|
So.. is this thread about women getting raped?
The majority of the people who actually read this article are the same ones who don't post those childish things, so what exactly is she trying to achieve with this piece? Its all been said and done before, no? In a community where 95% are capable of rational normal posting and the other 5% are lost causes that exist in every society.... whats the point?
Oh... someone just got a big increase in youtube views
|
On May 02 2013 23:31 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:23 NicolBolas wrote:On May 02 2013 23:04 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 22:56 Darkwhite wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
[quote]
I agree, blaming her is not the correct action.
I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way.
Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL.
EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html I will look for more serious sources, because the daily mail is a rather horrific source... however women should never be blamed for being the victim of rape. Just like men should never be blamed for being the victim of stabbing, even if they have worked up a ten thousand dollar debt to a drug dealer and is telling him to suck it when he shows up armed at his door. It would be naïve to assign any sort of responsibility to the victim. Stabbing seems to be categorically the wrong solution there. Rape seems to be the categorical wrong solution to any possible situation I can think of. You arguing otherwise is rather scary. And I am using the normal definition of rape here, that someone is forced to perform sexual acts against their will. Name one situation where that is even remotely acceptable. Not only is he arguing that rape is the fault of the victim in some cases he's also using drug dealing loan sharks as the moral benchmark for judging all men. If drug dealing loan sharks think it's okay to stab people then logically that makes rape okay... somehow. Alternatively it's wrong to stab people, and to rape people. One would think that would go without saying. Yet somehow, on the Internet, it needs to be said. On May 02 2013 23:11 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:59 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:44 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:42 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html Yeah, well about 25% of rape accusations are false. Funny how that works out. Note "They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz2S8u0MWPX" That doesn't address the point at all. KwarK is talking about cases where everyone agrees there has been rape, but still the victim is blamed. There might be a high number of false accusations, but that is a different topic. Have you actually checked out the stats in the link? If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman failed to say "no" clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible. If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible. If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html#ixzz2S8v4cB3t Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it. Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this) With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. What you have done here is create a hypothetical in which rape didn't happen and used it to disprove rape as a concept. Unfortunately logic took a pretty severe hit in the process. You're right, if no rape took place then no rape took place. However if the women says "no" when asked if she would like to have sex then the fact that she was wearing sexy clothing does not make her refusal to consent ambiguous. If the woman says "no" when asked if she wants to have sex, is forced to have sex but has many sexual partners then 14% of people think she was partially to blame. It's that simple. Well rape is reported by the woman, after the fact, right? So if it's actually NOT a rape, but the woman later regrets it and reports it OK, stop right there. Now you're just changing the debate into something else. Namely, the commonly trotted out "false rape accusation". Oh, it certainly happens. But so do false murder accusations, false theft accusations, etc. That's why we have a criminal justice system to sort out the false accusations from the true ones. And generally speaking, false rape accusations aren't due to "regret"; they're due to malice. If a person falsely reports rape, odds are very good that it's because that person wants to hurt the other one. On May 02 2013 23:11 NDDseer wrote:
and the guy gets convicted, it gets reported as "well the woman was raped, it definitely wasn't a regret case". The guy can't say "we didn't have sex", cos they did, consensually. However, the statistics show about 30% of people believe that there is probably quite a bit of "regret" going on in there, which is partially or totally the woman's responsibility in cases where indicators of likely consensual promiscuity such as drinking, dressing up, flirting exist. The fact that 30% of people believe something does not make it true. Indeed, the fact that 30% of people believe that a lot of rape accusations are both false and due to "regret" only shows that there are a lot of fucking stupid people out there. The fact that "people" might blame the woman for being raped if she was wearing skimpy clothing does not justify raping women!The existence of stupidity does not change reality. How much experience do you have with the interactions of adult men and women? Gotta say, your tag being named after a MTG card is not strong evidence in your favour. Let me drop a knowledge bomb on you, women don't dress up in skimpy clothing to impress their female friends, they do it to impress men and try attract suitors. Everyone else is aware of this fact. Hence, if a woman dresses up, goes home with a guy, wakes up the next morning thinking "that was a bad idea" then later reports it as rape there is a reasonable probability she was not suddenly dragged into a dark alley, knocked out and physically violated. More likely, she advertised for attention, was given some, accepted a guy's advances, went home with him consensually and then the next morning thought "am I glad I did that? Not really, oh, so it must have been rape". People have trouble finding the woman completely innocent of blame when they observe women advertising their sexual availability (again, drinking, dressing up, flirting) and it ending in sex.
You have somewhat a problem reconciling reality with your assumptions. Turns out more women dress up to impress other women than you thought.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002391/Sorry-chaps-women-dress-impress-other.html
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:37 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:26 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:23 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 23:18 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:13 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 23:10 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:05 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:59 Grumbels wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:
Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it.
Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this)
With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. How about this scenario: girl gets tipsy, goes home with guy, she draws the line at kissing and cuddling, guy strongly insists on sex and she figures it's easier to just go along rather than risk his reaction to being rejected. "risk his reaction", what? So now women are choosing being raped and reporting it later (how's that going to be for a reaction) over having an awkward situation with the guy the next day. And if you think that 30% (think of you and two friends, one of you is pulling the trigger) of guys would straight up physically assault a girl who directly said "no" cos they were a bit horny, you have a LOT less faith in humanity than I do. Er, statistically either you or someone you know reasonably well socially is a rapist. Sad but true. + Show Spoiler +Thomas looks at a study of 1882 college students who were asked four questions to determine if they had ever raped (or attempted to rape) anyone:
1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
Questions like these are bound to lead to underreporting—what guy is going to admit to forcing a girl to give him head? As it turns out, a lot of guys will admit to this, 120 to be exact: That's six percent of the survey's respondents who copped to either rape or attempted rape. Importantly, Thomas notes, the survey does not actually ask these guys if they've ever exactly "raped" anyone:
If a survey asks men, for example, if they ever “had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances,” some of them will say yes, as long as the questions don’t use the “R” word.
And they didn't just admit to raping—they admitted to raping repeatedly (as long as it's not really "rape," of course!) According to the study, a small percentage of men are responsible for committing a large portion of sexual assaults—that's a whole lot of "accidents," "misreadings," and "gray areas":
Of the 120 rapists in the sample, 44 reported only one assault. The remaining 76 were repeat offenders. These 76 men, 63% of the rapists, committed 439 rapes or attempted rapes, an average of 5.8 each (median of 3, so there were some super-repeat offenders in this group). Just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes.
What does this mean about our "accidental" rapists?
a) The vast majority of acquaintance rapes are committed by the same people;
b) These people don't see themselves as "rapists";
c) They are, however, able recognize that they regularly threat, force, and intoxicate women in order to have sex with them.
Oops! There's no "accident" here—these guys just deny, evade punishment, and repeat.
So, what do we do to stop these guys? Well, here's a start: Let's call them rapists. It's not just rapists who fail to recognize these behaviors—threatening, forcing, incapacitating—as "real" rape. We all have to stop making excuses for calling a rapist a rapist—and doubting, minimizing, or lashing out against the people who do use that word. Women need to know that they can call their experiences "rape" and report them as crimes. They need to know that they can call their rapists "rapists," even if the rapist is also someone's "friend," "acquaintance," "co-worker," "fraternity brother," or "respected member of our community." As Thomas says:
The men in your lives will tell you what they do. As long as the R word doesn’t get attached, rapists do self-report. The guy who says he sees a woman too drunk to know where she is as an opportunity is not joking. He’s telling you how he sees it. The guy who says, “bros before hos”, is asking you to make a pact.
The Pact. The social structure that allows the predators to hide in plain sight, to sit at the bar at the same table with everyone, take a target home, rape her, and stay in the same social circle because she can’t or won’t tell anyone, or because nobody does anything if she does. The pact to make excuses, to look for mitigation, to patch things over—to believe that what happens to our friends—what our friends do to our friends—is not (using Whoopi Goldberg’s pathetic apologetics) “rape-rape.”
. . . The rapists can’t be your friends, and if you are loyal to them even when faced with the evidence of what they do, you are complicit.
That last point is an important one. People who excuse rapists usually see that equation from the other end: "He's my friend, so he can't be a rapist." We need to reverse that equation—"He's a rapist, so he can't be my friend." Perhaps them we could begin addressing why the dictionary definition of rape is overlooked—threatening, forcing, and incapacitating for sex—in our to avoid applying the word—"rapist"—to anyone we know. do you only have two male people you know reasonably well then? Because if you have any more, then it would indicate that less than 30% of guys (as an anecdotal sample of your acquaintances) would rape a girl if she said "no". If you know 100 males reasonably well (probably a fair assumption) then it's about 1%. I don't know why you're saying these words. What you're saying doesn't make sense and is completely unsubstantiated. 30% of adults in the UK will blame a victim, at least partially, for their rape. 6% of college aged men will confess to actually being rapists when asked without using the word rape. You are ignoring my argument. Your points are based on the premise that either reported/convicted rapes (take your pick) are 100% comprised of ACTUAL rapes. My argument is, that of the 100% of reported/convicted rapes (again, your call) a large portion of them are probably cases of REGRET, where the woman consents at the time but afterwards wishes she hadn't, so reports it as rape anyway. The statistics average at about 30% of people finding some blame with the "victim" (an overwhelming majority think she is "partially to blame") in cases where they see evidence that it was probably actually a case of regret, ie. the woman was drinking, being flirty, dressing up or whatever. That is not what the survey asked. You are changing the question to excuse the results. The question was "which of these factors do you think makes a rape the fault of the victim" to which 30% answered that some of them did. You cannot change the question in order to make the results more palatable. Reality doesn't work that way. The question made the assumption that a rape definitely happened. You don't get to change the question in order to make the survey agree with your world view. If you want a survey which would show which factors people believe suggest a false rape accusation you have to hold your own because this survey did not ask that question. The statistics we agreed on were these ones: If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman failed to say "no" clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible. If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible. If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html#ixzz2S8v4cB3t Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook note that EVERY SINGLE "the victim had part of the blame" is ATTACHED to circumstances that cast doubt on whether it was a regret or rape case. Not one of those statistics says "is a rape victim to blame?" with the response "x% of people say she is" ALL of those statistics say "is a rape victim to blame IF (... circumstances which indicate it could have been a morning-after regret case, not actual rape)" with the response "x% of people say she was probably at least a bit responsible that sex occurred"
This is not what the survey is asking. The survey states that a rape definitely took place.
Imagine a survey that said "a man commits a crime, is he a criminal?" and you were to argue that because sometimes innocent men are convicted the answer isn't yes. You'd be an idiot. This is the same.
|
On May 02 2013 19:10 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 19:03 ven wrote:
People on the internet being assholes is news to anyone? Give me a break. This is diffrent... this kind of "assholeism" is called "sexism" and for some reason is seen as worse. /yawn.
Probably not something good to reveal on the internet, but I am a pretty big sexist. Weather I was raised this way or however I ended up like this I just don't think it's wrong to be. A lot of it is in a persons culture and how they are raised, their social environment works.
Hell I started dating my wife by asking her to make me sandwiches.
|
People act completely different when they aren't worried about their reputation or what others think. Being completely anonymous online shows just how selfish and insensitive people become when they don't have societal expectations to live up to.
Do you think the guy that said "yo bitch, you swallow?" to her online would have walked up to her in the real life and said the exact same thing?
|
On May 02 2013 23:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:31 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 23:23 NicolBolas wrote:On May 02 2013 23:04 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 22:56 Darkwhite wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html I will look for more serious sources, because the daily mail is a rather horrific source... however women should never be blamed for being the victim of rape. Just like men should never be blamed for being the victim of stabbing, even if they have worked up a ten thousand dollar debt to a drug dealer and is telling him to suck it when he shows up armed at his door. It would be naïve to assign any sort of responsibility to the victim. Stabbing seems to be categorically the wrong solution there. Rape seems to be the categorical wrong solution to any possible situation I can think of. You arguing otherwise is rather scary. And I am using the normal definition of rape here, that someone is forced to perform sexual acts against their will. Name one situation where that is even remotely acceptable. Not only is he arguing that rape is the fault of the victim in some cases he's also using drug dealing loan sharks as the moral benchmark for judging all men. If drug dealing loan sharks think it's okay to stab people then logically that makes rape okay... somehow. Alternatively it's wrong to stab people, and to rape people. One would think that would go without saying. Yet somehow, on the Internet, it needs to be said. On May 02 2013 23:11 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:59 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:44 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:42 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet.
About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html Yeah, well about 25% of rape accusations are false. Funny how that works out. Note "They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz2S8u0MWPX" That doesn't address the point at all. KwarK is talking about cases where everyone agrees there has been rape, but still the victim is blamed. There might be a high number of false accusations, but that is a different topic. Have you actually checked out the stats in the link? If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman failed to say "no" clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible. If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible. If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html#ixzz2S8v4cB3t Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it. Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this) With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. What you have done here is create a hypothetical in which rape didn't happen and used it to disprove rape as a concept. Unfortunately logic took a pretty severe hit in the process. You're right, if no rape took place then no rape took place. However if the women says "no" when asked if she would like to have sex then the fact that she was wearing sexy clothing does not make her refusal to consent ambiguous. If the woman says "no" when asked if she wants to have sex, is forced to have sex but has many sexual partners then 14% of people think she was partially to blame. It's that simple. Well rape is reported by the woman, after the fact, right? So if it's actually NOT a rape, but the woman later regrets it and reports it OK, stop right there. Now you're just changing the debate into something else. Namely, the commonly trotted out "false rape accusation". Oh, it certainly happens. But so do false murder accusations, false theft accusations, etc. That's why we have a criminal justice system to sort out the false accusations from the true ones. And generally speaking, false rape accusations aren't due to "regret"; they're due to malice. If a person falsely reports rape, odds are very good that it's because that person wants to hurt the other one. On May 02 2013 23:11 NDDseer wrote:
and the guy gets convicted, it gets reported as "well the woman was raped, it definitely wasn't a regret case". The guy can't say "we didn't have sex", cos they did, consensually. However, the statistics show about 30% of people believe that there is probably quite a bit of "regret" going on in there, which is partially or totally the woman's responsibility in cases where indicators of likely consensual promiscuity such as drinking, dressing up, flirting exist. The fact that 30% of people believe something does not make it true. Indeed, the fact that 30% of people believe that a lot of rape accusations are both false and due to "regret" only shows that there are a lot of fucking stupid people out there. The fact that "people" might blame the woman for being raped if she was wearing skimpy clothing does not justify raping women!The existence of stupidity does not change reality. How much experience do you have with the interactions of adult men and women? Gotta say, your tag being named after a MTG card is not strong evidence in your favour. Let me drop a knowledge bomb on you, women don't dress up in skimpy clothing to impress their female friends, they do it to impress men and try attract suitors. Everyone else is aware of this fact. Hence, if a woman dresses up, goes home with a guy, wakes up the next morning thinking "that was a bad idea" then later reports it as rape there is a reasonable probability she was not suddenly dragged into a dark alley, knocked out and physically violated. More likely, she advertised for attention, was given some, accepted a guy's advances, went home with him consensually and then the next morning thought "am I glad I did that? Not really, oh, so it must have been rape". People have trouble finding the woman completely innocent of blame when they observe women advertising their sexual availability (again, drinking, dressing up, flirting) and it ending in sex. I think you're probably actually a rapist. No hyperbole. Based on your expression of your opinions I find it likely that you have, at some time, decided that a woman who was wearing something too revealing or drank a little too much had consented even though she said no or was unable to consent due to drugs.
What I am is someone who doesn't find it totally outrageous that a MINORITY of the UK population finds a woman PARTIALLY responsible for sexual activity she later reported as rape, under circumstances which indicate she was advertising for sexual attention and POSSIBLY was just regretting her actions.
Now I'm being accused of being a rapist, which is not the case, and see that the opportunity for reasonable discussion has reached its end. I'm done, have a nice day everyone.
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:46 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:36 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:31 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 23:23 NicolBolas wrote:On May 02 2013 23:04 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 22:56 Darkwhite wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet.
About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html I will look for more serious sources, because the daily mail is a rather horrific source... however women should never be blamed for being the victim of rape. Just like men should never be blamed for being the victim of stabbing, even if they have worked up a ten thousand dollar debt to a drug dealer and is telling him to suck it when he shows up armed at his door. It would be naïve to assign any sort of responsibility to the victim. Stabbing seems to be categorically the wrong solution there. Rape seems to be the categorical wrong solution to any possible situation I can think of. You arguing otherwise is rather scary. And I am using the normal definition of rape here, that someone is forced to perform sexual acts against their will. Name one situation where that is even remotely acceptable. Not only is he arguing that rape is the fault of the victim in some cases he's also using drug dealing loan sharks as the moral benchmark for judging all men. If drug dealing loan sharks think it's okay to stab people then logically that makes rape okay... somehow. Alternatively it's wrong to stab people, and to rape people. One would think that would go without saying. Yet somehow, on the Internet, it needs to be said. On May 02 2013 23:11 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:59 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:44 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:42 NDDseer wrote:Yeah, well about 25% of rape accusations are false. Funny how that works out. Note "They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz2S8u0MWPX" That doesn't address the point at all. KwarK is talking about cases where everyone agrees there has been rape, but still the victim is blamed. There might be a high number of false accusations, but that is a different topic. Have you actually checked out the stats in the link? If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman failed to say "no" clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible. If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible. If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html#ixzz2S8v4cB3t Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it. Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this) With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. What you have done here is create a hypothetical in which rape didn't happen and used it to disprove rape as a concept. Unfortunately logic took a pretty severe hit in the process. You're right, if no rape took place then no rape took place. However if the women says "no" when asked if she would like to have sex then the fact that she was wearing sexy clothing does not make her refusal to consent ambiguous. If the woman says "no" when asked if she wants to have sex, is forced to have sex but has many sexual partners then 14% of people think she was partially to blame. It's that simple. Well rape is reported by the woman, after the fact, right? So if it's actually NOT a rape, but the woman later regrets it and reports it OK, stop right there. Now you're just changing the debate into something else. Namely, the commonly trotted out "false rape accusation". Oh, it certainly happens. But so do false murder accusations, false theft accusations, etc. That's why we have a criminal justice system to sort out the false accusations from the true ones. And generally speaking, false rape accusations aren't due to "regret"; they're due to malice. If a person falsely reports rape, odds are very good that it's because that person wants to hurt the other one. On May 02 2013 23:11 NDDseer wrote:
and the guy gets convicted, it gets reported as "well the woman was raped, it definitely wasn't a regret case". The guy can't say "we didn't have sex", cos they did, consensually. However, the statistics show about 30% of people believe that there is probably quite a bit of "regret" going on in there, which is partially or totally the woman's responsibility in cases where indicators of likely consensual promiscuity such as drinking, dressing up, flirting exist. The fact that 30% of people believe something does not make it true. Indeed, the fact that 30% of people believe that a lot of rape accusations are both false and due to "regret" only shows that there are a lot of fucking stupid people out there. The fact that "people" might blame the woman for being raped if she was wearing skimpy clothing does not justify raping women!The existence of stupidity does not change reality. How much experience do you have with the interactions of adult men and women? Gotta say, your tag being named after a MTG card is not strong evidence in your favour. Let me drop a knowledge bomb on you, women don't dress up in skimpy clothing to impress their female friends, they do it to impress men and try attract suitors. Everyone else is aware of this fact. Hence, if a woman dresses up, goes home with a guy, wakes up the next morning thinking "that was a bad idea" then later reports it as rape there is a reasonable probability she was not suddenly dragged into a dark alley, knocked out and physically violated. More likely, she advertised for attention, was given some, accepted a guy's advances, went home with him consensually and then the next morning thought "am I glad I did that? Not really, oh, so it must have been rape". People have trouble finding the woman completely innocent of blame when they observe women advertising their sexual availability (again, drinking, dressing up, flirting) and it ending in sex. I think you're probably actually a rapist. No hyperbole. Based on your expression of your opinions I find it likely that you have, at some time, decided that a woman who was wearing something too revealing or drank a little too much had consented even though she said no or was unable to consent due to drugs. What I am is someone who doesn't find it totally outrageous that a MINORITY of the UK population finds a woman PARTIALLY responsible for sexual activity she later reported as rape, under circumstances which indicate she was advertising for sexual attention and POSSIBLY was just regretting her actions. Now I'm being accused of being a rapist, which is not the case, and see that the opportunity for reasonable discussion has reached its end. I'm done, have a nice day everyone.
Not what the survey said. Didn't say a rape accusation. Said a rape. How are you not getting this?
|
Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote:
Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion.
|
On May 02 2013 23:45 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 19:10 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:03 ven wrote:
People on the internet being assholes is news to anyone? Give me a break. This is diffrent... this kind of "assholeism" is called "sexism" and for some reason is seen as worse. /yawn. Probably not something good to reveal on the internet, but I am a pretty big sexist. Weather I was raised this way or however I ended up like this I just don't think it's wrong to be. A lot of it is in a persons culture and how they are raised, their social environment works. Hell I started dating my wife by asking her to make me sandwiches.
I would interject by saying that asking a woman to make you a sandwich is not inherently sexist. It's sexist to think that she is obligated by her sex to do it. It's not sexist to have a dating preference for women who make sandwiches.
|
On May 02 2013 23:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote:
Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
Whos fault was it that he got black out drunk?
|
On May 02 2013 23:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'll say that no woman is responsible for being raped. However, a woman is responsible for her own safety. When she is raped, it's not her fault as in she shouldn't be blamed at all for it and the POS that did it should have his goddamn balls cut off with a rusty, dull knife. But that doesn't mean I can't say that she shouldn't have gotten black-out drunk, shouldn't have gone home with that guy, and shouldn't have been wearing those clothes in that area at that time. I can't be blamed for getting my ass beat just for walking down the street. But that doesn't mean I should go walking down streets that I know are in the middle of gang-land USA. I shouldn't have my shoes stolen from me. But that doesn't mean I should get black-out drunk at a party. And if I do these things, than I should not be surprised that something bad happened.
I think a lot of people are dumb when they take surveys so they say: "Yeah, she is partly to blame" when they don't really mean it like that. Most of them (I hope) probably mean: "Why the fuck did she allow herself to be put in that situation? She wasn't being safe." rather than: "She put herself in that position so she deserves it." If they mean she deserves it, than they are fucking creeps and they need to be punched in the nutsack. If they think that she was dumb for putting herself in that position, and that the vulnerability was her fault, than they are just being realistic.
Now I understand that some women are straight-up raped with no reasonable ability to prevent it, and no amount of safety measures would have stopped it from happening. But a decent amount of rapes are able to occur because the woman has exposed herself. It's completely and totally unfair that I can pass out in public and probably will just be robbed at worst and never be raped. But that doesn't change the fact that a woman can, and should, take measures to keep herself out of harms way. Don't trust other people to take care of you when you are black-out drunk: even your friends. Don't go home with guys who aren't your boyfriend. Don't walk around in dark places alone. Make sure you always know who is around you and what they are doing. These are pretty simple things that can prevent you from becoming a victim. If you don't do these things, you are at fault for not securing your person. You are NOT at fault for someone taking advantage of your vulnerability.
TL;DR:
I think the 30% statistic is misleading and disheartening at the same time. It is disheartening and I agree that people are really stupid and sometimes confuse "she should have avoided that situation" with "the rapist is not to blame". However things like consuming alcohol, having sexual partners and wearing sexy clothes are things that women have a right to do and if we use them as weapons against women in the defence of rapists then we've made a really, really shitty society. Basically 30% of people think that women shouldn't have left the kitchen in the first place. Even if their hearts are in the right place and what they really just mean is be smart, they're fucking retarded.
Oh yeah those are totally within her rights and I would die to protect her right to do those things. This is a free country and a woman can do whatever the hell she wants with her body and everyone else should just butt out if they don't like it. And I think it's sickening to try to defend rapists using that rationale, which happens a lot more often than people want to admit: take these football-player cases in the news recently. The community treated the girl like she was at fault for being drunk and passing out. Fuck that! If it was a boy who had been raped after being passed out drunk by some football players, I think people would be waaaaaay less likely to pull the "It's the victim's fault because the victim is a slut and got drunk."
The 30% are being really stupid when they say it's her fault, and I think it does betray a little bit of sexism even in those of them who don't really mean it's her fault. They are "slut shaming". Now I'm pretty devout in my religious beliefs, and I think pre-marital sex is wrong; but I can't fucking stand the people who applaud a boy for sleeping with as many girls as possible and then turn around and call the girls they're sleeping with "sluts". I think that is what leads to a lot of these "It's kind of the girl's fault too" and "most rape accusations/convictions are based on regret, not actual assault" crap slingers. People still have the idea (whether they acknowledge it or not) that what is good for the man and what is good for the woman are completely different things. Me, personally, I think it's exactly the same. A girl having multiple sexual partners and a guy having multiple sexual partners is the same. Unfortunately, our society shames the girl and lionizes the boy. For a boy it's conquests and notches on his belt. For a girl it's slutty and loose. Thus, when a girl who is a "slut" accuses a boy of raping her, people let their personal bullshit sexism color their perceptions.
Either way it's all fucked up. Society still has a loooong way to go on this issue.
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:50 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:48 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote:
Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent. Whos fault was it that he got black out drunk?
His but that's not in any way relevant to whether someone else has the right to do things to him while he is blacked out.
|
On May 02 2013 23:38 Kickboxer wrote:
I never understood the whole "objectifying" thing. Our bodies are objects. You are your body plus your mind plus your spirit. You have an equal degree of control over your body than you have over your mind, and it defines who you are to the same extent your thoughts do. Some are born deficient and make up for it, others are given gifts and squander them. At any rate, no matter which way you turn it, your body is you. You are not simply the ethereal collection of your thoughts, you are also your body, an object.
Since sex has to do with the body a lot, it is normal to look at persons as objects in the context of sexuality. Unless you are genuinely turned on by smarts (yeah, right) this is just simple reality. Don't want to be "objectified"? Ok then, stop treating your body well, stop masquerading it, stop adorning it, just be ashamed of it and cover it up. There, you are now no longer an "object" and nobody views you in a sexual light. Mission accomplished. Thing is, if they didn't want to talk to you before, they sure won't want to talk to you now, either.
People put their breasts out, accent their ass, paint themselves in make-up and strut around in high heels and then complain of being "objectified". I'd sooner expect them to complain about being "intelectualized" to be honest. When a woman is attracted to me I couldn't care less if she sees me as an object. Of course I am an object, I am made of meat and bone and tendon and I've been working hard on those abs so they can offer her sensory pleasure. Sure, if I want a deep debate about meaningful issues and the person keeps talking about my ass it feels kind of awkward, but in the context of sex I will not be able to pleasure a woman with my interesting views on citizen's basic income or the Norwegian leatherworking industry so what's the point of forcing my character and intellect on her? And if she is genuinely interested, of course, I will gladly present them.
It's tantamount to coming to a debate, punching someone you disagree with in the face and then complaining you are being "intellectualized" when the security drags you out.
That's because you're misunderstanding the objectification issue.
It's not merely about being desired for their body.
It's when you can't even put a video of yourself online without someone saying "show me your boobs". Has any man put up a video of themselves playing a game or whatever and had people saying, "show me your dick"? When was the last time you saw people commenting on a video, clamoring for a man to wear more revealing or flattering clothes?
We're talking about the most basic interaction people have with a video online. If it's a video of a man, the commentary will be about the content of the video. If it features a woman, there will be a non-trivial amount of commentary asking her to wear something more revealing, discussing her breast size, and other crap like that.
That's objectification: when people completely ignore just about everything you're saying and focus entirely on you as a flesh bag. When you have to dress "correctly" in accord with some arbitrary construct lest you be called various things (whether "slut" or be told to "show your tits more" or whatever). And so forth.
This is simply not something that happens to men. If you think it is, trust me; it isn't. Not to the level that women get it.
|
On May 02 2013 23:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote:
Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent. If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion.
I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:58 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:48 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote:
Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent. If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion. I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It's a very grey area about the degree to which an individual is capable of granting consent under varying degrees of influence.
|
United States24558 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:58 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:48 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote:
Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent. If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion. I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal.
|
On May 02 2013 23:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:50 AnomalySC2 wrote:On May 02 2013 23:48 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote:
Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent. Whos fault was it that he got black out drunk? His but that's not in any way relevant to whether someone else has the right to do things to him while he is blacked out.
Sure it is. If you knowingly and willingly intoxicate yourself to the point where you lose control, then you have to share some of the blame. If I walked through Compton shouting "nigger" at the top of my lungs because I got drunk, I'd get stabbed or shot. My assailant would be a criminal who violated my rights, but no one would think twice to lay a portion of the blame on me. It's a harsh reality, but rights don't completely absolve anyone of blame in a situation. Rape is a serious crime no doubt, but to say that a woman who dresses in sexually provocative clothing and severely intoxicates herself is in no way faulted... that is complete and utter bullshit.
And yes, I have had this conversation with girls in real life, even one who claimed to be a rape victim.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 02 2013 23:55 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:38 Kickboxer wrote:
I never understood the whole "objectifying" thing. Our bodies are objects. You are your body plus your mind plus your spirit. You have an equal degree of control over your body than you have over your mind, and it defines who you are to the same extent your thoughts do. Some are born deficient and make up for it, others are given gifts and squander them. At any rate, no matter which way you turn it, your body is you. You are not simply the ethereal collection of your thoughts, you are also your body, an object.
Since sex has to do with the body a lot, it is normal to look at persons as objects in the context of sexuality. Unless you are genuinely turned on by smarts (yeah, right) this is just simple reality. Don't want to be "objectified"? Ok then, stop treating your body well, stop masquerading it, stop adorning it, just be ashamed of it and cover it up. There, you are now no longer an "object" and nobody views you in a sexual light. Mission accomplished. Thing is, if they didn't want to talk to you before, they sure won't want to talk to you now, either.
People put their breasts out, accent their ass, paint themselves in make-up and strut around in high heels and then complain of being "objectified". I'd sooner expect them to complain about being "intelectualized" to be honest. When a woman is attracted to me I couldn't care less if she sees me as an object. Of course I am an object, I am made of meat and bone and tendon and I've been working hard on those abs so they can offer her sensory pleasure. Sure, if I want a deep debate about meaningful issues and the person keeps talking about my ass it feels kind of awkward, but in the context of sex I will not be able to pleasure a woman with my interesting views on citizen's basic income or the Norwegian leatherworking industry so what's the point of forcing my character and intellect on her? And if she is genuinely interested, of course, I will gladly present them.
It's tantamount to coming to a debate, punching someone you disagree with in the face and then complaining you are being "intellectualized" when the security drags you out. That's because you're misunderstanding the objectification issue. It's not merely about being desired for their body. It's when you can't even put a video of yourself online without someone saying "show me your boobs". Has any man put up a video of themselves playing a game or whatever and had people saying, "show me your dick"? When was the last time you saw people commenting on a video, clamoring for a man to wear more revealing or flattering clothes? We're talking about the most basic interaction people have with a video online. If it's a video of a man, the commentary will be about the content of the video. If it features a woman, there will be a non-trivial amount of commentary asking her to wear something more revealing, discussing her breast size, and other crap like that. That's objectification: when people completely ignore just about everything you're saying and focus entirely on you as a flesh bag. When you have to dress "correctly" in accord with some arbitrary construct lest you be called various things (whether "slut" or be told to "show your tits more" or whatever). And so forth. This is simply not something that happens to men. If you think it is, trust me; it isn't. Not to the level that women get it.
Women's secondary sex characteristics are easier to objectify.
|
On May 03 2013 00:04 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:52 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:50 AnomalySC2 wrote:On May 02 2013 23:48 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote:
Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent. Whos fault was it that he got black out drunk? His but that's not in any way relevant to whether someone else has the right to do things to him while he is blacked out. Sure it is. If you knowingly and willingly intoxicate yourself to the point where you lose control, then you have to share some of the blame. If I walked through Compton shouting "nigger" at the top of my lungs because I got drunk, I'd get stabbed or shot. My assailant would be a criminal who violated my rights, but no one would think twice to lay a portion of the blame on me. It's a harsh reality, but rights don't completely absolve anyone of blame in a situation. Rape is a serious crime no doubt, but to say that a woman who dresses in sexually provocative clothing and severely intoxicates herself is in no way faulted... that is complete and utter bullshit. And yes, I have had this conversation with girls in real life, even one who claimed to be a rape victim.
Fault I think is the wrong word.
Sure in some circumstances it's most definitely irresponsible, but it's not her FAULT, she didn't invite it by choosing to get drunk or dress a certain way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1048
825
597
219
17
EPT
