Shouldn't it be a combination of both? Punish anyone who actually does break the law, which I don't think anyone has an issue with, and educate people on how to be safe and to avoid compromising situations. That seems like the common sense thing to do, so it is probably the opposite of what the majority thinks.The point is not whether or not these women were raped - we do not have the evidence. The point is these alleged safety officers are telling women they are interested more in "educating" rather than "punishing" the rapist. They are of the mindset that women deserve to get raped and can expect it to happen if they go out and get drunk. I ask again: what other crimes can drunk people expect; or put another way, If I come across someone who is drunk, can I go ahead and mug him? Kill him? Then have the police tell his next of kin that he deserved it for having a few drinks?
Heaven forbid your sister or daughter ever gets raped and one of these guys is the "safety" officer on duty.
This just in. Turns out Gloria Allred is representing those "sexual assault" victims whose plight has made you-know-who's nipples hard. Apart from a confession that the whole episode is a hoax, I can't imagine anything that would diminish the credibility of the ladies more. Here's a little clip from Gloria's hall of fame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRQjw4ycPTE
Shouldn't it be a combination of both? Punish anyone who actually does break the law, which I don't think anyone has an issue with, and educate people on how to be safe and to avoid compromising situations. That seems like the common sense thing to do, so it is probably the opposite of what the majority thinks.
Shouldn't it be a combination of both? Punish anyone who actually does break the law, which I don't think anyone has an issue with, and educate people on how to be safe and to avoid compromising situations. That seems like the common sense thing to do, so it is probably the opposite of what the majority thinks.
Shouldn't it be a combination of both? Punish anyone who actually does break the law, which I don't think anyone has an issue with, and educate people on how to be safe and to avoid compromising situations. That seems like the common sense thing to do, so it is probably the opposite of what the majority thinks.
Education before the fact is fine. One rapist was sent a letter, completed his education and graduated from USC. Never got tried or even arrested. I think once the rapist has actually committed the crime it is a little too late to "educate" them.
You apparently missed the part where I said that we should PUNISH those who actually broke the law. If you're calling them a rapist, they, by DEFINITION, broke the law, and I'd be 100% for punishing them. The education part has to be BEFORE any rape, because after a rape, someone needs to be punished.Education before the fact is fine. One rapist was sent a letter, completed his education and graduated from USC. Never got tried or even arrested. I think once the rapist has actually committed the crime it is a little too late to "educate" them.
ETA: but tell me more about this newfound interest in providing education to criminals. I've been under the impression that most conservatives thought the only thing a convict needed was a cell and three substandard meals per day. I would be highly interested to hear about this education plan for criminals.
You didn't read what bigblue_dl wrote. Instead, you're dodging the point that both he and I are trying to make by bringing back your rhetoric.
Yes I did. I even replied in the first line of what I wrote. I then gave an example of this "education" after the fact. I could be wrong certainly, but I don't surmise this is what bb_dl has in mind.
Well, yes, I this too. And I don't want this to be confused with the asinine statements that some people say like "she deserves to get raped for dressing like that", that is not what we're trying say. No one deserves to be raped, obviously. With that said, there are ****ed up people out there, and girls dressing provocatively could potentially be a trigger. I don't have any problem with girls dressing provocatively, that is their right, and they should be able to do this without being worried about being raped. The education part should come in where girls should be taught that if they're going out stay with friends, avoid specific situations that could be dangerous and they should be aware of signals to look for that might represent danger.One point that both of us are making, though, that may not be so apparent to you, is that we're looking to focus education towards potential victims in order to prevent them being caught in compromising situations so they don't need mommy and daddy government to bail them out. Every crime, especially person-on-person, has two sides. Sure, we can look towards rapists until we're blue in the face (recall the bee and hive analogy from earlier), but perhaps it would be more prudent to look at the problem from the other side: How can we avoid the compromising situation in the first place? Obviously things do happen sometimes, so don't let the ends justify the means.
Well, yes, I this too. And I don't want this to be confused with the asinine statements that some people say like "she deserves to get raped for dressing like that", that is not what we're trying say. No one deserves to be raped, obviously. With that said, there are ****ed up people out there, and girls dressing provocatively could potentially be a trigger. I don't have any problem with girls dressing provocatively, that is their right, and they should be able to do this without being worried about being raped. The education part should come in where girls should be taught that if they're going out stay with friends, avoid specific situations that could be dangerous and they should be aware of signals to look for that might represent danger.
I really don't think whether or not gay marriages are legal will have any effect on the homosexual rape rate.One thing I also don't like with this topic is the sexist stereotype that men do the raping and women are the victims. It does happen the other way around (and most of the time goes unpunished because of sexism), and with the advent of civil unions, we will start seeing it much more between the same genders as well.
Do you honestly think that rapes only occur between married people? Or is there an equally baffling middle step to this illogical conclusion that I'm missing?with the advent of civil unions, we will start seeing it much more between the same genders as well.
Do you honestly think that rapes only occur between married people? Or is there an equally baffling middle step to this illogical conclusion that I'm missing?
Can't agree on this one.With civil unions now being allowed, we will see more homosexual relationships forming, hence the higher possibility of rape.
While not as common as a man raping a woman, I think it's more common than people think. The trouble is that men don't typically report being raped by a woman (or at all) because of the social stigma attached.I really don't think whether or not gay marriages are legal will have any effect on the homosexual rape rate.
And yes, it does happen the other way around, women can rape men, but I don't think it nearly as common as the other way around. Low-hanging fruit argument.
Are you under the impression that rape only happens in a relationship?With civil unions now being allowed, we will see more homosexual relationships forming, hence the higher possibility of rape.
While not as common as a man raping a woman, I think it's more common than people think. The trouble is that men don't typically report being raped by a woman (or at all) because of the social stigma attached.
Are you under the impression that rape only happens in a relationship?
Rape has very little, if anything, to do with sex. Most of the time it's about power, not getting laid.No, but also in the searching of a relationship.