On November 09 2013 01:43 Dogfoodboy16 wrote: For those of you wondering what college attend, I go to UC Davis in Davis, California
I am conflicted about the statistic that only 40% of rapes get reported and a small percentage of those reports turn out to be false Rape is supposed to be the worst thing that can ever happen to a women but only about 1/3 of all assaults ever get reported to police? In other circumstances, the rape victim will bring a case to trial then choose to drop the rape charges against the defendant allowing the alleged rapist to go free (i.e. the Kobe Bryant case) I cant really grasp the psychology behind this. I mean much more than 40% of all murders get reported to police and murder trails rarely get dropped in the middle of litigation.
Well just by reading this thread you can see that many people think it is fair game to imply that the accuser is a slut who dresses like one in the courtroom. Having to relive a serious emotional trauma, first with the police, and then in courtroom, understandably isn't very appealling for many victims.
Then there is the problem that rape can be quite hard to prove, particularly when the victim didn't fight back very hard, from fear of getting hurt even more. Which would also lead to further distressing questions.
Another problem is that the rapist is often someone from the victim's social circle, and within that social circle there will perhaps be people who like to do a bit of slut shaming themselves, will chose the side of the rapist in other ways, etc etc.
These are all things a murder victim does not have to deal with, because they are dead.
On November 09 2013 01:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: a culture that supports rape
Such a culture has never existed.
Or, well, a culture that supports rape against women has never existed.
dont ignore me! or at least "Let me know which part you disagree with." -You suggested i take a statistics course. And shut the fuck up -You quoted statistics to prove your point -You got served
Severedevil already dealt with you.
lol please, do you really want your response to me disproving your math to be:
P(it is raining | it is cloudy) > P(it is raining | it is not cloudy). is as obvious as P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes) and then a poorly delivered incorrect point about the implications of Bayes theorem.
by what stretch of the imagination is that dealing with me? You insulted me a lot then said
If you don't disagree with point 1 or 2, then by Bayes' rule you have to agree that the probability increases.
but you were wrong. then you just pretended it didn't happen.
On November 09 2013 01:53 Thieving Magpie wrote: Wait, you don't think a culture that tells men to go after women and that tells women that no doesn't always mean no is not rape culture?
First of all, I disagree that men and women are "told" those things. It's biological. Evolutionary psychology is a thing, you should look into it.
Secondly, with any reasonable definition of rape culture, those things absolutely do not create one. Seeking sex does not mean rape is condoned or supported. The fact that women sometimes say no when they mean yes does not mean rape is condoned or supported, although I suppose it does have the potential to increase the prevalence of rape due to confusing some men. But it remains heavily condemned.
On November 09 2013 01:54 farvacola wrote: Lol Gedatsu, why wuss out now? Your blame the victim stupidity is already on display and it's a Friday, whaddya got to lose? I'm curious, do you have exposure to case law on rape and the success of defenses that revolve around a characterization of the victim as "wanting it" in one way or another, or are you just making this up as you go along?
Wuss out? Blame the victim? What are you even talking about? Nobody is blaming anyone. Do you even understand what the word 'blame' means?
I don't have any such exposure, nor do I need it, because I haven't commented on the success of such defenses.
On November 09 2013 02:11 farvacola wrote: As confusing as bringing up Bayes when discussing the effect of provocative clothing on personal culpability I hope.
Haven't said a word about culpability. Culpability refers to someone's blameworthiness of a crime. I am talking about the process of establishing whether a crime took place at all. Surely a law student would be able to tell the difference.
On November 09 2013 02:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: So it's in mans Darwin given rights to chase after women and it's women's fault that they say no?
You're just too much.
...uh...
Yes, men have a right to chase after women. It depends on what you mean by "chase" of course; physically following them when they attempt to leave is not so legal. But men have a right to approach women and try to persuade them to agree to sex. Do you really think they don't?
And yes, it's a woman's fault when she says no. People generally have responsibility over the words they choose to say. Who else do you think should be blamed for her saying no?
To suggest that the wearing of provocative clothing mitigates the potential for a rape to be seen as a crime is a direct indictment of the culpability of the accused. And is perhaps even less salient than blaming the victim. Nice try though.
On November 09 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote: To suggest that the wearing of provocative clothing mitigates the potential for a rape to be seen as a crime is a direct indictment of the culpability of the accused. And is perhaps even less salient than blaming the victim. Nice try though.
I haven't said it mitigates the potential for a rape either. Stop trying to strawman me.
On November 09 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote: To suggest that the wearing of provocative clothing mitigates the potential for a rape to be seen as a crime is a direct indictment of the culpability of the accused. And is perhaps even less salient than blaming the victim. Nice try though.
I haven't said it mitigates the potential for a rape either. Stop trying to strawman me.
Doesn't mitigate rape in prisons, doesn't mitigate rape outside of prisons.
But since you agree it's biological for men to be sexually aggressive I guess we know your stance in the matter.
On November 09 2013 02:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: So it's in mans Darwin given rights to chase after women and it's women's fault that they say no?
You're just too much.
When you're involved in a conversation with someone, hopefully trying to arrive at a deeper understanding of something, you have some responsibility to charitably interpret what the other person is saying, even if you don't agree with them. Especially when the subject is a super complicated one, like human behavior. Strawmanning the other guy in one sentence like the entirety of what he was saying was "Darwin says rape is women's fault" like anyone in this thread, in the 21st century, thinks that, is being intentionally dense or something.
On November 09 2013 02:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: So it's in mans Darwin given rights to chase after women and it's women's fault that they say no?
You're just too much.
When you're involved in a conversation with someone, hopefully trying to arrive at a deeper understanding of something, you have some responsibility to charitably interpret what the other person is saying, even if you don't agree with them. Especially when the subject is a super complicated one, like human behavior. Strawmanning the other guy in one sentence like the entirety of what he was saying was "Darwin says rape is women's fault" like anyone in this thread, in the 21st century, thinks that, is being intentionally dense or something.
You mean the part where he says men are supposed to chase women or the part were he says that it's the woman's fault that she says no?
Maybe the part where he said it was natural due to "evolutionary psychology" which also suggests that women like shopping because they collected berries.
Maybe the fact that he brought up evolution in response to my statement that rape culture in western culture encourages men to pursue women and informs women that their no doesn't always mean no.
If he wants to sidestep direct statements by bringing up evolution then he deserves the terse responses he's getting.
On November 09 2013 02:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: So it's in mans Darwin given rights to chase after women and it's women's fault that they say no?
You're just too much.
When you're involved in a conversation with someone, hopefully trying to arrive at a deeper understanding of something, you have some responsibility to charitably interpret what the other person is saying, even if you don't agree with them. Especially when the subject is a super complicated one, like human behavior. Strawmanning the other guy in one sentence like the entirety of what he was saying was "Darwin says rape is women's fault" like anyone in this thread, in the 21st century, thinks that, is being intentionally dense or something.
You mean the part where he says men are supposed to chase women or the part were he says that it's the woman's fault that she says no?
Haven't said that anyone is supposed to do anything. I did ask you to clarify if you thought men were not allowed to do it. Also asked you to clarify whose fault it is that a woman says no.
Maybe the part where he said it was natural due to "evolutionary psychology" which also suggests that women like shopping because they collected berries.
I've never heard a serious evolutionary psychologist claim that and I don't think you have either. Either way, he will have been laughed at by the rest of that scientific community. Evolutionary psychology is a strong, well founded scientific discipline.
Maybe the fact that he brought up evolution in response to my statement that rape culture in western culture encourages men to pursue women and informs women that their no doesn't always mean no.
If he wants to sidestep direct statements by bringing up evolution then he deserves the terse responses he's getting.
You say this as if you want to ignore evolution.
Women aren't "informed" that their no doesn't always mean no. Women already know that, because they are aware when they say no without meaning no.
Seriously, it's as if you have never talked to women. Ask and they will admit to doing this.
EPT
