Objectifying women

[Autumnlicious]

With respect to gameslover (whom I refer to as my illogical friend for missing the point of my earlier statement so utterly it is beyond annoying):

You know, my illogical friend, that you increase your risk for being mugged by walking into an alley full of untrustworthy characters.

You increase your risk for being hit by a car by just walking outside.

You increase your risk for a sudden onset of cardiac arrest by just eating a burger.

Had you done none of those things, you would have almost no risk as opposed to some.

You. Moron.

There are ways to decrease risk of rape. The easiest is education. Show in culture it is wrong. Idolize those who stand up, who fight against it. Advise others to know their surroundings.

You cannot decrease the risk to zero - there are always bad things, always exceptions.

But no, you are completely wrong.

[Cego_Colher]

I have a question/request to anyone reading this. I remember always in school being told that rape is not about sex but power, but I haven't found a lot– if any really– of studies confirming this. I found two articles I'm going to see what they say, but if anyone knows of any could they link/ tell me the name of the whatever so I could find it? Thank you.

source of women rapes-- a Natural history of Rape (by thornhill and palmer) They also cite- Svalastoga 1962; amir 1971 MacDonald 1971; Miyazawa 1976; hindelang 1977; hindelang and Davis 1977; Russell 1984; kramer 1987; whitaker 1987; Pawson and Banks 1993. They also cite that Groth 1979 states that less then %5 of rape victims are over age 50. ((I just copied those from their in text citations)
attractiveness-- http://viewzone2.com/attractivenessx.html this page mention it a bit as well as the previous(a natural history of rape). Women are more fertile during that time period and would need to attract a mate.

[gameslover]

With respect to gameslover (whom I refer to as my illogical friend for missing the point of my earlier statement so utterly it is beyond annoying):

You know, my illogical friend, that you increase your risk for being mugged by walking into an alley full of untrustworthy characters.

You increase your risk for being hit by a car by just walking outside.

You increase your risk for a sudden onset of cardiac arrest by just eating a burger.

Had you done none of those things, you would have almost no risk as opposed to some.

You. Moron.

There are ways to decrease risk of rape. The easiest is education. Show in culture it is wrong. Idolize those who stand up, who fight against it. Advise others to know their surroundings.

You cannot decrease the risk to zero - there are always bad things, always exceptions.

But no, you are completely wrong.

And now you're name-calling as opposed to providing rational argument.

How am I supposed to pick you out from the sea of victim-blamers (yup, blamers) here? Where did I "miss your point" because I recall I responded directly to peoples' quotes.

You can get mugged in other places besides alleyways. You can get hit by a car while sitting in a car (not outside). You can increase your odds of cardiac arrest by eating other things, burgers aren't the only food that increase risk of cardiac arrest.

---

I have a question/request to anyone reading this. I remember always in school being told that rape is not about sex but power, but I haven't found a lot– if any really– of studies confirming this. I found two articles I'm going to see what they say, but if anyone knows of any could they link/ tell me the name of the whatever so I could find it? Thank you.

source of women rapes-- a Natural history of Rape (by thornhill and palmer) They also cite- Svalastoga 1962; amir 1971 MacDonald 1971; Miyazawa 1976; hindelang 1977; hindelang and Davis 1977; Russell 1984; kramer 1987; whitaker 1987; Pawson and Banks 1993. They also cite that Groth 1979 states that less then %5 of rape victims are over age 50. ((I just copied those from their in text citations)
attractiveness-- http://viewzone2.com/attractivenessx.html this page mention it a bit as well as the previous(a natural history of rape). Women are more fertile during that time period and would need to attract a mate.

I can tell you from personal experience. The "friend" who raped me wasn't attracted to me at all, he hates lesbians and wanted to see one squirm and try to "turn" them.

[Autumnlicious]

You just don't get it, do you?

I named a few items as a fucking metaphor.

Do you not understand? Indulging in riskier behavior raises your fucking risk!. There can be no discussion.

My name calling is of the vein "my illogical friend" and "you moron", yet you apply a whining complaint as if I just told you your capacity for reason is flawed, your mind and demeanor beyond capacity for rational thought, your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

You are a goddamn fool. You'd as soon fight me who has commented lightly on your stupid absolutism and noted that it is illogical as someone who theorizes that the rape victim wanted it.

This is forum for logic and reason, you stupid git. I suggest you use it.

Prove my statement wrong, that I said there is no such thing as no risk, when ones very existence as a living being entails risk! The only way to have no risk is to be dead, so that you cannot have actions done by, to, or from you - as you are dead.

[Cego_Colher]

I see, but that is only one case, they don't all have to be one or the other. In this case I would say that the motive was probably not about sex. Well, about it, but not in the manner that he wanted it.
I don't see how that would work anyway, because even if homosexuality was a choice– I think it would being raped would more likely make someone stay a lesbian. I suppose no one said that he was smart.

also, everyone please be nice? that would be lovely.

[Godhead]

Gameslover -

When a parent says to their kid when they reach the age of 18 "son, you're an adult now, you must start being more responsible", can you identify any perpetrator or any blame in that sentence, either explicitly stated or even hinted at? Of course not, becaue the parent is not referring to any perpetrator or any blame. They're referring to personal responsibility, which is something else. If you agree with that, then you agree that the word "responsibility" itself is not about blame or victims. The parent would hardly be able to freely interchange the word "responsibility" with "blame" in such a sentence as it wouldn't work. They would never say "son, you're an adult now, you must start being more blameful and at fault".

[In This Mind]

Deuteronomy
22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

If only we had outgrown such notions.

1 Timothy
2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

It's sad this is so ingrained into society that people who otherwise consider themselves free-thinkers cannot move beyond such a mindset.

1 Peter
3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

And when pressed, they can give no actual reason for their stance other than this early training, it's such a part of them they freak out and attack when asked to move beyond the indoctrination, and cling to such apologetics. They cling to the idea that it is 'riskier' behavior even when they cannot prove or even demonstrate with anything resembling evidence that it is riskier.

'But you took it out of context'
'That's not what it means'
'It's common sense, I don't need to prove it'

Pure apologetics. Nothing more than a refusal to deal with reality. No reason. No logic. No facts. Just long ingrained sexism that flies in the face of the truth.

---

When a parent says to their kid when they reach the age of 18 "son, you're an adult now, you must start being more responsible", can you identify any perpetrator or any blame in that sentence, either explicitly stated or even hinted at? Of course not, becaue the parent is not referring to any perpetrator or any blame. They're referring to personal responsibility, which is something else. If you agree with that, then you agree that the word "responsibility" itself is not about blame or victims. The parent would hardly be able to freely interchange the word "responsibility" with "blame" in such a sentence as it wouldn't work. They would never say "son, you're an adult now, you must start being more blameful and at fault".

Actually, what it means exactly is that now a kid is culpable for his own actions, which means now he'll be blamed when he fucks up rather than his parents.

So yes, they are in fact telling him that now he'll be to blame. That's why there is a difference between trying someone as an adult and trying them as a juvenile. The word responsibility is about blame.

[Autumnlicious]

You look at us and see what you want to see. You want to see sexism and an unfair world.

We wish to see a world populated by logic and reason and will do so to explain this world.

You cannot understand until you let go of your desire to see us as the enemy. We are what we are - logic seeking, truth seeking. There is little we cannot understand and explain, given enough time.

If you cannot argue logically, then it is advised you depart from this place, for you will find nothing but aggravation and a lack of understanding.

[Tiberius]

It's sad that you are so ingrained with the belief that you are absolutely correct (with no exceptions) that you reduce yourself to petty insults instead of actually listening to what we say. We make a decent point about risk assessment, which has *nothing to do* with victim blaming or "responsibility", and because we are men, you interpret it as some kind of sexist attack, create a strawman out of what was said, and then end by calling us a bunch of misogynists.

I could have believed you if you'd said you simply "misunderstood" the first time we explained ourselves, but reading back over this thread, the number of times we have explained and re-explained the point at hand (so much so that it is now nigh-impossible to misinterpret) is ridiculous. You are doing it on purpose now.

Not only do you decide to use your overactive imagination to completely change what we say, but you then think it's clever to put 4 of us on your ignore list so you don't have to deal with the opposition. Bravo.

[Autumnlicious]

Not only do you decide to use your overactive imagination to completely change what we say, but you then think it's clever to put 4 of us on your ignore list so you don't have to deal with the opposition. Bravo.

Oh wow, really? I only put Pippy on my ignore list once, and decided even that was going too far and being overly judgmental. Not even mo3tan3zbar has suffered that fate and he is quite, quite egregious.

It all makes sense now...