News: Anti-rape female condom

14 Sep 2005

Quote by awol
A very interesting news item from News:
"A South African inventor unveiled a new anti- female condom that hooks onto an attacker's penis and aims to cut one of the highest rates of sexual assault in the world."
Please read the whole article here:
Do you guys think that the critics are right is saying that the "rapex" condom could escalate violence against women as it may enrage the attacker further?
Or do you think it's about time such a thing was invented?

It's erm, interesting. After reading the article, and grimacing when I studied the picture a few questions and thoughts came into my head.
It looks horrible, but if it were to stop one , fantastic. If a woman chooses to wear one of these things on a night out, well, it's proof that she's already considering her safety and that's a cool thing.
I can see women wearing one of these and after some time, be convinced that her safety cant be compromised and that's not a good thing.
Also, if a woman is a situation where she is under the hands of a (remembering that isn't a sexual act, its an act of violence) she may suffer more violence.
Then, there's .
I dunno, there are so many questions in my head and I guess they cant be answered, because everyone who has suffered has their own unique story. I suppose its up to the individual...

14 Sep 2005

Quote by naughtynymphos1
where did you get i was from newcastle from?

Oops! Wrong person! :lol: It's fluffer's one that says Newcastle! cool

Sorry!

14 Sep 2005

Quick congrats on those avoiding rows, I hate it when I get into 'well this what you said' and 'this is what I meant' arguements so good to see peeps avoiding them, mostly ;)
On the condom issue, is there not still companies who sell chastity belts? I have heard of some ladies owning these. Obviously some are for BDSM peeps, but I heard of ladies using them as an anti device. Again giving them control.
If anyone is looking for a new idea I suppose a series of leather trouser belts could be created with a lock. So if you were in jeans you could set things so only you can take them off? No risk of accidentally impaling the boyfriend, and much harder for the oppertunist if you were unlucky enough to meet one. (Yes I know about paramedic shears, but that takes time which increases chances to escape)
Best ever anti device I heard of was a small stink bomb. It clipped to your bra, a good hard smack would break it. It didn't just smell, it stank. The reporter who tested it said after it was let off all he wanted to do was go away and be sick.
However none of the antirape devices seem to last that long, suppose there is not the market in the UK where luckily your chances are reasonably low of being .

14 Sep 2005

Quote by barewolf
But even that implies that what women wear could put them into a potentially risky situation. Why describe the scenarios if they have no bearing on what you're saying?
Jas
XXX

I don't think it implies that at all. It certainly wasn't intended to. And when describing a scenario to someone the intention is to create an accurate picture of what I saw. The scenarios do have a bearing, and what the women were wearing is a minor point that may or may not have some relevance, which I would leave to the reader to decide.
And most decided that you did indeed mean the clothes to have some relevance. You must have felt it had relevance to in order to portray the accurate picture you were putting across to the readers
I think that some people here have latched on to something that has little relevance, blown my comments about the way these various women were dressed, way out of proportion, and it's distracting from the point I was making!
I don't think it was blown out of proportion because obviously several people felt the need to comment on what you had put.
I fully agree that there are things people can do to minimise becoming a victim of any crime.
However, I don't think it's realistic to think that women should change their style of clothes, or never go out alone in the dark and avoid every lonely place.
It's not possible, and frankly as an individual it annoys the hell out of me that people have to even think that way.
That's why I reacted to your post, it's horrible to think that the only way I can remain safe is to change who I am and what I do. It's restricting to me as an individual and I think a lot of women would agree.
Edit: I can't make this read how I want - it's not an attack at you but at the popular view of what we need to do in order to remain safe.
Jas
XXX

14 Sep 2005

I hadn't read this thread since it was on page 1, but some interesting points made in the last 4 pages. Without giving my identity away to all and sundry, I will simply say that my PhD was on attitudes towards and I have published several papers on the subject. Thus what follows is based on published research, not conjecture.
The majority of rapes (actually, all sexual assaults) are committed by someone the victim knows, often very well. "Official" figures on victim-perpetrator relationship are flawed cos victims are less likely to report rapes committed by a known person.... this is cos of societal myths that "real" is committed by strangers. People are more likely to believe is real if it is committed by a stranger and victims (being members of society) know this too.
Vctims by someone they know are more likely to be blamed for their assault, cos people think that they should have been able to see it coming, prevent it, or that they may have led the perpetrator on in some way. However, victims by strangers are also blamed in some circumstances. As has been discussed here, if a woman is whilst wearing provacative clothing, walking alone at night, etc etc, she is likely to be seen as a causal agent of the event. This implicitly blames her for being at the scene. Whether that blame is explicit or not, it is still holding her partly responsible. This detracts blame from the perpetrator. There are many cases of such variables being used in court to defend the perpetrator. Police "safety" messages perpetuate the myth that the victim is responsible, as do the popular media. This increases fear of crime amongst women, it also means that many victims do not report at all. Blaming victims however implicitly, means that thousands of rapists every year are not brought to justice, and means that many victims do not receive the support and help that they urgently need. Blaming victims, however implicitly, hinders their recovery. When someone has been a victim of even the most subtle blaming can contribute to further secondary victimisation.
Roughly 10% of victims are male. Men are also blamed for their , usually for different reasons than the ways women are blamed. Men tend to be blamed for not being able to fight off their attacker. Not fighting back may be seen as implicitly encouraging the . In fact, however 'ard someone is, traumatic events usually make people freeze and unable to fight, even if under less stressful situations, they could. One study of male victims (may or may not be my own research wink

) found that over 80% of the men in the study simply could not fight back. Saying that a "big strong guy" cannot be is simply untrue, and such myths serves to prevent such men from reporting cos they figure (rightly) that people may not believe them.
Selling anti- protection such as this 'ere tampon thing, in my view, is blinkered and simply a gimmick, cashing in on women's fear of . OK, if a woman is attacked whilst wearing one of these things she may stop herself being vaginally. However, it does not prevent anal or oral or any other sexual or physical assault that usually accompanies a sexual assault. Even if it does make the perpetrator stop in his tracks by hurting him, he has already penetrated, hence he has already .... so it is not actually protection at all! is penetration, however slight. Even a "slight" , or an attempted means years of coming to terms with it for the victim.... suffering, in other words. The only way to prevent is to catch the people that committ these acts. That means changing people's attitudes to make it easier for victims to come forward. There is no other answer.
Yes this is something I feel strongly about. Thank you for reading cool

14 Sep 2005

Quote by bluexxx
I hadn't read this thread since it was on page 1, but some interesting points made in the last 4 pages. Without giving my identity away to all and sundry, I will simply say that my PhD was on attitudes towards and I have published several papers on the subject. Thus what follows is based on published research, not conjecture.
The majority of rapes (actually, all sexual assaults) are committed by someone the victim knows, often very well. "Official" figures on victim-perpetrator relationship are flawed cos victims are less likely to report rapes committed by a known person.... this is cos of societal myths that "real" is committed by strangers. People are more likely to believe is real if it is committed by a stranger and victims (being members of society) know this too.
Vctims by someone they know are more likely to be blamed for their assault, cos people think that they should have been able to see it coming, prevent it, or that they may have led the perpetrator on in some way. However, victims by strangers are also blamed in some circumstances. As has been discussed here, if a woman is whilst wearing provacative clothing, walking alone at night, etc etc, she is likely to be seen as a causal agent of the event. This implicitly blames her for being at the scene. Whether that blame is explicit or not, it is still holding her partly responsible. This detracts blame from the perpetrator. There are many cases of such variables being used in court to defend the perpetrator. Police "safety" messages perpetuate the myth that the victim is responsible, as do the popular media. This increases fear of crime amongst women, it also means that many victims do not report at all. Blaming victims however implicitly, means that thousands of rapists every year are not brought to justice, and means that many victims do not receive the support and help that they urgently need. Blaming victims, however implicitly, hinders their recovery. When someone has been a victim of even the most subtle blaming can contribute to further secondary victimisation.
Roughly 10% of victims are male. Men are also blamed for their , usually for different reasons than the ways women are blamed. Men tend to be blamed for not being able to fight off their attacker. Not fighting back may be seen as implicitly encouraging the . In fact, however 'ard someone is, traumatic events usually make people freeze and unable to fight, even if under less stressful situations, they could. One study of male victims (may or may not be my own research ) found that over 80% of the men in the study simply could not fight back. Saying that a "big strong guy" cannot be is simply untrue, and such myths serves to prevent such men from reporting cos they figure (rightly) that people may not believe them.
Selling anti- protection such as this 'ere tampon thing, in my view, is blinkered and simply a gimmick, cashing in on women's fear of . OK, if a woman is attacked whilst wearing one of these things she may stop herself being vaginally. However, it does not prevent anal or oral or any other sexual or physical assault that usually accompanies a sexual assault. Even if it does make the perpetrator stop in his tracks by hurting him, he has already penetrated, hence he has already .... so it is not actually protection at all! is penetration, however slight. Even a "slight" , or an attempted means years of coming to terms with it for the victim.... suffering, in other words. The only way to prevent is to catch the people that committ these acts. That means changing people's attitudes to make it easier for victims to come forward. There is no other answer.
Yes this is something I feel strongly about. Thank you for reading

omg at last someone is talking sence,
i agree with everything you have said there, you have a much better way with words than i have, i could have never have put something together like that i usually just start ranting lol

14 Sep 2005

Quote by naughtynymphos1
omg at last someone is talking sence,
i agree with everything you have said there, you have a much better way with words than i have, i could have never have put something together like that i usually just start ranting

I could have said more... much more --- but I figured that not everyone would want to read a 50,000 word thesis on the subject.... I do have one though if anyone is interested

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

14 Sep 2005

Quote by bluexxx
I could have said more... much more --- but I figured that not everyone would want to read a 50,000 word thesis on the subject.... I do have one though if anyone is interested :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Great post :thumbup:
I would be interested in reading more like it.
Thx
H, red

14 Sep 2005

i m think a guy who is capable of , which is a power thing not a sex thing, who do serious damage to a victim who caused him pain in anyway

14 Sep 2005

Quote by bluexxx

omg at last someone is talking sence,
i agree with everything you have said there, you have a much better way with words than i have, i could have never have put something together like that i usually just start ranting

I could have said more... much more --- but I figured that not everyone would want to read a 50,000 word thesis on the subject.... I do have one though if anyone is interested

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
i'll send a pidgeon over can u send said item by retuen lol

14 Sep 2005

i can not believe that most of you would fight back, dont get me wrong i would fight back but if it was a hopeless case i would shut my eyes and try detach my self, i have a life and i would like to keep it!! if some one has a knife to you throat you detach, if he gonna kill you he will if he you dont push it . would not my grave stone to read " she fought back kids and husband think she died bravely.

14 Sep 2005

wait a sec DP.
I still think Tony Martin was right to do what he did.
he was protecting himself, and his home.
i still believe a woman has the right to protect heself.
even sparying and areosol can, in the face of her attacker.
but the laws in this country are inadequet.
for someone to protect themself, from attack, and then get get done themselves.
is rubbish. the person who went to attack someone, should not be able to charge, someone who attacks them back.

14 Sep 2005

Quote by etfcboy1971
wait a sec DP.
I still think Tony Martin was right to do what he did.
he was protecting himself, and his home.
i still believe a woman has the right to protect heself.
even sparying and areosol can, in the face of her attacker.
but the laws in this country are inadequet.
for someone to protect themself, from attack, and then get get done themselves.
is rubbish. the person who went to attack someone, should not be able to charge, someone who attacks them back.

Do you seriously think that it's reasonable to fire a deadly weapon at somebody who's leaving your premises when you're under no immediate danger from them?
The laws in this country are perfectly clear: you have the right to defend your person and property by using 'reasonable force'. Tony Martin was not defending either his person or his property, he went well over the line of what is acceptable and was quite justifiably convicted and imprisoned for it. We may not like burglars in this country, but I don't in all honesty believe that they deserve to be shot just for being a burglar.
If you actually look at countries where it is permissable to kill people for entering your property then you'll find a great many cases of people shooting their neighbours or family members by mistake, not a situation I'd want to happen in this country.
Sorry for the thread hijack, but I think it does have some relevance, albeit somewhat tangentially.

14 Sep 2005

as well bring back the chastity belt....

15 Sep 2005

Quote by Jas-Tim
And most decided that you did indeed mean the clothes to have some relevance. You must have felt it had relevance to in order to portray the accurate picture you were putting across to the readers
I don't think it was blown out of proportion because obviously several people felt the need to comment on what you had put.

Most? There were only a handful if that, and interestingly, the majority of those who jumped on the clothing issue, were women! Missing the point I was making and picking up on a relatively insignificant comment. Perhaps a demonstration of Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus? lol

Quote by Jas-Tim
[I fully agree that there are things people can do to minimise becoming a victim of any crime.
However, I don't think it's realistic to think that women should change their style of clothes, or never go out alone in the dark and avoid every lonely place.
It's not possible, and frankly as an individual it annoys the hell out of me that people have to even think that way.
That's why I reacted to your post, it's horrible to think that the only way I can remain safe is to change who I am and what I do. It's restricting to me as an individual and I think a lot of women would agree.
Edit: I can't make this read how I want - it's not an attack at you but at the popular view of what we need to do in order to remain safe.
Jas
XXX

I have never suggested and would not consider suggesting that women change the way they dress or who they are in order to stay safe. It's not what I said. Why are you still dwelling on it?
As for changing where you go, well, yes I imagine it is annoying to have to think like that, but that's life. However it is your choice, it was a suggestion not an order. Just as people can make a choice to avoid getting on underground trains, or buses in London, or to travel on them and risk getting blown up. It's annoying that we have to make that choice, but it is a choice people have to make because some maniacs choose to go around blowing people up.
Tim xxx

15 Sep 2005

Quote by bluexxx
I hadn't read this thread since it was on page 1, but some interesting points made in the last 4 pages. Without giving my identity away to all and sundry, I will simply say that my PhD was on attitudes towards and I have published several papers on the subject. Thus what follows is based on published research, not conjecture.
The majority of rapes (actually, all sexual assaults) are committed by someone the victim knows, often very well. "Official" figures on victim-perpetrator relationship are flawed cos victims are less likely to report rapes committed by a known person.... this is cos of societal myths that "real" is committed by strangers. People are more likely to believe is real if it is committed by a stranger and victims (being members of society) know this too.
Vctims by someone they know are more likely to be blamed for their assault, cos people think that they should have been able to see it coming, prevent it, or that they may have led the perpetrator on in some way. However, victims by strangers are also blamed in some circumstances. As has been discussed here, if a woman is whilst wearing provacative clothing, walking alone at night, etc etc, she is likely to be seen as a causal agent of the event. This implicitly blames her for being at the scene. Whether that blame is explicit or not, it is still holding her partly responsible. This detracts blame from the perpetrator. There are many cases of such variables being used in court to defend the perpetrator. Police "safety" messages perpetuate the myth that the victim is responsible, as do the popular media. This increases fear of crime amongst women, it also means that many victims do not report at all. Blaming victims however implicitly, means that thousands of rapists every year are not brought to justice, and means that many victims do not receive the support and help that they urgently need. Blaming victims, however implicitly, hinders their recovery. When someone has been a victim of even the most subtle blaming can contribute to further secondary victimisation.
Roughly 10% of victims are male. Men are also blamed for their , usually for different reasons than the ways women are blamed. Men tend to be blamed for not being able to fight off their attacker. Not fighting back may be seen as implicitly encouraging the . In fact, however 'ard someone is, traumatic events usually make people freeze and unable to fight, even if under less stressful situations, they could. One study of male victims (may or may not be my own research ) found that over 80% of the men in the study simply could not fight back. Saying that a "big strong guy" cannot be is simply untrue, and such myths serves to prevent such men from reporting cos they figure (rightly) that people may not believe them.
Selling anti- protection such as this 'ere tampon thing, in my view, is blinkered and simply a gimmick, cashing in on women's fear of . OK, if a woman is attacked whilst wearing one of these things she may stop herself being vaginally. However, it does not prevent anal or oral or any other sexual or physical assault that usually accompanies a sexual assault. Even if it does make the perpetrator stop in his tracks by hurting him, he has already penetrated, hence he has already .... so it is not actually protection at all! is penetration, however slight. Even a "slight" , or an attempted means years of coming to terms with it for the victim.... suffering, in other words. The only way to prevent is to catch the people that committ these acts. That means changing people's attitudes to make it easier for victims to come forward. There is no other answer.
Yes this is something I feel strongly about. Thank you for reading

That seems to agree with the two points I have made in this entire thread:
1) The condom thing won't work.
2) Women could be more careful where they go alone.
Still however, focussing on the clothing issue! rolleyes

15 Sep 2005

Quote by barewolf
remove the potential victim from the scene and there will be no victim!

You see the problem is sex offenders should not keep getting realised time after time, there was a case a few years back where a guy had been in prison 13 times b4 he got life for and murder of his 14th victim, now my question is why was he allowed back onto the street so many times b4 he got life? you say remove the victim i say remove the criminals, there was talk of this 3 strikes and your out sceme, in such cases of and child abuse that should be the case, surly after being in prison 2 time b4 its obvious these people are not going to change there way so when do you say enoughs enough? after 14 rapes and a murder?
I'm sure you mean well in what you are saying BW but in every posting you have put its been about the woman changing her ways, in the clothes she wears and the times she goes out, victims are indeed very offen blamed for their attack you only have to listen to the way they are treated in court to realise that, offen asked question about their sexual history and what they was wearing at the time, even bringing old sexual partner into court as caracter witnesses, what does it matter? does it matter if i have a 15 man gang bang every night of the week and chose to go out in a thong and thigh high books? does that mean some guy had more of a rights to me that a nun? no it does not!! so why do they ask you such questions? if the woman is not to blame why does it matter what she had on or how many men she had shagged in the past? and on occasion men who have women have walked free because they paint a black picture of her and say cause shes had many sexual partners in the past her word cannot be trusted, and b4 you say things like that do not happen believe me they do!

15 Sep 2005

Quote by barewolf
Most? There were only a handful if that, and interestingly, the majority of those who jumped on the clothing issue, were women! Missing the point I was making and picking up on a relatively insignificant comment. Perhaps a demonstration of Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus?

Or a demonstration of your inability to acknowledge that your posts did indeed infer that how women dress in some situations was relevant to your scenarios, and thus the point you were making.

Quote by barewolf
I have never suggested and would not consider suggesting that women change the way they dress or who they are in order to stay safe. It's not what I said. Why are you still dwelling on it?

As above, you felt the need to raise the clothing issue in order to illustrate your scenarios.
If they aren't relevant then why raise it originally . dunno

I am still dwelling on it becasue you won't give an answer to that.

Quote by barewolf
As for changing where you go, well, yes I imagine it is annoying to have to think like that, but that's life. However it is your choice, it was a suggestion not an order. Just as people can make a choice to avoid getting on underground trains, or buses in London, or to travel on them and risk getting blown up. It's annoying that we have to make that choice, but it is a choice people have to make because some maniacs choose to go around blowing people up.
Tim xxx

I never said you made an order, nobody has said that.
What I was doing, was trying to explain my feelings on the subject.
Jas
XXX

15 Sep 2005

Quote by barewolf
Considering the prevalence of serious attacks on women (and young girls) and the publicity it generates, it is surprising how many potential victims you see. In my local town is isn't uncommon, in fact it's very common, to see women, young women, walking along dark roads light at night dressed in very lttle. And while I don't think a girl's dress or lack of it is an excuse for someone to take advantage of, I think these girls are leaving themselves wide open to attack.

That a direct quote from you, saying 'in you opinion' they are potential victims cause they walk alone late at night with very little on, thus leaving themselves wide open for attack
so how can u say what i have quoted below, when u have quite clearly said that girl dressed in very little are leaving them selves open to attack?

Quote by barewolf
I have never suggested and would not consider suggesting that women change the way they dress or who they are in order to stay safe. It's not what I said. Why are you still dwelling on it?

15 Sep 2005

Quote by Jas-Tim
Or a demonstration of your inability to acknowledge that your posts did indeed infer that how women dress in some situations was relevant to your scenarios, and thus the point you were making.

I don't believe my posts did infer that, and I certainly didn't intend them to infer that. That's why I refuse to acknowledge that they did.

Quote by Jas-Tim
As above, you felt the need to raise the clothing issue in order to illustrate your scenarios.
If they aren't relevant then why raise it originally .
I am still dwelling on it becasue you won't give an answer to that.

I have answered that question, twice now!
First of all I didn't raise the clothing issue, someone else did after misinterpreting the purpose (a non-existent purpose) of me mentioning clothes!! I simply described a scenario or two and made passive comments about what girls were wearing. I didn't make a conscious decision to mention clothes for any particular reason! But why not mention them??? What is the problem?
Without suggesting that what a women wears will cause her to be , as you have brought the subject up, I think there is a slight relevance in that certain clothing will make a women stand out more, therefore drawing attention to her. I've seen people walking along roads late at night and sometimes you can't tell whether it's male or female. If from her mode of dress it is obviously a girl / woman, that may well contribute to a noticing her. But that isn't 'blaming' the clothes for the act! Oh and another thing, I don't subscribe to the myth that rapes are not sexually motivated... there must be sexual arousal (for obvious reasons)... so sexual motivation must be a factor!

15 Sep 2005

I'll refer you to NN posts above
Jas
XXX

15 Sep 2005

Quote by barewolf
Wouldn't it be better where possible for women to be sensible and not put themselves at risk of in the first place?
Considering the prevalence of serious attacks on women (and young girls) and the publicity it generates, it is surprising how many potential victims you see. In my local town is isn't uncommon, in fact it's very common, to see women, young women, walking along dark roads light at night dressed in very lttle. And while I don't think a girl's dress or lack of it is an excuse for someone to take advantage of, I think these girls are leaving themselves wide open to attack.
I travel around the country a lot with my work, and I see this everywhere! Only a few days ago I was on my way home at about at night, and passed two girls of about 16 years old (a guess btw), walking along an unlit country lane, both wear wearing very short skirts and skimpy tops!Once, a couple of years ago, again late at night, I was passing through a large Cheshire village and had to swerve to avoid a girl who was walking along the pavement, going in the same direction as me, she had staggered into the road as she was drunk, very drunk! This girl in perhaps her late teens was again wearing a very short skirt and a pretty revealing top, and she was pretty attractive. Having overtaken her, it suddenly crossed my mind that she was walking out of the village towards open countryside! So then I thought, "shall I go back and see if she would like a lift?"... so then for a minute or two I had a mental battle of concience versus, well, what do you call it, dilemma? Think about it... 46 year old man stopping and trying to pick up a young girl, how does that look? Then I thought, "how would you feel if you picked up the paper tomorrow and read that a girl had been or murdered??"... So, in the end I turned around and went back, stopped and asked if I could give her a lift somewhere. Now the other thing here is, how the hell does she know I'm safe? She doesn't, but, she got in my car and I took her to another twon about 6 miles away and droped her near some houses where she said she lived, and waited while she went in. On the way she told me she'd had a row with her boyfriend and he'd dumped her and left her to make her own way home. Like I said, she was quite drunk, her tits were falling out of her top (and I mean that literally, they were uncovered)... which I pointed out to her so she could cover up, and her skirt was so short you could see her knickers (not there was a lot of them!). My conscience was clear because I had no intention of touching her inappropriately, and to the best of my knowledge I delivered her safely home. But ti made me think about how with another man the situation could have turned out very different!
I'm not trying to say that women are to blame for being , but surely some could be a bit more careful?

15 Sep 2005

Quote by da69ve
Wouldn't it be better where possible for women to be sensible and not put themselves at risk of in the first place?
I'm not trying to say that women are to blame for being , but surely some could be a bit more careful?

And that is the only part that was relevant! rolleyes

15 Sep 2005

There's those that know, those that don't know, and those that don't know they don't know.

15 Sep 2005

Quote by barewolf
Wouldn't it be better where possible for women to be sensible and not put themselves at risk of in the first place?
I'm not trying to say that women are to blame for being , but surely some could be a bit more careful?

And that is the only part that was relevant! rolleyes

So why say the rest dunno

What you write is what others read, or are we to assume that when you spend time forming a response to a threaad we can ignore the bulk of what you post as it has no relevance.
Jas
XXX

15 Sep 2005

Quote by Jas-Tim
I'll refer you to NN posts above
Jas
XXX

You mean the one where she omits to highlight this particular sentence: "And while I don't think a girl's dress or lack of it is an excuse for someone to take advantage"???
You can all go on about it as much as you like, I'm making no excuses for mentioning the girls outfits. They are still not relevant! My only pint is and I repeat, women could be more sensible and not walk alone at night!
I'm not wasting any more time on this, I've given my answers to why I mentioned clothing and I've clarified my reasons for it. If non of you can accept that it's your problem not mine!
I'm now leaving for one of the race tracks and I'm away for the next three days with more important things to do than take part in petty arguments over what a few words I posted did or didn't mean. As I said, if you can't accept my explanation of how I the writer interpret what I meant by them, it's your problem!

15 Sep 2005

No, it's actually your problem as the writer, because it shows that you aren't communicating effectively with others.
As you are wasting no more of your time on this then I guess that means I get last word :P :P
lol

:lol: :lol: Oh I love being childish :lol: :lol:
Edit: My apologies to the others for this getting off track.
Jas
XXX

15 Sep 2005

i for one didn't feel that anyone was having arguments

15 Sep 2005

Quote by naughtynymphos1
i for one didn't feel that anyone was having arguments

I thought it was a valid discussion!

15 Sep 2005

Quote by barewolf
I hadn't read this thread since it was on page 1, but some interesting points made in the last 4 pages. Without giving my identity away to all and sundry, I will simply say that my PhD was on attitudes towards and I have published several papers on the subject. Thus what follows is based on published research, not conjecture.
The majority of rapes (actually, all sexual assaults) are committed by someone the victim knows, often very well. "Official" figures on victim-perpetrator relationship are flawed cos victims are less likely to report rapes committed by a known person.... this is cos of societal myths that "real" is committed by strangers. People are more likely to believe is real if it is committed by a stranger and victims (being members of society) know this too.
Vctims by someone they know are more likely to be blamed for their assault, cos people think that they should have been able to see it coming, prevent it, or that they may have led the perpetrator on in some way. However, victims by strangers are also blamed in some circumstances. As has been discussed here, if a woman is whilst wearing provacative clothing, walking alone at night, etc etc, she is likely to be seen as a causal agent of the event. This implicitly blames her for being at the scene. Whether that blame is explicit or not, it is still holding her partly responsible. This detracts blame from the perpetrator. There are many cases of such variables being used in court to defend the perpetrator. Police "safety" messages perpetuate the myth that the victim is responsible, as do the popular media. This increases fear of crime amongst women, it also means that many victims do not report at all. Blaming victims however implicitly, means that thousands of rapists every year are not brought to justice, and means that many victims do not receive the support and help that they urgently need. Blaming victims, however implicitly, hinders their recovery. When someone has been a victim of even the most subtle blaming can contribute to further secondary victimisation.
Roughly 10% of victims are male. Men are also blamed for their , usually for different reasons than the ways women are blamed. Men tend to be blamed for not being able to fight off their attacker. Not fighting back may be seen as implicitly encouraging the . In fact, however 'ard someone is, traumatic events usually make people freeze and unable to fight, even if under less stressful situations, they could. One study of male victims (may or may not be my own research ) found that over 80% of the men in the study simply could not fight back. Saying that a "big strong guy" cannot be is simply untrue, and such myths serves to prevent such men from reporting cos they figure (rightly) that people may not believe them.
Selling anti- protection such as this 'ere tampon thing, in my view, is blinkered and simply a gimmick, cashing in on women's fear of . OK, if a woman is attacked whilst wearing one of these things she may stop herself being vaginally. However, it does not prevent anal or oral or any other sexual or physical assault that usually accompanies a sexual assault. Even if it does make the perpetrator stop in his tracks by hurting him, he has already penetrated, hence he has already .... so it is not actually protection at all! is penetration, however slight. Even a "slight" , or an attempted means years of coming to terms with it for the victim.... suffering, in other words. The only way to prevent is to catch the people that committ these acts. That means changing people's attitudes to make it easier for victims to come forward. There is no other answer.
Yes this is something I feel strongly about. Thank you for reading

I don't agree that Police safety messages (or anyone's safety messages) perpetuate a myth that the victim is to blame. There is no doubt whatsoever that the victim is never to blame, but that doesn't mean women shouldn't be advised to take precuations to prevent themselves becoming a victim!
Out of interest, is bluexxx male or female?
Incidentally, I don't have a PhD, but to give you an insight into the way I think and why, I qualify for MENSA (but choose not to join) with a genius level IQ (independently tested) of the 'logical-mathematical' type (same type as Einstein). Perhaps this is why I look at the problem and come up with the simplistic solution of, remove the potential victim from the scene and there will be no victim! There's nothing more sinister to my thinking than that!
Yes I agree the condom thing won't work, but if you think I agree with you on the clothing issue I suggest that you go back and read my post again. I don't give a toss whether or not you qualify for MENSA (IQ tests are shite anyway :roll: ), your opinions on are misguided and serve to perpetuate the myth that victims are to blame for their . This takes blame off the perpetrator -- simple as.... these attitudes prevent justice --- simple as... they cause suffering, often for years --- simple as. They are BAD, with a big fat capital B.
In saying that people SHOULD be more careful where they go and what they wear in order not to be , you ARE blaming the victim and sending the message across to anyone reading this who has EVER been sexually assaulted that they played a part in the their assault.....they start to doubt themselves.... "was it something I did that made him do it to me", blah blah, blah....they start to question everything they do and the places they go. They are not free any more to be themselves and to live a free life. They suffer for something that someone else did.... THEY are NOT to blame mad

:x :x Think about it, eh..... you say you are a logical chap..... work this one out.... You say that women should remove themselves from anywhere they may well be .... as most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows, you're actually saying that women cannot go anywhere with anyone.... just in case, like..... Now, that's not REALLY what you're saying is it.....????
No-one is a victim until they become one..... there is only one person responsible for , and that is the perpetrator..... if there were no perpetrators there would be no ....... so, what's the answer...? Your logic would say remove men from any situation where they MIGHT ...... but that does sound rather silly doesn't it...? But it IS what you're actually saying....... :roll:
Logical.....? No, mate..... you're not, you have an attitude that is a problem, a BIG one.... I suggest you deal with it before people get REALLY offended.
Whether I am male or female is irrelevant.... or are you sexist as well....? Actually, negative attitudes towards correlate very highly with sexist attitudes, so I have just answered my own question there.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
evil