Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?

[rexbeccarox]

Yep. Apparently, I do have to repeat myself.

It is simply not the case that more attractive people get raped more often than unattractive people.

I'll say it again:
It is simply not the case that more attractive people get raped more often than unattractive people.

Do I need to say it again?

Apparently I have to repeat myself a lot. Rape rarely has to do with sex and is almost always a control thing. Provocative clothing is not correlated to instances of rape.

Should I repeat myself... again?

[Heat]

DID I EVER SAY ALL RAPISTS? NO I SAID IT INCREASES THE CHANCES YOU FUCKING MORON.

IGNORED.BLOCKED.REPORTED.

You're not funny misrepresenting people. You're fucking ignorant.

No. You are ignorant. Prove that dressing provocatively increases the risk of being raped. You can't because there's no evidence connecting the two.

There's no evidence of the two because people like to instantly dismiss this notion as being ignorant, and misogynist.


Yes this is most definitely a 50-50 world, where no matter what you dress like and no matter what you look like you are all seen and treated equally.



I'm done posting on this thread. I come in and get instantly dismissed, and misrepresented. None of my points being addressed. Just an instant dismissal, and judgement that they are wrong by default. No one attempted to prove my points wrong on a psychological level. No one tried to reasonable disprove them and tell me why this bias wouldn't be the case. Nothing of the sort.

Funny how anyone who disagrees with the majority is instantly seen as wrong.

I explained my points multiple times, gave deep psychological examples of why in my opinion this is a result of human nature. Meanwhile people sit here, mock, and laugh at my answers, not addressing them, as if tapping your friend on the shoulder and saying "Pfffffffffft look at this guy".

[Losty]

Oh I'm so sorry forgive us for dismissing you based on evidence instead of something psychological

[rexbeccarox]

Heatiosrs, do you understand the burden of proof?

[Heat]

Because most rapists are people who can't get sex themselves, and if it's not some revenge-rape situation being discussed, it's safe to assume someone would be more likely to favor the person they find attractive. With that, we can deduce that a majority would find what is thought by the general public to be attractive, as attractive. Not all. But the majority. There'es nothing indicating that rapists hold, as a majority, a different view of whats attractive than the general public.

People who have consensual sex are doing so because they find each other attractive based on something other than just the outside. A rapist, for the exception of someone who stalks someone in specific, has not had a mutual connection with someone on the inside, and will favor the outside appearance, and if they favor and see them by their outside appearance, they will choose what they find pleasing rather than unpleasing.

Bolding is mine. You are wrong. Rapists are not people who can't get laid.

Alright prove it.

If you're allowed to tell me "show me proof connecting that people aren't raped based on attractiveness" I can do the same to you,
so prove to me that rapists are not just people who can't get laid.


Oh how I love as well that this entire time any time I said "this is what happens most of the time" the only thing that i've ever been responded with is "YOU'RE SO WRONG IT'S LAUGHABLE. HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THAT WHAT YOU SAID HAPPENS WITH RAPISTS 100% OF THE TIME"

[Cato]

Did I ever make a claim that unattractive people don't get raped?
No I said specifically that was not what I was saying.

Did I ever say that we should care less/more about rape depending on the person?
No that is not what I said.

Like what the fuck?
Do people even read?
"Let me just act like he's a fucking idiot, then maybe he will be a fucking idiot."

Holy hell.

The article eviscerates your attractiveness as predictor of rape pet theory and your only defense is to now state "did I claim that unattractive people don't get raped?". You've got nothing but a gross misunderstanding of what rape is. Your simple minded attractiveness theory betrays your underlying assumption that rape is a crime of sexual passion. It's not.

Rape most certainly contains a sexual element, but it is violent assault, not libido run wild because a breeze lifts a woman's skirt. Your previous bullshit about not knowing the inside is fabricated bullshit. Get these facts into your vacuous skull:

Assailants target people they know.

75 percent of all survivors know their assailants; 80 percent of all rapes occur in the home.5

90 percent of rape survivors on college campuses know their assailants.6

93 percent of juvenile sexual assault survivors know their assailants.

http://www.barcc.org/information/facts/stats

Got that? You are simply full of shit.

[Homeless Nutter]

Well alright. I'm just saying, it doesn't sound like an outrageous precaution to take. What your saying sounds very plausible. I just think it was very poor taste on homeless nutter's part to say that person has the mind of a rapist.

Firstly - I didn't say that. I said heatiosrs seems to be convinced he understands how rapists think - and that understanding appears to be the ONLY thing he bases his generalizations on.

Secondly - "Poor Taste" is my middle name...

Thirdly - We're not discussing recipes here, taste is pretty much irrelevant.

[Edwardo Piet]

Alright prove it.

If you're allowed to tell me "show me proof connecting that people aren't raped based on attractiveness" I can do the same to you,
so prove to me that rapists are not just people who can't get laid.

I'm almost always a person who can't get laid... does this make me almost always a rapist?

[Heat]

Heatiosrs, do you understand the burden of proof?

Yes, I do.

Do you understand agnosticism?

Yeah, that was a right hook.


Here's what I didn't say:
"This is the only thing that happens and I don't need to provide proof for it."
"This is what's true, and all that can be"

Here's what I did say:
"In my opinion I think most of the time this is what happens, although i'm not saying this cannot also be the case"


So go fuck yourself for misrepresenting what I said so many times.

[rexbeccarox]

Heatiosrs, do you understand the burden of proof?

Yes, I do.

Do you understand agnosticism?

Yeah, that was a right hook.


Here's what I didn't say:
"This is the only thing that happens and I don't need to provide proof for it."
"This is what's true, and all that can be"

Here's what I did say:
"In my opinion I think most of the time this is what happens, although i'm not saying this cannot also be the case"


So go fuck yourself for misrepresenting what I said so many times.

Excuse me? Please quote me where I misrepresented you.

This is not about opinions. This is about facts, and the facts are that levels of attractiveness and provocative dress have no correlation to instances of rape. It's that simple. The burden of proof lies on you, the one claiming they do have a correlation, to prove it. Cato provided you links to show there isn't one, now it's up to you to prove there is.

Again, I'm an intensively trained SART advocate, so it had better be good, and not just your "opinion".