent these situations occurring (even though some of them actually involve women ... believe it or not)?
(ps : extra brownie points if you can do it without being misogynistic)
Whaddya reckon?
A bit of a tough one to nous out?
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Read what I said.. Your very argument is insulting.
And as has been pointed out numerous times now, comparing human beings, women, to something like a car demeans and lowers the person to the value of a chattel.
Your version of "risk assessment" for women and their vagina's and comparing it to a car and theft prevention, demands that women must somehow or other always be hyper-vigilant because she could be raped at any time by any man. Thus the question, which you keep refusing to answer as you run around in circles comparing women and their vagina's to cars and car theft, therefore stands. At what point should a woman not expect to be raped? When is that? After all, since most rapes occur within the family home, your perverted and sexist argument of "risk assessment" would entail that women would have apply such rules to their spouses/partners/son's, etc.. And this is somehow more acceptable to you than to have society demand that women not be raped and that people instill values in their children that rape is not acceptable?
And the negatives of your pathetic argument is that when a woman is raped, she is then deemed to somehow share responsibility for having been raped because rape apologists such as yourself and Scifes would then say that she could have somehow prevented it, or worse, look at her actions and dress and she would be made to feel responsible for having been raped. And you have the absolute nerve to consider this empowering?
You expect women to live with the knowledge that they are expected to act, behave, dress, speak or not speak, look or not look a certain way, not walk down the street freely or catch the train, not remain in the company of the men in her family, work or friends to ensure that they prevent themselves from being raped. That is the lot you are demanding of women. And then you try and put it in glowing terms of "rape prevention". Your own words "also negotiate the world in a more confident and intelligent manner".. In other words, she needs to behave a certain way, dress a certain way, and act a certain way to ensure she is not raped.. And you actually believe this is empowering. You just wish to control the behaviour of women to fit into your twisted stereotype.
Prime example of your perverted and twisted logic:
Are you fucking kidding me?
I always knew you were a pervert, but this.. THIS..
You sexist son of a fucking bitch.
I'm not the one who has trouble reading.
You say I say stuff.
I not only say that I don't say it, you can't reference where I do (apparently) say it
Its as simple and as difficult as that.
:shrug:
Find a quote where I draw a qualitative comparison between rape and auto-theft to suggest that the the loss and immorality of the acts are on par with each other.
Once again, slobber chops, quote me. I dare you.
You see, there is a big difference between holding people accountable to what they say and holding people accountable to what one imagines they say.
A normal person, if they made such a mistake, would offer an apology.
so you are always hyper vigilant against car theft?
Or polar bear attacks?
Or getting pummeled by a satellite falling out of orbit?
at a point dictated by their risk assessment ... much the case as it is with car theft, polar bear attacks and getting wiped out by a satellite ... much like it has been for absolutely any hazard (ranging from aggravating an ingrown toe nail to dropping atom bombs on countries) in absolutely any circumstance in absolutely any era of time, past, present or future.
I don't know how more thorough I can be than this ....
I have literally referenced a ton of links to rape prevention seminars.
None of them work with the category of "man" as a risk hazard.
Only you .... who , despite our differences in opinion, I think we can both agree is certainly no expert on the subject.
Even Louise Nicholas titles her own story "I won't live in fear" - I guess you must think she is just kidding herself or something ....
IOW the only people living with fear are individuals with ineffective prevention strategies based and/or ineffective categories for hazards
(snip) and Louise Nicholas
And the negatives of your pathetic approach approach is that you give zero skills to deal with it if it happens in the future. This isn't to say of course that advocacy methodologies are ineffective or less in value or whatever.
Rather, this is to say people gravitate for a more empowering pro-active approach - namely victim advocacy and prevention strategy (eg - Louise Nicholas and the rape prevention education she is part of) since this offers a more complete approach to the problem
You see Bells, unlike you, most people can manage to benefit from this approach since they don't have an insane dichotomy running between their ears that exists purely for the sake of saving face on an online discussion forum.
IOW most (sane) people would prefer to anticipate danger (and avoid it) rather than try and pick up the pieces after it passes through town - it doesn't really matter what their favourite flavour of dogshit or political correctness or whatever is.
Actually, more accurately, its living with the knowledge on how to avoid danger, which most sane people tend to prefer when given the option of living in ignorance on how to avoid danger ....
If certain behaviours bring risk to an environment, it pays to at least be aware of what they are.
I guess you could call it intelligence but it is a concept so elementary you could even call it common sense.
Granted that there may be controversial discussions about what such behaviours may entail (and they may even change according to time, place and circumstance) but to outright say that risk prevention strategies are prohibited from having any bearing on any individual actions, attitudes or appearances is a douche-bag of an idea ... and one that certainly doesn't have a precedent in the real world, not even amongst daredevil stuntspersons ... who are perhaps the only ones attempting to make a business of somewhat flaunting this age old and very basic precept of sane living.
lol
cuts a bit close to the bone, doesn't it.
If its any consolation, I'm pretty sure a sane person would prefer to not be raped.
Or attacked by a polar bear.
Or have their car stolen.
or get hit by a satellite.
IOW effective risk prevention outshines victim professionalism, any day ... especially when a crisis has you running to the stage after risk assessment - namely risk management.
Bells
Staff member
I'm not the one who has trouble reading.
You say I say stuff.
I not only say that I don't say it, you can't reference where I do (apparently) say it
Its as simple and as difficult as that.
:shrug:
Find a quote where I draw a qualitative comparison between rape and auto-theft to suggest that the the loss and immorality of the acts are on par with each other.
Once again, slobber chops, quote me. I dare you.
You see, there is a big difference between holding people accountable to what they say and holding people accountable to what one imagines they say.
A normal person, if they made such a mistake, would offer an apology.
so you are always hyper vigilant against car theft?
Or polar bear attacks?
Or getting pummeled by a satellite falling out of orbit?
at a point dictated by their risk assessment ... much the case as it is with car theft, polar bear attacks and getting wiped out by a satellite ... much like it has been for absolutely any hazard (ranging from aggravating an ingrown toe nail to dropping atom bombs on countries) in absolutely any circumstance in absolutely any era of time, past, present or future.
I don't know how more thorough I can be than this ....
I have literally referenced a ton of links to rape prevention seminars.
None of them work with the category of "man" as a risk hazard.
Only you .... who , despite our differences in opinion, I think we can both agree is certainly no expert on the subject.
Even Louise Nicholas titles her own story "I won't live in fear" - I guess you must think she is just kidding herself or something ....
IOW the only people living with fear are individuals with ineffective prevention strategies based and/or ineffective categories for hazards
(snip) and Louise Nicholas
And the negatives of your pathetic approach approach is that you give zero skills to deal with it if it happens in the future. This isn't to say of course that advocacy methodologies are ineffective or less in value or whatever.
Rather, this is to say people gravitate for a more empowering pro-active approach - namely victim advocacy and prevention strategy (eg - Louise Nicholas and the rape prevention education she is part of) since this offers a more complete approach to the problem
You see Bells, unlike you, most people can manage to benefit from this approach since they don't have an insane dichotomy running between their ears that exists purely for the sake of saving face on an online discussion forum.
IOW most (sane) people would prefer to anticipate danger (and avoid it) rather than try and pick up the pieces after it passes through town - it doesn't really matter what their favourite flavour of dogshit or political correctness or whatever is.
Actually, more accurately, its living with the knowledge on how to avoid danger, which most sane people tend to prefer when given the option of living in ignorance on how to avoid danger ....
If certain behaviours bring risk to an environment, it pays to at least be aware of what they are.
I guess you could call it intelligence but it is a concept so elementary you could even call it common sense.
Granted that there may be controversial discussions about what such behaviours may entail (and they may even change according to time, place and circumstance) but to outright say that risk prevention strategies are prohibited from having any bearing on any individual actions, attitudes or appearances is a douche-bag of an idea ... and one that certainly doesn't have a precedent in the real world, not even amongst daredevil stuntspersons ... who are perhaps the only ones attempting to make a business of somewhat flaunting this age old and very basic precept of sane living.
lol
cuts a bit close to the bone, doesn't it.
If its any consolation, I'm pretty sure a sane person would prefer to not be raped.
Or attacked by a polar bear.
Or have their car stolen.
or get hit by a satellite.
IOW effective risk prevention outshines victim professionalism, any day ... especially when a crisis has you running to the stage after risk assessment - namely risk management.
Cuts a bit close to the bone....
Lightgigantic.. reminding women that she has to either shut up and toe the line or be raped and deal with the consequences.
And calls it "rape prevention"..
Good work LG. No, really, good work.
Because obviously, I disagree with you about your misogynistic rape prevention theory, and your comparing women to chattels like cars and the like.., so therefore I am not sane in your opinion and thus, would prefer to be raped or be right...
I think at this point, if I really told you what I thought of you, I would more than likely be banned from this site.
Stupidity, like success, has no limits
:shrug:
If certain behaviours bring risk to an environment, it pays to at least be aware of what they are.
I guess you could call it intelligence but it is a concept so elementary you could even call it common sense.
Granted that there may be controversial discussions about what such behaviours may entail (and they may even change according to time, place and circumstance) but to outright say that risk prevention strategies are prohibited from having any bearing on any individual actions, attitudes or appearances is a douche-bag of an idea ... and one that certainly doesn't have a precedent in the real world, not even amongst daredevil stuntspersons ... who are perhaps the only ones attempting to make a business of somewhat flaunting this age old and very basic precept of sane living.
IOW the only thing there isn't room to discuss is the idiotic idea that prevention plays no role in negotiating the problem of risk.
You see Bells, unlike you, most people can manage to benefit from this approach since they don't have an insane dichotomy running between their ears that exists purely for the sake of saving face on an online discussion forum.
IOW most (sane) people would prefer to anticipate danger (and avoid it) rather than try and pick up the pieces after it passes through town - it doesn't really matter what their favourite flavour of dogshit or political correctness or whatever is
I never accused you preferring to be raped.
I accused you pushing shit uphill for the sake of saving face on online discussion forums
Find a quote where I draw a qualitative comparison between rape and auto-theft to suggest that the the loss and immorality of the acts are on par with each other.
Once again, slobber chops, quote me. I dare you.
You see, there is a big difference between holding people accountable to what they say and holding people accountable to what one imagines they say.
A normal person, if they made such a mistake, would offer an apology.
Your big problem here Bells is that you have participated in this thread in a virtual monologue with your nightmare ravished imagination as opposed to pretty much anything anyone has actually said on the topic.
Maybe you just need someone to roleplay out some sort of villainous stereotype for the sake of your own cathartic self-help therapy ... but sorry, I am not going to oblige you by pretending that I said the things you imagine
:shrug:
You've gotten to such a dreadful stage of re-trolling that all I have to do is copy / paste
:shrug:
If certain behaviours bring risk to an environment, it pays to at least be aware of what they are.
I guess you could call it intelligence but it is a concept so elementary you could even call it common sense.
Granted that there may be controversial discussions about what such behaviours may entail (and they may even change according to time, place and circumstance) but to outright say that risk prevention strategies are prohibited from having any bearing on any individual actions, attitudes or appearances is a douche-bag of an idea ... and one that certainly doesn't have a precedent in the real world, not even amongst daredevil stuntspersons ... who are perhaps the only ones attempting to make a business of somewhat flaunting this age old and very basic precept of sane living.
IOW the only thing there isn't room to discuss is the idiotic idea that prevention plays no role in negotiating the problem of risk.
You see Bells, unlike you, most people can manage to benefit from this approach since they don't have an insane dichotomy running between their ears that exists purely for the sake of saving face on an online discussion forum.
IOW most (sane) people would prefer to anticipate danger (and avoid it) rather than try and pick up the pieces after it passes through town - it doesn't really matter what their favourite flavour of dogshit or political correctness or whatever is
I never accused you preferring to be raped.
I accused you pushing shit uphill for the sake of saving face on online discussion forums
Find a quote where I draw a qualitative comparison between rape and auto-theft to suggest that the the loss and immorality of the acts are on par with each other.
Once again, slobber chops, quote me. I dare you.
You see, there is a big difference between holding people accountable to what they say and holding people accountable to what one imagines they say.
A normal person, if they made such a mistake, would offer an apology.
Your big problem here Bells is that you have participated in this thread in a virtual monologue with your nightmare ravished imagination as opposed to pretty much anything anyone has actually said on the topic.
Maybe you just need someone to roleplay out some sort of villainous stereotype for the sake of your own cathartic self-help therapy ... but sorry, I am not going to oblige you by pretending that I said the things you imagine
:shrug:
Last edited:
- Status