|
 |
On 12/28/2013 11:39 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> They
>> are just not so violently enforced, but, never the less, when, say.. a
>> rape happens, the first thing trotted out is a long list of excuses
>> about what she wore, did, thought, where she was, what she did/didn't
>> say, etc. And, worse, juries fall for that crap, including other women.
>
> Sure, some people will use those things as excuses. However, I wouldn't
> say it's the point.
>
> The fact is, the risk of being raped can be affected by one's behavior
> in the exact same way as the risk being mugged can be. If, for example,
> a certain part of the city is known for the amount of crime, and you just
> carelessly walk there alone in nice expensive clothes, don't be surprised
> if you get mugged with a higher probability than if you were walking in
> a busy mall, for instance. The fact is, you *can* affect the risks with
> your actions.
>
Uh.. Wrong, wrong, wrong.. You know what the most common factors in like
90% of all rape cases are:
1. Its within 5 miles of the victims home, or even in their home.
2. Its virtually always someone they know.
3. Its usually a guy, doing it to a woman.
So... The risk factors women should avoid are:
1. Going anyplace near their home.
2. Actually interacting with people they know.
3. Being female.
Have I got that right?
There is no other commonalities. It has never mattered to rapist what
the woman (or rarer man) was wearing at the time, at all. Its
statistically insignificant. Whether or not they have been drinking, is,
again, statistically insignificant. Parties are low on the list of
places it happens, unless its one at the place they live. While woman
are certainly harassed a lot walking alone, there is, again, since its
usually someone they know that does it, statistically irrelevant to the
crime.
All of the things that you can imagine might "decrease her risk", are,
in the grand scheme of things, nothing more that a) media
sensationalistic BS, b) things brought up to shame them, and get the
rapist off the hook, and/or totally statistically meaningless.
Its like telling someone that they can reduce their risk of drowning, by
avoiding swim suits. And, its not your fault, nor was it mine, back
before I had this pointed out to me, for believing that all those things
do increase risk. No one **ever** gets told by the news that the rape
victim was a mute virgin, with no history of drug/alcohol use, who had
only one friend, and dressed like a nun. What you do here is that she
was found three blocks away from her house, wearing nothing but
underwear, and, based on having actually worn lipstick, must, therefor,
have been a) headed to a party, b) assaulted by a random person, and c)
dressed like a slut (never mind that they never found the rest of her
clothes, and she didn't own single dress, never mind anything tight
fitting. Its inconsistent with what people *assume* must be true,
therefor, it can't possibly be that he only friend did it to her, at her
house, and dumped the body later. And, even *when* they figure out that
is true, the news media will have, by then, already painted her like a
two bit hooker, and then, lacking any new juicy facts, dropped the story
like a wadded up post it note.
This, BTW, is Wikipedia's take on the top "risks" (a lot of the stuff
from a search turns up things on college students, or behind pay walls,
which doesn't help much):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_associated_with_being_a_victim_of_sexual_violence
Basically - being young, being drugged, having already had abusing
relationships (this is a behavioral issue, where such people tend to
pick the same sort of people to date as they did before), or,
ironically, becoming educated (which I suppose can be chalked up to
idiots that don't like women who make more than they do, etc.), oh, and
being a sex worker, or being in poverty.
But, then, other places:
http://www.rainn.org/statistics?gclid=COuo9aCn3LsCFTDhQgodFl0AmQ
http://www.humboldt.edu/stoprape/statistics.html
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/
http://image.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X%2813%2970069-X/fulltext
This one seems to be what "makes for" being a rapist -
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html
You will note that, no where, on "any" of these sites, that deal with it
professionally, are how they dress, where they go, if they are walking
alone, etc. are among the list of "risks".
But, and even better one that addresses the key points of what are total
myths:
http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/commonmyths2.php
Some excerpts:
"The suggestion of avoiding walking alone, especially at night is a
common suggestion to avoiding sexual assault. However, only 9% of rapes
are committed by 'strangers'. Women are raped in their homes and in
their work places where they are less likely to be believed and even
less likely to report."
"Reports show that there is a great diversity in the way targeted women
act or dress. Rapists choose women based on their vulnerability not
their physical appearance."
With a note being that the later "based on vulnerability", which one
could presume to means "alone, or in a dark alley", is undermined by the
fact that most assaults are by people they know, and in
places/situations where the rapist feels they can get by with it, and
the victim will not be believed, as per the first quote. In other words
- there is no way in hell that all but a small percentage of rapists
would pick someone they can't control in some way, assault them in a
place where the victim would be believed (instead of some place assumed
to be safe), or based on what they where wearing.
The sort that do the later, generally are "serial rapists", who know
they might get caught, are driven by **specific** criteria, like hair
color, or reminding them of their mother, or some other insane, and
specific, motivation, etc. In other words, the classic, "This is how the
once rapist, who now, realizing these women will report him, just turned
serial killer.", types, which is bloody rare. They don't, generally,
pick them based on dress length, or merely being alone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 21:40:08 +0200, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 17:22:51 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:49:01 +0200, Fractracer <lg.### [at] gmailcom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>>> Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> > Koran 9:5 says to kill all non Muslims, unless they repent and
>>>> > become Muslims.
>>>>
>>>> There are quite many passages in the koran that can be used to justify
>>>> murder.
>>>>
>>> Maybe I am wrong, but, of the three religions based on the Bible
>>> (Jewish,
>>> Christian, Muslim), only the Christian's book don't justify or allow
>>> the murder.
>>>
>>>
>> Jewish: Thou shalt not kill. There is also scripture that says to be
>> hospitable to strangers. The only killing is specifically in a war
>> situations concerning specific cities/towns. They basically use the same
>> as the Old Testament of the Bible and a few other oral traditions.
>>
>> Christian: Goes even further than being hospitable with "Love thine
>> enemies". Jesus was a Jew. Christianity started with the Jewish
>> religion, but Jesus fulfilled the difficult to complete laws and set
>> them free from the law and gave them grace. Men, women and different
>> races are all considered equal.
>>
>> Muslim: Kill non-Muslims. In the Koran there are a few similarities to
>> the Bible, but the details contradict and differ from the Bible. They
>> believe in Creation, Adam and Eve, the flood, Moses and they believe the
>> Jesus was a Prophet that never died. They believe Mohammad to have been
>> the final prophet. Women are considered to have half the brainpower of a
>> man.
>
> Actually, the commandment properly translated (so I understand) is "Thou
> shalt not murder." Killing in God's name is permissible (and
> encouraged), and there are other circumstances where people are commanded
> to kill (stoning, but just not quite to death? No, stonings are supposed
> to end up with someone dead - an adulterer, for example).
>
> Jim
"Killing in God's Name" is wrong if God didn't tell you to do it. I'm not
sure who is encouraging it though. Are you talking about the Jews actions
in the middle east? If God told them to fight the Muslims, the Jews would
have won long ago.
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
