Bill Cosby didn't rape those hoes and ain't on one raping people in the hood assuming kozuma was talking bout my neck of the woods.
| |
Southv2 wrote:
ain't on one raping people in the hood assuming kozuma was talking bout my neck of the woods. Not towards you, was an example. | |
An example of what? Where black people live? You saying black people more rapey than white people?
What you trying to say? | |
Ter13 wrote:
An example of what? Where black people live? You saying black people more rapey than white people? U know what I'm trying to say just look at Sweden... And Africa. | |
Interesting fact, people get raped less when it's cold:
http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/ Vol_3_No_10_Special_Issue_May_2013/7.pdf The researched showed that the heat variables were the most important predictors of assault rates, the other variables analyzed during this time were “precipitation, air pollution, and barometric pressure” (Cohn, 1990). The discomfort index which is a combined measure of temperature and humidity is a methods tool used in analyzing the relationship of heat and violence. This was used in Dallas, Texas over an eight-month period in 1980 which also resulted in evidence favoring heat influencing assaults. Cohn (1990) also analyzed the relationship between heat and robbery, homicide, domestic violence, and rape. Using the same methods, Cohn discovered a positive correlation between heat and domestic violence and rape. Robbery and homicide did not show relevant correlation with heat in the studies (Cohn, 1990). Cohn’s research provided evidence that heat does affect crime in the areas of aggression and violence which proves the reasoning for the correlation between heat and aggressive related crimes. Don't want to get raped? Move to Antarctica. You heard it here first, folks. | |
Ter13 wrote:
Don't want to get raped? Move to Antarctica. You heard it here first, folks. That's pretty sound advice in any case -- assuming all you're worried about is getting raped. | |
assuming all you're worried about is getting raped. Personally, I think those penguins are pretty shady. I wouldn't bet on it solving all problems. | |
The cold rules apply everywhere except Detroit where I was jumped by 3 guys in 3 feet of snow infront of about 8 bystanders in daylight. This was 2007ish.
I learned multiple things: - bystanders only mean something if they know you. In other words, people will watch you get your ass kicked unless they are a close friend or family member. Don't expect random people to come running to your rescue, 9 times out of 10 they will do nothing except pull out a camera phone to record it all. - Keep your eyes glued to shitheads. I had actually seen the group before they attacked me, but they turned and went the other way so I just kept going the opposite direction assuming they were leaving the vicinity. Less than a minute of me turning my back they were already right behind me and the pummeling commenced. Turning your back on someone you suspect is a predator is not a good idea even if they appear to be a safe distance away. - Carry - don't wear - your backpack. I could barely move my arms because I had on a huge coat with the backpack straps restricting me even more. Not to mention the bag was heavy. You can't call timeout in the middle of an assault and ask that they let you take your bag and coat off. Carry your bag over one shoulder so you can immediately drop it if someone attacks you. - use the force. If I was a trained padawan I could've easily dealt with my assailants. | |
EmpirezTeam wrote:
- use the force. If I was a trained padawan I could've easily dealt with my assailants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJchhTeDZhM | |
True it does and is becoming more apparent that people do tend to avoid tackling a problem head on and always seem to end up "going in" on the side effect...
Well, all in all I do agree that we should all be batmen Well versed in the art of martial Therefore, if anyone is butt raped its simply because they didn't train hard enough. No but really, I liked this you're like a professional writer. Book please... No but really, people are really under trained for life. You are right. | |
Ter13 wrote:
An example of what? Where black people live? You saying black people more rapey than white people?  | |
If the goal of placing blame/fault is to assign responsibility for a bad action, then surely it makes absolutely no sense to fault the victim of the crime. It is needlessly damning to an already hurt individual, at a time when they need the utmost support. In the long run the language of it can be (has been - 'she was asking for it') by those who endorse rape culture/slut shaming, and essentially take focus away from the criminal's behavior.
Long story short: not the best way to go about this. So, while you touch on a good point regarding increasing awareness about dangerous situations, deciding to frame it as a matter of blame is unhelpful at best. There are already forms of media out there that address these situations without assigning blame to the victim. | |
If the goal of placing blame/fault is to assign responsibility for a bad action, then surely it makes absolutely no sense to fault the victim of the crime. So much this. There's a serious difference between: "This could have been avoided." and "You deserved it.". Assigning the blame tows the line. It's kind of a time and place situation. So much of the outrage surrounding rape happens when the victim is just beginning their healing process. When you are a fresh victim, hard truth and guilt/blame is the last thing you need assigned to you. Generally, though, women who have been raped once are far and away more likely to be raped again by another predator. There is something to be said for Empirez' line of reasoning that predators generally pick up on personal weakness and situational vulnerability. Of course, I suppose there's a difficulty in talking about a rape and rape. Too often when people talk about rape, what they are actually talking about is an individual rape, not so much as rape as a socio-cultural phenomena. In order to avoid it, there's something to be said for understanding it and being able to pick out the red flags that should make you cautious around someone. Then again, what do I know? I know nothing about being a victim beyond what my intuitive empathy would offer. | |
Ter13 wrote:
assuming all you're worried about is getting raped. Yikes... Sort of a tough call on the OP. I hate the idea of 'blaming' somebody for being raped. Nobody should have to be constantly vigilant, paranoid, and worried about doing the wrong thing to prevent themselves from being raped. Rapists should not rape, period. However, reality being what it is, precautions must be taken. Headshots to rapists might help... | |
Metamorphman wrote:
If the goal of placing blame/fault is to assign responsibility for a bad action, then surely it makes absolutely no sense to fault the victim of the crime. It is needlessly damning to an already hurt individual, at a time when they need the utmost support. In the long run the language of it can be (has been - 'she was asking for it') by those who endorse rape culture/slut shaming, and essentially take focus away from the criminal's behavior. There's a difference between a bad action and a poor decision. If we're discussing who did something immoral, then yes, there's nothing to blame the victim for. It's not "evil" to not be careful about who you trust. It is, however, a poor decision, and poor decisions can lead to consequences, and you will never be able to make the connection from poor decision to consequence and then learn from the situation if all you're ever told is "every bad situation you've ever been in is completely someone else's fault". I don't know, I'm just at a point in my life where if something goes wrong, the first thing I ask myself is "is there anything I could've done differently to avoid this altogether?" If I were to go on craigslist, call up an escort and have unprotected sex with her and wake up a few days later with a wart on my nuts, my reasoning is going to go something like "Yeah, it was pretty immoral on her part to have unprotected sex with me if she knew she had an STD, but... I could've just worn a condom and avoided this whole situation." And to reiterate, I'm not implying there are things we can always do to prevent something from happening. Not everything in life is as simple as slipping a condom on and I'm not suggesting we all live our lives in a protective bubble like Jake Gyllenhaal. What I am saying is in those situations where being a victim can be avoided, if we still end up being a victim anyway, we need to actually suck it up, acknowledge we made a mistake, learn from it and not let it happen to you or the people you care about by equipping them with the same knowledge. Life doesn't revolve around our feelings, it revolves around reality. The reality is that we can either tell a victim they did everything right to "spare their feelings" or we can let them know a different course of action they can take in the future to help prevent it from ever reoccurring. | |
She made the decision to goto a party with people she hardly knew, where there were how many people? I agree, she should've handled it differently and brought someone trusted with her, but it's not in any way her fault that no one at that party had heart enough to see what was going on and help. I'm sure many there knew what was happening.
I know you established this already, I was reinforcing the only thing I've agreed with in this entire post and showing there was something that I agree with. So you're telling me that before all this, you meet Bill Cosby in a bar and he offered you a drink and a chat, you'd turn him down? I'm not saying all celebrities are trusted public figures, but trusted public figures don't usually make you think 'I shouldn't take a drink or talk to this person, because I only just actually met them'. I'm not savvy to the details of the bill Cosby situation, but I don't think he simply asked women to go somewhere alone with him. If he did, I'm sure sexual activity were in mind, but not forced sexual activity. My point being, you usually get drugged to make you easier to get alone before taken to somewhere where you're alone. Most sober people would refuse a offer, but if you're drugged or just intoxicated enough; you'd be a lot more likely to agree. Everyone, even children, knows there are bad people out there that do bad things, but no one expects that person to be so close to home. Did you suspect Cosby of rape? Jared of being a pedophile? It's not as easy to simply pick these predators out as you're wanting to make it seem. Simply skimmed through the rest of your reply, I recommend you click the link I provided in my last post and actually read through it. It serves both some of your points and some of mine. I'm not saying these women aren't more likely to be targeted because they appear weak/naive, but it's not their fault they don't instantly think every guy out there is trying to rape then at a party. They didn't go to the guys house and accept suspect drinks alone with the man, they went to a place with a lot of people and publicly took a drink from someone, the drink was drugged and no one said anything, even though surely at least one person saw. Maybe they should've insisted that they not be given a pre-open/poured drink, but saying it's their fault for thinking they'd be safe in a crowd? As for your ending statement, your argument here is invalid as I never said that people are only agreeing because of who you are. Since I seem to have worded it incorrectly, I meant that because people(for whatever reason they want to choose) like you here and you worded this post and gave your perspective of experiences you claim people close to you have had to make it sound like you know exactly what's going on in all these cases, when you're a "fourth party" observer(meaning that you only know of this subject through people that were there and never actually witnessed anything yourself). My main argument here was that it doesn't matter how much or little you trust someone, because you're far more likely to be betrayed by those you trust at some point than a stranger you barely know. You can know someone your entire life, trust them with anything and everything, just to have them take advantage. Most 'monsters' don't parade themselves around as such and are Much harder to spot than any of you seem to think. As for FKI, I'm already going back on my 'no replies at work' policy and don't think your post worth a response on top of that. I already linked to a article listing statistics on rape cases being more common amongst people you know than complete strangers, if that's not enough for you; feel free to cite me something "trustworthy" saying otherwise. | |
Society is founded on trusting strangers. Sometimes it doesn't work. Nothing really strange about that.
Really, you should never trust strange strangers. | |
Lugia319 wrote:
Society is founded on trusting strangers. Sometimes it doesn't work. Nothing really strange about that. you heard it here first, folks. don't trust anything you read on the internet. | |
EmpirezTeam wrote:
Life doesn't revolve around our feelings, it revolves around reality. And the victim's psychological state is part of that reality. My point is that the blaming approach is not going to function as a good way to help alleviate their trauma. There are better approaches for addressing the decision making about these situations. | |
this post raped me