There is a big hoohar in the UK at the moment about a poll where a sizeable portion of people believe a woman is partly to blame if she is raped having been drunk/flirtatious/wearing provocative clothing etc.
Linky
Uber un-PC opinion to have. Shocking says Amnesty International.
But is it? Recently, I was mugged, and although I was a victim of crime, I partly blame myself as I definitely put myself in a situation where I was a very vulnerable and tempting target, and it was entirely avoidable. I have learnt a lesson as a result.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What did she expect?
What did she expect?Follow
Who did the raping and/or mugging?
Hey! You found who's to blame. It's not a question of PC or not, it's a simple logical question of who took the actions that qualified as a rape or mugging or whatever.
Hey! You found who's to blame. It's not a question of PC or not, it's a simple logical question of who took the actions that qualified as a rape or mugging or whatever.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
according to gbaji:
if there are no signs of struggle then she wanted it to happen. Especially if money was left on the dresser.
if there are no signs of struggle then she wanted it to happen. Especially if money was left on the dresser.
"She was looking at me. So I raped her. What? She was asking for it!"
Nah, I don't buy it.
Nah, I don't buy it.
I was more surprised by the 6% conviction rate.
One in three people polled believed the woman was at least partly to blame because she was flirting? That's insane.
Here's how I look at it: you can do some things to minimize your risk. You can't reduce your risk to zero and still live anything approaching a normal life; but you can minimize it, and a sensible person will do so.
That said, if a crime is committed it is the fault of the criminal. Period. Possibly a woman was foolish for going somewhere alone; possibly she was more foolish for being too naively trusting of another person. Nevertheless, she cannot be responsible for his actions. If she is raped, it is the fault of the rapist.
Patrician, taking your mugging as an example: yes, you were arguably foolish, and did things that made you a tempting target of opportunity. However, a crime was committed, and not by you. No matter how silly you were, the person who took advantage of you should be punished.
One in three people polled believed the woman was at least partly to blame because she was flirting? That's insane.
Here's how I look at it: you can do some things to minimize your risk. You can't reduce your risk to zero and still live anything approaching a normal life; but you can minimize it, and a sensible person will do so.
That said, if a crime is committed it is the fault of the criminal. Period. Possibly a woman was foolish for going somewhere alone; possibly she was more foolish for being too naively trusting of another person. Nevertheless, she cannot be responsible for his actions. If she is raped, it is the fault of the rapist.
Patrician, taking your mugging as an example: yes, you were arguably foolish, and did things that made you a tempting target of opportunity. However, a crime was committed, and not by you. No matter how silly you were, the person who took advantage of you should be punished.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
The Amnesty International poll of 1,000 people also found over 25% believe she is at least partly to blame if she has worn revealing clothing or been drunk.
"Granny took her teeth out. That obviously means she wanted to suck the sausage!"
I think all rapists should be taken out castrated and then hung up by their bloody stumps until they bleed out.
That being said
I dont think anyone thinks that the Rapist/Mugger isnt 99% to blame for whatever crime they commit however in the minds of many if a woman goes to a bar dressed like a ****, acts like a **** and prances around drunk all night, if she is raped then she bears at least a 1% responsiblity for what happened.
That being said
I dont think anyone thinks that the Rapist/Mugger isnt 99% to blame for whatever crime they commit however in the minds of many if a woman goes to a bar dressed like a ****, acts like a **** and prances around drunk all night, if she is raped then she bears at least a 1% responsiblity for what happened.
A "****" has as much right to choose their playmate as anyone else (rapists excepted, of course).
Eh? I'm reasonably sure that if we used *my* definition of rape instead of the relative new one, those statistics would be very very different.
I still hold to the belief that by redefining rape in a much broader way, we've included types of rape that most people don't think of the same way. No one thinks that the woman grabbed walking down the street by a stranger was raped because of what she wore (or at least no one blames her for it). But the second you start adding "being taken advantage of on a date" into your definition of rape, people start thinking about what she might have done to encourage it.
In a classic case of rape, there's no question about consent. It's assumed that the woman grabbed by a stranger and raped did not give it. When you add in date rape, the entire issue hinges on consent. Was she willing, or not? And in cases like that, what she was wearing and how she was acting is going to be pretty critical to determining consent. Doubly so in cases where alchohol is involved.
I'm not surprised by this statistic at all. It's a natural consequence when you broaden your definition of rape to such a degree that a jury must make its decision based on things like appearance and behavior. Seems pretty darn obvious that this would be a consequence in fact...
I still hold to the belief that by redefining rape in a much broader way, we've included types of rape that most people don't think of the same way. No one thinks that the woman grabbed walking down the street by a stranger was raped because of what she wore (or at least no one blames her for it). But the second you start adding "being taken advantage of on a date" into your definition of rape, people start thinking about what she might have done to encourage it.
In a classic case of rape, there's no question about consent. It's assumed that the woman grabbed by a stranger and raped did not give it. When you add in date rape, the entire issue hinges on consent. Was she willing, or not? And in cases like that, what she was wearing and how she was acting is going to be pretty critical to determining consent. Doubly so in cases where alchohol is involved.
I'm not surprised by this statistic at all. It's a natural consequence when you broaden your definition of rape to such a degree that a jury must make its decision based on things like appearance and behavior. Seems pretty darn obvious that this would be a consequence in fact...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gbaji, do yourself a favor and take yourself the fu[Darkmagenta][/Darkmagenta]ck out of this thread now.
Edited, Jun 8th 2006 at 9:46am EST by Yanari
Edited, Jun 8th 2006 at 9:46am EST by Yanari
gbaji wrote:
Eh? I'm reasonably sure that if we used *my* definition of rape instead of the relative new one, those statistics would be very very different.
I still hold to the belief that by redefining rape in a much broader way, we've included types of rape that most people don't think of the same way. No one thinks that the woman grabbed walking down the street by a stranger was raped because of what she wore (or at least no one blames her for it). But the second you start adding "being taken advantage of on a date" into your definition of rape, people start thinking about what she might have done to encourage it.
In a classic case of rape, there's no question about consent. It's assumed that the woman grabbed by a stranger and raped did not give it. When you add in date rape, the entire issue hinges on consent. Was she willing, or not? And in cases like that, what she was wearing and how she was acting is going to be pretty critical to determining consent. Doubly so in cases where alchohol is involved.
I'm not surprised by this statistic at all. It's a natural consequence when you broaden your definition of rape to such a degree that a jury must make its decision based on things like appearance and behavior. Seems pretty darn obvious that this would be a consequence in fact...
I still hold to the belief that by redefining rape in a much broader way, we've included types of rape that most people don't think of the same way. No one thinks that the woman grabbed walking down the street by a stranger was raped because of what she wore (or at least no one blames her for it). But the second you start adding "being taken advantage of on a date" into your definition of rape, people start thinking about what she might have done to encourage it.
In a classic case of rape, there's no question about consent. It's assumed that the woman grabbed by a stranger and raped did not give it. When you add in date rape, the entire issue hinges on consent. Was she willing, or not? And in cases like that, what she was wearing and how she was acting is going to be pretty critical to determining consent. Doubly so in cases where alchohol is involved.
I'm not surprised by this statistic at all. It's a natural consequence when you broaden your definition of rape to such a degree that a jury must make its decision based on things like appearance and behavior. Seems pretty darn obvious that this would be a consequence in fact...
Kobe? Datchoo?
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
It is the raper/mugger/murder etc... fault. Now, in the situation of a rape or some lesser crimes (IN MOST CASES) there are messures that can be taken to avoid those situations. However, in a murder, I would always strugle to avoid the victim. It really comes down to who killed someone. Now, if someone slept with your wife, would you rather kill them and spend the rest of your life in jail, or sure them and get half of their income for the rest of their life? I would rather live richer and without the ***** than go to jail for life (or get executed).
Now, I would tend to agree though that some people are idiots and put themselves in stupid situations. I am not saying they deserve to be raped, but they should have not been in the situation to begin with. Also, it is the rapist who should be prosecuted.... not the... erm... rapee?
Edited, Mon Nov 21 19:48:28 2005 by SplinterCellDude
Now, I would tend to agree though that some people are idiots and put themselves in stupid situations. I am not saying they deserve to be raped, but they should have not been in the situation to begin with. Also, it is the rapist who should be prosecuted.... not the... erm... rapee?
Edited, Mon Nov 21 19:48:28 2005 by SplinterCellDude
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
Gbaji, do yourself a favor and take yourself the fu[i][/i]ck out of this thread now.
Wait a second here. I make a point months ago that we've redefined Rape to include cases where the issue of consent is in question ("date rape" and similar cases). Then along comes a survey showing that the rate of people who think that a woman's "blame" for rape is increasing, I point out that this is *exactly* part of the same thing, and I'm the bad guy?
At what point will you guys conceed that I have a point here? When we see the survey that says that most people don't think rape should be a felony? Can't you see that this is because we've included a bunch of things that would not normally be called "rape" into our legal definition of rape?
If we change the definition of burglery to include cases where someone was talked or coerced into giving something to someone else, I'd expect to see surveys of people saying that some victims of burglery did something to deserve it as well. Why is it that something so obvious becomes less obvious simply because sex is involved?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Wait a second here. I make a point months ago that we've redefined Rape to include cases where the issue of consent is in question ("date rape" and similar cases). Then along comes a survey showing that the rate of people who think that a woman's "blame" for rape is increasing, I point out that this is *exactly* part of the same thing, and I'm the bad guy?
Just another losing effort on your part to distort what was said to suit your own painfully flawed argument.
gbaji wrote:
No one thinks that the woman grabbed walking down the street by a stranger was raped because of what she wore (or at least no one blames her for it).
You honestly think there's not people out there who say "Well, if she hadn't been in that neighborhood, especially not dressed like that, none of this would have happened"?
Sh[i][/i]it, that was the very same argument Patrician was applying to himself and his mugging. He was in the wrong neighborhood and dressed in the wrong manner, ergo he was at fault. You're saying no one applies that same argument to rape cases? Really?
Did I mention you're retarded?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel, can I have your little babies? There will be no question of consent from me. 
When I glance at Dubya out of the corner of my eye it looks like he has a santa hat on.
Gbaji is pro troll. Until this moment, I loved Santa. 
trickybeck wrote:
Gbaji is pro troll.Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Please to be bearing in mind that our previous discussion (in which you proved nothing, by the way, gbaji), we were talking about the US.
This article discusses attitudes in the UK.
That said, you're still a twatwaffle.
This article discusses attitudes in the UK.
That said, you're still a twatwaffle.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Patrician wrote:
There is a big hoohar in the UK at the moment about a poll where a sizeable portion of people believe a woman is partly to blame if she is raped having been drunk/flirtatious/wearing provocative clothing etc.
Linky
Uber un-PC opinion to have. Shocking says Amnesty International.
But is it? Recently, I was mugged, and although I was a victim of crime, I partly blame myself as I definitely put myself in a situation where I was a very vulnerable and tempting target, and it was entirely avoidable. I have learnt a lesson as a result.
Linky
Uber un-PC opinion to have. Shocking says Amnesty International.
But is it? Recently, I was mugged, and although I was a victim of crime, I partly blame myself as I definitely put myself in a situation where I was a very vulnerable and tempting target, and it was entirely avoidable. I have learnt a lesson as a result.
few things here.
1. RAPE is nothing to do with sex.
2. Rape and a mugging are 2 completely different things.
3. RAPE has nothing to do with sex. oh did i say that already...
4. Rape has nothing to do with sex... cant say that enough because it is a proven FACT.
clothes or the lack there of have nothing to do with a womens being a victum of RAPE/Sexual Assult(SA). Actions, flirting, drinking, etc. have nothing to do with SA.
5. RAPE and SA are all 100% about power.
i could go into a HUGE discertation on the criminal mind when it comes to rapist but to cut things real short, ill just give you some basic ways of reducing the odds of becoming a SA victum.
some stats:
1 in 3 females will be SA in their life time.
every day the average person comes within 100 yards of a rapist.
1 in 6 males will be SA in their life time.
those who fight back have better then a 90% chance of getting away without major injury.
that vast majority of rapeist will not kill you.
roughly 3-5% of all rapiest will kill.
the average RAPE lasts, get ready for this one, 4 - 6 HOURS...
now some ways to avoid being a victum of a SA crime.
1. be aware of your surroundings.
2. if you go out, go out with friends and COME HOME with those same friends. do not accept a ride from someone you just met at the party/bar/club/concert/etc...
3. always have enough money on you for a phone call and or a taxie.
4. in todays world of the cell phone, always keep your charged and minute free to make calls.
5. think before you act.
6. if uncomfortable, go someplace different.
7. being in a crowd is ok as long as the crowd is THERE. if the crowd moves, you have to move with the crowd.
example: you are at a buss stop with several other people. all of the people get on a bus that you are not wanted to get on, but you think youa re being fallowed. get on that bus and go were ever it goes. you can get off that bus later.
8. if you think you are being followed, cross the street.
9. DO NOT TAKE SHORT CUTS THROUGH ALLIES OR BETWEEN CARS OR NEAR SHRUBS ETC...
10. avoid blind corners and large pillars. if you can not see around it, avoid it. that does not mean you can not walk around the corner, just dont be close enough to it to get blitzed by a supprise attack.
11. do not tell someone you just met to much information about yourself. First name is all they really need. they do not need to know were you work, or who you work for, or what part of town you live in, or if you have a roommate, etc... none of their business YET. someday that may be important information for them, but not on the first date, not while at the bar/club/1st date/etc...
12. when out drinking, keep your hand over your drink at all times. never turn your back on your drink and if you do, toss it out and buy a new one. not worth being the target of the "date rape pill/drug"
in short the drug is oderless, tasteless, and colorless, and worst of all leaves ZERO trace for the medical field to track. only way to know you have been the victum of this drug is the side affects of lack of memory and a few other feelings of numbness in the limbs and feeling unrested from the night before even though you have been asleep for up to 8-14hrs. also having your cloths off or in disaray when you do not remember taking them off.
anyways, ill say it again
RAPE IS NOT SEX, IT IS ABOUT POWER and that being said and that also being FACT, then a woman can not be "asking for it" by her actions, dress, or words. NO means NO if more happens past NO, then it is RAPE and that is a crime.
Samira wrote:
Please to be bearing in mind that our previous discussion (in which you proved nothing, by the way, gbaji), we were talking about the US.
This article discusses attitudes in the UK.
That said, you're still a twatwaffle.
This article discusses attitudes in the UK.
That said, you're still a twatwaffle.
Actually, we were talking about the laws of both countries. If you recall, that thread started with a news story about a false accusation of rape in the UK.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
A "****" has as much right to choose their playmate as anyone else (rapists excepted, of course).
I never said she doesnt. However it isnt as if it is unknown that Rapists exist. If you're a woman who goes to a bar dressed like a **** gets drunk, hangs all over half the guys in the bar and doesnt have someone looking out for you to make sure you are ok then you must take some responsibility for your fate. Not all, not most, not even 75% but some.
Is there a law here that applies to the rapping of muggers? Or does that cancel out?
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Quote:
Is there a law here that applies to the rapping of muggers? Or does that cancel out?
Rapping Muggers? I think thats where Eminem got his start, but that's not to say that all rappers were muggers first.
Recent Visitors: 178
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (178)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What did she expect?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC