There will always be rapists so women should take precautionary measures
Scroll to see replies
Original post by james22
I don't think anybody really blames the victim.
However if you walk through a dodgy part of town at 2 in the morning on your own, drunk, talking loudly on your iphone about how you have £200 in youe pocket and you get mugged, then you have acted irresponisbly and not taken basic precautions. Similarly if someone gets raped it can be legitimate to say that they didn't take certain basic precautions (of course you don't say this to them, that's just insensitive).
Victim blaming only seems to be mentioned when the crime is rape, not any others.
However if you walk through a dodgy part of town at 2 in the morning on your own, drunk, talking loudly on your iphone about how you have £200 in youe pocket and you get mugged, then you have acted irresponisbly and not taken basic precautions. Similarly if someone gets raped it can be legitimate to say that they didn't take certain basic precautions (of course you don't say this to them, that's just insensitive).
Victim blaming only seems to be mentioned when the crime is rape, not any others.
exactly, because in news stories for other crimes, the victim is never put on a pedestal and questioned about their state of inhebriation or other things they may have done to 'deserve' the crime. Thats not how the media works for other crimes.
Original post by GeorgeBuxey94
exactly, because in news stories for other crimes, the victim is never put on a pedestal and questioned about their state of inhebriation or other things they may have done to 'deserve' the crime. Thats not how the media works for other crimes.
Except that they are. Read stories about victims of fraud, muggings, and several other crimes where the victim has often done nothing to help themselves.
Original post by GeorgeBuxey94
But there you are, claiming that if a 'feminist' makes claims against rape she is moronic, and extreme. (I know you're not saying this for all, but I think you mean the majority.)
Men aren't taught to rape, but its the fact every time a potential rapist hears a rape 'joke' in our LAD culture, the idea of doing it becomes increasingly more normal to them. So many people don't understand that little things like openly condemning the culture can literally save lives.
Men aren't taught to rape, but its the fact every time a potential rapist hears a rape 'joke' in our LAD culture, the idea of doing it becomes increasingly more normal to them. So many people don't understand that little things like openly condemning the culture can literally save lives.
RAINN have said that rape culture does not contribute to rape. They know way more about it that you do.
Original post by GeorgeBuxey94
But there you are, claiming that if a 'feminist' makes claims against rape she is moronic, and extreme. (I know you're not saying this for all, but I think you mean the majority.)
Men aren't taught to rape, but its the fact every time a potential rapist hears a rape 'joke' in our LAD culture, the idea of doing it becomes increasingly more normal to them. So many people don't understand that little things like openly condemning the culture can literally save lives.
Men aren't taught to rape, but its the fact every time a potential rapist hears a rape 'joke' in our LAD culture, the idea of doing it becomes increasingly more normal to them. So many people don't understand that little things like openly condemning the culture can literally save lives.
comedy is incredibly subjective depending on the joke.
a great example of how comedy works is the "aristocrats" joke. its a famous joke and has a documentary you can watch all about it on youtube.
it has a flexible subject but there are core things to it.
father arrives at a talent agency and pitches his show
he says its a great family show
the agent asks him to preform/explain it
then during this part who ever is telling the joke comes up with the most vile, filthy and vulgar thing possible that the family do and or do to each other. it usually involves sex, animals, incest, pedophilia, urine, blood and feces.
the joke draws to an end with the agent saying "that's quite a show what do you call it?"
and the man says "the aristocrats"
now as you can see from this classic joke. and from pretty much all other comedy and jokes, the three main themes are always toilet based, violence based, or sex based.
in some cases combining all three like the above.
now you argue rape jokes normalize rape.
but there is no evidence for this.
no more evidence than video games make people kill people.
i tell you what does save lives. wearing a seat belt.
now there are girls who make fake rape allegations as a weapon.
should we teach girls not to do that? do we have to?
no. i dont think there are many rapists who say that they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. they new it was wrong. society had taught them that.
nobody had to teach me to not have sex with my family members or eat my own skin.
but there are people who do this. there are law breakers everywhere.
its to do with power.
what nobody mentions about these fraternity rapes is the situation of power.
look at how many footballers in the uk get done for rape? they think they are untouchable because of the money and prestige they have.
its the same with american football in highschool and college.
then you get the fact that most of the kids going to college are from very wealthy backgrounds with powerful parents.
then take into the fact that they are part of fraternities... particular brotherhoods who live by their own code.
keep in ind the power and things akin to rape that they practice as part of their initiations.
many of these involve sexually degrading, molesting and general sexual abuse of the prospective new members being "hazed"
they get away with this for each member, some cases ending with death.
if you are part of a social group who is willing to anally violet prospective members as a fun group activity, its not surprising that they think that they can get away with rape inside their "frat house" indeed they may grow as bold as to rape people outside of it.
but they know its illegal, they know its bad. but they think they won't get caught.
just in the way rollers (thieves that target drunks) target drunks, rapists target vulnerable girls who are drunk.
they do this not because they think its ok. but because they think it aids them getting away with it.
i mean how many films have you watched that involve rapists. is the rapist ever the rapist because he's a good guy? no.
rape and rapists, is always used as a way to point out someone that the audience is rooting to kill.
even in the criminal world. rapists have to be put on protective orders and kept separate because they other prisoners will tear them to shreds.
think about that for a second. prisoners. all kinds of guys. wife beaters, people who bully old people, pimps, drug dealers, murderers, robbers. the lowest of the low. the scum of the earth. EVEN THEY. hate rapists.
so your saying men need to be taught that rape is bad.
yet we are taught many things are bad. and prison is full of people that new and didn't care. and even they. in their moral depravity. look down violently on rapists.
nobody is talking about how women are quite often the ones most likely judge a girl for being raped. maybe we should be teaching women that rape is bad and not hate or judge women who have been raped.
The problem is that rape can still happen even if the women take precautions. Women should be able to go out and have fun without becoming the victim of rape, and a lot of people who bring up what the victim was wearing or how drunk they were are doing so to blame the victim.
Let's say I lock my house up whenever I go out, but someone breaks in through the window. Is that my fault for not foreseeing that and putting bars on the windows? What sort of precautions should be taken, and at what point does it become unreasonable and stupid?
Let's say I lock my house up whenever I go out, but someone breaks in through the window. Is that my fault for not foreseeing that and putting bars on the windows? What sort of precautions should be taken, and at what point does it become unreasonable and stupid?
Original post by RFowler
The problem is that rape can still happen even if the women take precautions. Women should be able to go out and have fun without becoming the victim of rape, and a lot of people who bring up what the victim was wearing or how drunk they were are doing so to blame the victim.
Let's say I lock my house up whenever I go out, but someone breaks in through the window. Is that my fault for not foreseeing that and putting bars on the windows? What sort of precautions should be taken, and at what point does it become unreasonable and stupid?
Let's say I lock my house up whenever I go out, but someone breaks in through the window. Is that my fault for not foreseeing that and putting bars on the windows? What sort of precautions should be taken, and at what point does it become unreasonable and stupid?
The point is that we can all take precautionary measures to reduce the chance of being victim of crime.
That is not saying that you the won't be a victim but you have done everything within your power to try and make sure you are safe. That would be considered a responsible thing to do.
I think we can all agree that everyone should be able to go out and have fun without being the victim of crime. But that is not the world that we live in. There are bad people out there and they will try and take advantage of you.
How drunk the victim was is clearly important in the case. If the victim was sober then they may be able to provide more details (evidence) about the event. If they are black out drunk then providing that evidence may be more problematic and without evidence one cannot be taken to court.
Now your example. You have taken precautionary measures to ensure that your house is locked. It is not your fault that you were then robbed. However had you not locked your house you would have been partially to blame and the insurance company would also see it like that and not pay out on your claim. It becomes unreasonable when it affect your everyday life.
Having bars on your windows is impractical, I think we should use some common sense in determining what precautions are viable and simple. I know some people lack common sense but I'm sure most people can work out how you can protect your own safety without it impacting too greatly on your day to day life.
Original post by DiddyDec
However had you not locked your house you would have been PARTIALLY to blame and the insurance company would also see it like that and not pay out on your claim. It becomes unreasonable when it affect your everyday life.
However had you not locked your house you would have been PARTIALLY to blame and the insurance company would also see it like that and not pay out on your claim. It becomes unreasonable when it affect your everyday life.
Wrong.
The perpetrator is still 100% to blame for him being robbed simple as that.
He did give the perpetrator the opportunity though.
Original post by faith9320
Wrong.
The perpetrator is still 100% to blame for him being robbed simple as that.
He did give the perpetrator the opportunity though.
The perpetrator is still 100% to blame for him being robbed simple as that.
He did give the perpetrator the opportunity though.
No. The insurance companies back me on this one. If you leave your house open and you get robbed you have not taken any steps to secure your home you are at fault. You knew that there are people who want to rob your house yet you did nothing at all to stop them.
I consider myself to be feminist. And yeah. People should indeed take precautions pretty much about any bad thing that can happen to them because well, it is common sense. However, if someone gets assaulted, we don't say "he shouldn't have been there at night, he asked for it" (even if the person did act irresponsibly), we just try to find the guilty person and penalize them. And well the same thing should happen in the case of rape. I won't believe no one on this forum has ever got wasted or had to go home by themselves at night etc. Sometimes we find ourselves in risky situations because we're dumb or we had no choice but it is still the attacker's guilt that they use the situation to their sick favor.
Original post by DiddyDec
No. The insurance companies back me on this one. If you leave your house open and you get robbed you have not taken any steps to secure your home you are at fault. You knew that there are people who want to rob your house yet you did nothing at all to stop them.
So you saying the perpetrator isn't 100% at fault?
After all it was them that choose to do it.
The perpetrators are responsible for the theft.
The home owners are responsible for allowing the perpetrators to gain access without any problems.
The home owners are responsible for allowing the perpetrators to gain access without any problems.
Original post by GeorgeBuxey94
So by that logic shall we teach people how not to be killed? how not to buy drugs? how not to be stolen from?
ummm, let me think.....
FCKING YES!!!
Okay, so rape jokes about boys isn't said to lead to more rapes on boys (such jokes are remarkably common; see just about any discussion involving Catholicism).
Rape jokes about men incredibly common; see prison jokes) isn't said to lead to more rapes on men.
Jokes and even sympathetic TV shows abotu petty crooks isn't argued to cause a "thieving culture".
Jokes involving murder aren't said to bring about a "murder culture".
But rape jokes involving women (as incredibly rare and based on shock humour as they are) cause a rape culture against women???
Yeah, okay. Please, if you insist on believing this stupidity then be consistent in your stupidity.
Rape jokes about men incredibly common; see prison jokes) isn't said to lead to more rapes on men.
Jokes and even sympathetic TV shows abotu petty crooks isn't argued to cause a "thieving culture".
Jokes involving murder aren't said to bring about a "murder culture".
But rape jokes involving women (as incredibly rare and based on shock humour as they are) cause a rape culture against women???
Yeah, okay. Please, if you insist on believing this stupidity then be consistent in your stupidity.
One final point. There is a semantic trick/confusion being played on on the part of feminists here. I shall hold the feminists hands in explain this obvious point; not to condescend, but to put their beliefs through a stringent analysis whereby there is no room for emotion in clouding their judgement. Their reasoning shall be shown to be flawed through an irrefutable linguistic analysis (just try to refute it; I dare you, I double dare you mother ****er), and if their beliefs to not alter at least somewhat at the end of it, then they simply cannot be debated on any kind of intellectual level.
Lets analyse the two basic statements being contested here:
"Is it my fault for getting so drunk I am vulnerable to rape?" and "Is it my fault the rapist raped me because of this?".
The feminists are setting up this absurd linguistic construction whereby if you conclude the affirmative to the first proposition, you must conclude the negative of the second statement. This is the assumption that their rhetoric rests upon.
Is it true? Well, it is true if there is a semantic/logical contradiction between accepting that the first statement's correct answer is "yes" and "no" to the second. Anything other than this, and the assumption is untrue.
So, lets try to construct a logically possible (ie, non contradictory) set of statements whereby the answer to the first statement is "yes" but the answer to the second is "no". I shall do this by analysing what we actually mean by both sentences.
"Is it my fault for getting so drunk I am vulnerable to rape?" The definition of fault is who is the cause of the subsequent event in the sentence (being so drunk that you're vulnerable to rape). One might be tempted to use the word blame; and this is a perfectly fine wording. You are to blame for (ie the cause of a negative event) for, specifically, getting drunk. However, the connotations of "blame" might, to an uncritical reader, suggest that the victim is blame worthy, therefore responsible to being raped. However, the word "blame", or "the cause of" only refers to the subsequent statement, not the statements within the next sentence. So let suppose yes, you are to blame for getting drunk. But getting drunk causes you to be more vulnerable to being raped. Notice this wording does not imply a causal influence on the rapist that is outside of the rapist's responsibility to control. Therefore, saying "yes" in answer two this question does not imply saying yes to the question of whether the drunk victim is responsible for getting raped.
"Is it my fault the rapist raped me because of this?". As I have shown, there is no semantic entailment caused by accepting that the victim is responsible for being vulnerable to being raped, that therefore the victim is tesponsible for being raped. Because the rapist's actions is not referred in the statement of what the victim is to blame for.
Therefore, you can say both "yes" to the first and "no" to the second statements without contradiction. Therefore, saying "yes" to the first question is NOT blaming the victim for rape. Therefore, people saying that women should, within reason, reduce the likelihood of their being raped is NOT victim blaming, because saying so is not blaming for the victim for rape.
I apologise for this trivial and tedious exercise. But feminists need to understand this so they can stop endangering women with their dangerous rhetoric.
Lets analyse the two basic statements being contested here:
"Is it my fault for getting so drunk I am vulnerable to rape?" and "Is it my fault the rapist raped me because of this?".
The feminists are setting up this absurd linguistic construction whereby if you conclude the affirmative to the first proposition, you must conclude the negative of the second statement. This is the assumption that their rhetoric rests upon.
Is it true? Well, it is true if there is a semantic/logical contradiction between accepting that the first statement's correct answer is "yes" and "no" to the second. Anything other than this, and the assumption is untrue.
So, lets try to construct a logically possible (ie, non contradictory) set of statements whereby the answer to the first statement is "yes" but the answer to the second is "no". I shall do this by analysing what we actually mean by both sentences.
"Is it my fault for getting so drunk I am vulnerable to rape?" The definition of fault is who is the cause of the subsequent event in the sentence (being so drunk that you're vulnerable to rape). One might be tempted to use the word blame; and this is a perfectly fine wording. You are to blame for (ie the cause of a negative event) for, specifically, getting drunk. However, the connotations of "blame" might, to an uncritical reader, suggest that the victim is blame worthy, therefore responsible to being raped. However, the word "blame", or "the cause of" only refers to the subsequent statement, not the statements within the next sentence. So let suppose yes, you are to blame for getting drunk. But getting drunk causes you to be more vulnerable to being raped. Notice this wording does not imply a causal influence on the rapist that is outside of the rapist's responsibility to control. Therefore, saying "yes" in answer two this question does not imply saying yes to the question of whether the drunk victim is responsible for getting raped.
"Is it my fault the rapist raped me because of this?". As I have shown, there is no semantic entailment caused by accepting that the victim is responsible for being vulnerable to being raped, that therefore the victim is tesponsible for being raped. Because the rapist's actions is not referred in the statement of what the victim is to blame for.
Therefore, you can say both "yes" to the first and "no" to the second statements without contradiction. Therefore, saying "yes" to the first question is NOT blaming the victim for rape. Therefore, people saying that women should, within reason, reduce the likelihood of their being raped is NOT victim blaming, because saying so is not blaming for the victim for rape.
I apologise for this trivial and tedious exercise. But feminists need to understand this so they can stop endangering women with their dangerous rhetoric.
Original post by KingStannis
The Truth
Well done. I think you have ended the thread quite perfectly with the most concise piece of English I have ever seen.
Original post by DiddyDec
Well done. I think you have ended the thread quite perfectly with the most concise piece of English I have ever seen.
Thanks. I take it you're referring to the first post if you're using the word "concise" lol.
Original post by KingStannis
Thanks. I take it you're referring to the first post if you're using the word "concise" lol.
I don't think you could make your first post much clearer.
Original post by KingStannis
One final point. There is a semantic trick/confusion being played on on the part of feminists here. I shall hold the feminists hands in explain this obvious point; not to condescend, but to put their beliefs through a stringent analysis whereby there is no room for emotion in clouding their judgement. Their reasoning shall be shown to be flawed through an irrefutable linguistic analysis (just try to refute it; I dare you, I double dare you mother ****er), and if their beliefs to not alter at least somewhat at the end of it, then they simply cannot be debated on any kind of intellectual level.
Lets analyse the two basic statements being contested here:
"Is it my fault for getting so drunk I am vulnerable to rape?" and "Is it my fault the rapist raped me because of this?".
The feminists are setting up this absurd linguistic construction whereby if you conclude the affirmative to the first proposition, you must conclude the negative of the second statement. This is the assumption that their rhetoric rests upon.
Is it true? Well, it is true if there is a semantic/logical contradiction between accepting that the first statement's correct answer is "yes" and "no" to the second. Anything other than this, and the assumption is untrue.
So, lets try to construct a logically possible (ie, non contradictory) set of statements whereby the answer to the first statement is "yes" but the answer to the second is "no". I shall do this by analysing what we actually mean by both sentences.
"Is it my fault for getting so drunk I am vulnerable to rape?" The definition of fault is who is the cause of the subsequent event in the sentence (being so drunk that you're vulnerable to rape). One might be tempted to use the word blame; and this is a perfectly fine wording. You are to blame for (ie the cause of a negative event) for, specifically, getting drunk. However, the connotations of "blame" might, to an uncritical reader, suggest that the victim is blame worthy, therefore responsible to being raped. However, the word "blame", or "the cause of" only refers to the subsequent statement, not the statements within the next sentence. So let suppose yes, you are to blame for getting drunk. But getting drunk causes you to be more vulnerable to being raped. Notice this wording does not imply a causal influence on the rapist that is outside of the rapist's responsibility to control. Therefore, saying "yes" in answer two this question does not imply saying yes to the question of whether the drunk victim is responsible for getting raped.
"Is it my fault the rapist raped me because of this?". As I have shown, there is no semantic entailment caused by accepting that the victim is responsible for being vulnerable to being raped, that therefore the victim is tesponsible for being raped. Because the rapist's actions is not referred in the statement of what the victim is to blame for.
Therefore, you can say both "yes" to the first and "no" to the second statements without contradiction. Therefore, saying "yes" to the first question is NOT blaming the victim for rape. Therefore, people saying that women should, within reason, reduce the likelihood of their being raped is NOT victim blaming, because saying so is not blaming for the victim for rape.
I apologise for this trivial and tedious exercise. But feminists need to understand this so they can stop endangering women with their dangerous rhetoric.
Lets analyse the two basic statements being contested here:
"Is it my fault for getting so drunk I am vulnerable to rape?" and "Is it my fault the rapist raped me because of this?".
The feminists are setting up this absurd linguistic construction whereby if you conclude the affirmative to the first proposition, you must conclude the negative of the second statement. This is the assumption that their rhetoric rests upon.
Is it true? Well, it is true if there is a semantic/logical contradiction between accepting that the first statement's correct answer is "yes" and "no" to the second. Anything other than this, and the assumption is untrue.
So, lets try to construct a logically possible (ie, non contradictory) set of statements whereby the answer to the first statement is "yes" but the answer to the second is "no". I shall do this by analysing what we actually mean by both sentences.
"Is it my fault for getting so drunk I am vulnerable to rape?" The definition of fault is who is the cause of the subsequent event in the sentence (being so drunk that you're vulnerable to rape). One might be tempted to use the word blame; and this is a perfectly fine wording. You are to blame for (ie the cause of a negative event) for, specifically, getting drunk. However, the connotations of "blame" might, to an uncritical reader, suggest that the victim is blame worthy, therefore responsible to being raped. However, the word "blame", or "the cause of" only refers to the subsequent statement, not the statements within the next sentence. So let suppose yes, you are to blame for getting drunk. But getting drunk causes you to be more vulnerable to being raped. Notice this wording does not imply a causal influence on the rapist that is outside of the rapist's responsibility to control. Therefore, saying "yes" in answer two this question does not imply saying yes to the question of whether the drunk victim is responsible for getting raped.
"Is it my fault the rapist raped me because of this?". As I have shown, there is no semantic entailment caused by accepting that the victim is responsible for being vulnerable to being raped, that therefore the victim is tesponsible for being raped. Because the rapist's actions is not referred in the statement of what the victim is to blame for.
Therefore, you can say both "yes" to the first and "no" to the second statements without contradiction. Therefore, saying "yes" to the first question is NOT blaming the victim for rape. Therefore, people saying that women should, within reason, reduce the likelihood of their being raped is NOT victim blaming, because saying so is not blaming for the victim for rape.
I apologise for this trivial and tedious exercise. But feminists need to understand this so they can stop endangering women with their dangerous rhetoric.
Do you agree that if a person gets murdered when they are drunk then it is their fault for getting so drunk that they become vulnerable to that type of crime?
Original post by GeorgeBuxey94
Women will always be around. Men should be taught not to rape, not for women to protect themselves. Attack the problem at the root. Believing in stopping rape isnt a feminist thought, it's a human thought. Pretty rational imo. Feminism IS needed because a lot of guys and even girls are quick to dismiss it as just an 'over exaggerated, little girls problem' which is precisely the problem with our phallocentric society. If a woman ever fights for her right or equality, its just shunned as child-like, or a total PMS thing. That is why society ISNT equal, and why such bigoted ideas such as 'accept rape because it just happens' are allowed to flourish.
I AM A MAN AND I NEED FEMINISM BECAUSE THE FEMINIST IS STILL THE PERSON TO BLAME.
I AM A MAN AND I NEED FEMINISM BECAUSE THE FEMINIST IS STILL THE PERSON TO BLAME.
It is very sad to see only a few people thinking this way.
Thank you.
Original post by faith9320
Do you agree that if a person gets murdered when they are drunk then it is their fault for getting so drunk that they become vulnerable to that type of crime?
Obviously, because that's trivially true.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 23 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 23 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
