Many people say it doesn’t matter how she is dressed, no one asks to be raped. I will not argue the point of no one asking to be raped. No one deserves to be raped, and it is a horrible crime. That being said, it would be stupid to say that how you dress has not influence on…
My hit list keeps getting longer
why? Because I basically said be aware of the attention you can get from wearing revealing clothing?
Many people say it doesn’t matter how she is dressed, no one asks to be raped. I will not argue the point of no one asking to be raped. No one deserves to be raped, and it is a horrible crime. That being said, it would be stupid to say that how you dress has not influence on…
I’m just going to skip right to the end and ask how I am a ‘rape appologist and victim blamer’. If you read my post you would know I basically said there is no excuse for rape and there is no acceptable reason to rape, but women need to be aware of the possibly unintended attention they are drawing. Seriously read what I say before you start saying I am a rape apologist. Honestly, I wouldnt mind if rapists were killed, especially if they have raped multiple people.
Many people say it doesn’t matter how she is dressed, no one asks to be raped. I will not argue the point of no one asking to be raped. No one deserves to be raped, and it is a horrible crime. That being said, it would be stupid to say that how you dress has not influence on the likelihood of…
I see the argument here and how it can be an attractive explanation for why some women get raped and others don’t. However, the major flaw with this argument is that usually rapists are someone that the victim knows. It’s not some random guy that saw a girl dressed skimpily at a bar and thought it would be nice to fuck her. It was likely someone she knew, trusted, or didn’t think would take advantage of her in that way.
That being said, there is no way you can argue that what you wear and how you look doesn’t change how other people perceive you, but this perception has very little to do with rape. A guy can assume that you will be DTF by looking at you, but if your attitude contradicts his assumption, he should back off REGARDLESS of what clothes you’re wearing. Rape doesn’t happen because of what girls are wearing, it happens because the men who do it have no respect for the women they’re doing it to. And if a guy doesn’t have respect for a woman wearing a revealing outfit enough to rape her, he probably doesn’t have respect for women generally.
Starting with your first point, yes, that is true, most rapes are with someone the victim knows. I cannot argue that. I was referring more to ones that take place with someone the victim does not know.
I also agree with you the guy should back down if the girl says no, but the unfortunate fact is that it does not happen. My point with this was that the argument saying that what someone is wearing has no effect on the chances of rape. The point being the attention the woman is attracting based on their clothing may not be what they intended.
Many people say it doesn’t matter how she is dressed, no one asks to be raped. I will not argue the point of no one asking to be raped. No one deserves to be raped, and it is a horrible crime. That being said, it would be stupid to say that how you dress has not influence on the likelihood of being raped.
Before you start sending me angry messages and death threats hear me out. Look at the way some women dress. Some dress in a way that is suppose to attract the attention of men, in other words they purposely wear very little in order to attract the attention of a guy.
Think about whos attention this attracts more, a horny guy. This does not give him the right to rape, nothing does, but the woman wearing almost nothing attracted his attention more than the woman wearing clothing that covers them more.
It is like a more extreme version of women getting mad that they only get hit on by assholes. If you are dressed in skimpy clothing you are going to attract people who are looking for sex, not as much for a long standing relationship. I personally am not attracted to females wearing a lot of revealing clothing because that to me is a sign that they want a more physical relationship rather than an emotional or intellectual.
You can wear whatever you want, but be aware of whose attention you are attracting. If you want to attract a guy for a ore committed relationship consider covering up more and getting them to like you for you, and not based on your appearance. How you look does make a difference in whose attention you get. To say it doesn’t is idiotic. No, wearing does not make it ok to rape you, but you are more likely to attract attention from someone who could attempt to rape you.
(in a related note, carrying a gun is a good way to stop someone from raping you, should you ever get in that situation).
I know I will be regretting this later when I do not have time to respond, but I think I will be writing a post that wil be pissing off feminists soon. I might as well do it tonight….
Rape Culture? What is this “Rape Culture” you speak of?
Seriously though, this is terrifying. God forbid I wear a skirt outside — I’m just ASKING to be raped if I do that.The 58% statistic actually terrifies me more than any other. Suddenly change the word and you don’t care?
No one will ever be able to convince me that words hold no power.
Yeah it’s honestly really bad. I know a girl was sexually assaulted right in one of the parking lots here, but they didn’t say if the culprit was another student or not.
’s why I’m glad they can’t have parties here because of the cops.
Wasn’t this from a study of like 100 men at some small college? That would make the results statistically insignificant and inaccurate.
If only John Adams had used Federal Express instead of the Pony Express. Unfortunately, Jefferson got this memo a day late.
So, why is it that the second Amendment should only apply to muskets (especially when the wording says that people need to be able to defend themselves from the government militia) , but the first amendment does not only apply to technology of the time. Why should the internet be covered by the first amendment? It was not around when the constitution was written.
The wording does not say anything about being able to defend themselves against a government militia, it says that they shall have the right to bear arms WITHIN a state militia. Obviously very few of the 300,000,000 guns in America are used in the context of a state militia.
We know this was its intent because of this bit of history: http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
That said, If you read the “note” from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, this was obviously intended humorously, even though we could perhaps indeed have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if it read “muskets” instead of “arms.” Your side seems to think that the right to be violent constitutes a sacred freedom worth protecting no matter how little it is practiced in a self-defense and how much it results in homicide, accidental death, and suicide.Obviously I disagree.
The Constitution also counted black people as 3/5 human, and denied woman suffrage. That’s why we have the amendment process. it would be an excellent idea to amend the second amendment. I would propose replacing it entirely with something that enshrines the state’s duty to take all necessary measures it to protects citizens from all forms of violence.
I’m not holding my breath. But I’m also sick of all the political correctness about “defending the second amendment” - even from the left. There nothing “free” about being able to maim and kill. Gun worship is a sickness, it should be in the DSM as a mental disorder.That source you have, I cannot verify its credibility, but no matter, I will respond to you without referencing that ‘unbiased’ source.
Let me reword it a bit, to more modern language. Because a free country needs to have a military in order to remain free, the people of that country have the right to arm themselves. It is saying because there is a need for a military the people need to be able to protect themselves. Lets look at history. When America was founded, England was trying to fore Americans to pay unfair taxes, house soldiers whenever they ordered, etc. The founding fathers understood that a government must have a military, and they were only able to fight back because they had access to weapons of their own. The constitution is a document set to limit the power of the government, but how can the government be limited if they face no threat from the people they govern? What would stop them from making more regulations to the point they became oppressive as the British government had been to the Americans?
And if you are using the argument that guns make us less safe we should look at some real examples. England made very restrictive gun laws and murder rates skyrocketed. Or lets look in the United states. Places with the most restrictive gun laws include Chicago, Detroit and Washington DC, three places that also happen to have some of the highest murder rates in the US. How about a comparison? Detroit versus Dallas. Detroit, in 2011 had a population of about 713,239. Dallas had a population of about 509,782 more people, about 1,223,021. We all know Texas is known for their guns, and they have less gun restrictions than many places. We also know how restrictive Detroit is. Well, for every 100,000 people, Detroit had about 2137.4 murders/ non-negligent manslaughters, whereas Dallas, per 100,000 people had about 681. That is quite the difference…
Still not enough to convince you guns are good? Does it help to know that the vast majority of police oppose gun control, whereas most criminals support gun control?
Maybe we should look at this logically instead of with emotion. Who is a criminal more likely to attack, someone who he thinks has a gun or someone he thinks does not? If a criminal is not sure if someone has a gun, they are less likely to attack that person than they would be to attack someone they were pretty sure did not have a gun.
Oh, and a closing note, in the Second Amendment there is are some very important words “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Thomas Jefferson
Where do you get your facts? U.K.’s gun-death rate skyrocketed after they banned guns? Nonsense: the U.K. has the 5th lowest death rate from guns - the U.S. is 57th highest out of 66 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Comparing cities is nonsense in a country where each state has porous borders and it remains very easy to obtain guns and just bring them into the city. That said, the cost to society of gun violence is sky high, both in hospitalizaton and imprisonment. The blacks may be killing each other in inner cities, like Detrioit, so of course the whites in Dallas don’t really see it as a problem. But it’s eventually its your tax dollar paying for all the damage.
Cherry picking to find cities that support your case is silly. Gun violence is a national problem. However states with the weakest gun laws have the highest death rates by gun: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-usa-guns-report-idUSBRE9320ZE20130403 and I believe states are larger than cities.Every country in Europe has a fraction of our gun ownership and a fraction of our gun violence. Do you think they walk around feeling deprived a liberty or do you think perhaps they are much happier because they experience a small fraction of the violence we do? I have lot of family in France. They have never seen a gun and they all think the U.S. is crazy.
Spare me your tricorned “wash the blood of tyrants” nonsense. The only time we’ve needed for state militias to free the nation from tyrants was in the civil war, and the tyrants where southern whites enslaving black people. And yet the vast majority of white southern men these days so sure of the need to defend the states against on oppressor government would have fought for the south against the north. Clearly we have different view of real tyranny. You thinks Obamacare (affrordable heathcare for all—horrors) is tyranny and I think tyranny is millions in prison from the drug war, and children being shot in classroomsit’s impossible to argue with you guys because your attachment to guns is emotional, not rational. And you never come up with ANY solutions except everybody in America have a gun. Because having a county awash in them has worked out so well. An abusive husband has probably killed his wife, a neighbor has probably accidentally killed another neighbor, and a there’s probably been a suicide or two, just in the time it took me to type this. Don’t flash your bullshit “liberty” arguments at me. REAL PEOPLE are dying EVERY DAY from guns, THAT IS THE TYRANNY OF VIOLENCE. GUNS ARE TYRANNY.
Btw. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. What the fuck did he know about liberty?
And Police are overwhelming pro-gun control. It’s their men getting out gunned and dying. This Police chief is fairly typical: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/towns/li-police-chief-to-attend-state-of-the-union-speech-advocate-for-stricter-gun-control-1.4625708.
R
It may be a little bit for my full response. I tried to write it earlier today but I had to go to class. I will respond though as soon as I can
If only John Adams had used Federal Express instead of the Pony Express. Unfortunately, Jefferson got this memo a day late.
So, why is it that the second Amendment should only apply to muskets (especially when the wording says that people need to be able to defend themselves from the government militia) , but the first amendment does not only apply to technology of the time. Why should the internet be covered by the first amendment? It was not around when the constitution was written.
The wording does not say anything about being able to defend themselves against a government militia, it says that they shall have the right to bear arms WITHIN a state militia. Obviously very few of the 300,000,000 guns in America are used in the context of a state militia.
We know this was its intent because of this bit of history: http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
That said, If you read the “note” from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, this was obviously intended humorously, even though we could perhaps indeed have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if it read “muskets” instead of “arms.” Your side seems to think that the right to be violent constitutes a sacred freedom worth protecting no matter how little it is practiced in a self-defense and how much it results in homicide, accidental death, and suicide.Obviously I disagree.
The Constitution also counted black people as 3/5 human, and denied woman suffrage. That’s why we have the amendment process. it would be an excellent idea to amend the second amendment. I would propose replacing it entirely with something that enshrines the state’s duty to take all necessary measures it to protects citizens from all forms of violence.
I’m not holding my breath. But I’m also sick of all the political correctness about “defending the second amendment” - even from the left. There nothing “free” about being able to maim and kill. Gun worship is a sickness, it should be in the DSM as a mental disorder.
That source you have, I cannot verify its credibility, but no matter, I will respond to you without referencing that ‘unbiased’ source.
Let me reword it a bit, to more modern language. Because a free country needs to have a military in order to remain free, the people of that country have the right to arm themselves. It is saying because there is a need for a military the people need to be able to protect themselves. Lets look at history. When America was founded, England was trying to fore Americans to pay unfair taxes, house soldiers whenever they ordered, etc. The founding fathers understood that a government must have a military, and they were only able to fight back because they had access to weapons of their own. The constitution is a document set to limit the power of the government, but how can the government be limited if they face no threat from the people they govern? What would stop them from making more regulations to the point they became oppressive as the British government had been to the Americans?
And if you are using the argument that guns make us less safe we should look at some real examples. England made very restrictive gun laws and murder rates skyrocketed. Or lets look in the United states. Places with the most restrictive gun laws include Chicago, Detroit and Washington DC, three places that also happen to have some of the highest murder rates in the US. How about a comparison? Detroit versus Dallas. Detroit, in 2011 had a population of about 713,239. Dallas had a population of about 509,782 more people, about 1,223,021. We all know Texas is known for their guns, and they have less gun restrictions than many places. We also know how restrictive Detroit is. Well, for every 100,000 people, Detroit had about 2137.4 murders/ non-negligent manslaughters, whereas Dallas, per 100,000 people had about 681. That is quite the difference…
Still not enough to convince you guns are good? Does it help to know that the vast majority of police oppose gun control, whereas most criminals support gun control?
Maybe we should look at this logically instead of with emotion. Who is a criminal more likely to attack, someone who he thinks has a gun or someone he thinks does not? If a criminal is not sure if someone has a gun, they are less likely to attack that person than they would be to attack someone they were pretty sure did not have a gun.
Oh, and a closing note, in the Second Amendment there is are some very important words “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Thomas Jefferson
That includes ANYONE who think ALL women should be treated equally and shouldn’t be afraid of men raping her or looking down on her because of her sex.
I do not think modern feminism represents what feminism was originally built to be. Modern feminism, or at least much of it, pushes the idea that women are better than men. This is wrong, women and men are equal, but they are different. Modern feminism disappoints me, and would disappoint the women who started the movement.
I have other problems with modern feminism, but I will get to that in a future post.
