Irish woman gang raped by 6 men in Czech hotel

13-04-2018 11:08AM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Again ignoring that women are more at risk from men they know. To follow your logic, women shouldn't get drunk at all around men. And they shouldn't have casual sex at all. If they do and it goes wrong they won't be blamed, just judged to be "irresponsible". It's really victim blaming by the back door: "oh I don't blame you, I've just judged you to be an irresponsible person".

Actually, no, that's your logic. That women should just cut out the behavior completely. I have repeatedly stated that I consider that women should take reasonable precautions when doing any of these things.

The examples often used are where a woman gets hammered drunk in a bar alone. That's very risky, whereas getting drunk with friends can cut out most of the risks involved. Going home with a stranger for casual sex is risky, whereas dating for a few weeks before doing so, cuts down the risks, because you have time to determine some of their character.

You want a black and white scenario. A completely safe or unsafe situations. Its not going to happen. There is risk in everything we do. And For women, that risk is higher. Taking some precautions can lower the risk but the risks will always be there.

And I'm not ignoring the statistics point that a rape or sexual assault more often comes from someone you know... But playing with strangers is still more risky than dating someone you've come to know over time.

But the risks of being raped from casual sex with a stranger are low. The risk that 5 of his friends will join him are vanishingly low.

And yet, that's what happened in the case of the original article. The OP was about casual sex with a stranger.

And yes, men and women should consider risks when doing various social and sexual activities. And when they choose to do a low risk behaviour and someone else victimizes them they shouldn't be judged to be irresponsible (or victim blamed).

And I do agree, within certain boundaries. Sometimes people engage in behavior that is obviously dangerous and risky, and they should be told they were idiots. I can't agree with this completely blameless 'victim pass' for women, because it encourages people to ignore the risks and do what they want regardless of the likely consequences.

13-04-2018 11:12AM

irishrebe wrote: »

I think some people just feel the need to victim blame someone who has been very unlucky so they can convince themselves that the victim was an irresponsible idiot and that the same could never happen to them.

But the victim isn't being told she was irresponsible or an idiot. She's not being told these things after the fact. This thread has people talking about her behavior, and talking about women in general. Apparently, that's victim blaming too.

Instead, the people who read this thread are been told about it, and they can choose whether to be more careful in their lives, or simply believe that going back to a room with a stranger is perfectly safe.

LLMMLL · 13-04-2018 01:38PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Actually, no, that's your logic. That women should just cut out the behavior completely. I have repeatedly stated that I consider that women should take reasonable precautions when doing any of these things.

The examples often used are where a woman gets hammered drunk in a bar alone. That's very risky, whereas getting drunk with friends can cut out most of the risks involved. Going home with a stranger for casual sex is risky, whereas dating for a few weeks before doing so, cuts down the risks, because you have time to determine some of their character.

You want a black and white scenario. A completely safe or unsafe situations. Its not going to happen. There is risk in everything we do. And For women, that risk is higher. Taking some precautions can lower the risk but the risks will always be there.

No I do not want a black and white scenario. I'm simply pointing out that your attitude leads to a woman being blamed (sorry, found to be irresponsible) regardless of what she does. That does lead to cutting out behaviour completely unless she wants to end up the subject of a boards thread with you saying she was irresponsible.

Really for the last time, nobody is saying any situation is completely safe. Stepping outside your door is not completely safe. Staying in bed is not completely safe. Nobody is saying that and nobody is saying that will ever be the case. Still not sure why you keep bringing that up.

But it's very easy after the fact to point out how the woman "did not take the correct precautions". So a woman who gets raped by a stranger shouldn't have gone home with him. A woman who went on some dates first clearly didn't go on enough dates. Ten dates isnt enough to assess the risk. How do we know? Because this woman went on ten dates and got raped.

So again, women should not be chastised for taking low risks if that risk happens to lead to victimization. Their "responsibility" should not be discussed.

And I'm not ignoring the statistics point that a rape or sexual assault more often comes from someone you know... But playing with strangers is still more risky than dating someone you've come to know over time.

You actually have completely ignored that point multiple times and all the points about other low risk behaviours that people engage in and never get blamed for.

And yet, that's what happened in the case of the original article. The OP was about casual sex with a stranger.

Again ignoring that behaviour is low risk. This thread is about ONE incident. A horrible incident. Could you guess an estimate for the percentage of women who get gang raped on a one night stand?

And I do agree, within certain boundaries. Sometimes people engage in behavior that is obviously dangerous and risky, and they should be told they were idiots. I can't agree with this completely blameless 'victim pass' for women, because it encourages people to ignore the risks and do what they want regardless of the likely consequences.

So after all those posts saying you're not victim blaming we get to the crux of it. You are literally victim blaming. You want there to be more victim blaming.

13-04-2018 03:34PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I do not want a black and white scenario. I'm simply pointing out that your attitude leads to a woman being blamed (sorry, found to be irresponsible) regardless of what she does.

And back to this again. It doesn't matter what type of criticism is leveled against her for her behavior, or the type of behavior, she is being 'blamed' regardless of what she does. I have repeatedly pointed out the expectation of reasonable precautions when engaging in behavior that carries risk, and you repeatedly come back to this being blamed perspective.

That does lead to cutting out behaviour completely unless she wants to end up the subject of a boards thread with you saying she was irresponsible.

Well, no. It leads to reducing the risk of being raped or assaulted. I daresay being commented on by me isn't too bad compared with that. I notice your own involvement in commenting on her situation clearly isn't an issue. :rolleyes:

Really for the last time, nobody is saying any situation is completely safe. Stepping outside your door is not completely safe. Staying in bed is not completely safe. Nobody is saying that and nobody is saying that will ever be the case. Still not sure why you keep bringing that up.

Because you object so strongly to the idea of taking precautions. You revert to any such suggestion as being victim blaming and therefore should not be mentioned. Once you remove a topic from conversation, you are giving tacit approval for that kind of behavior.

Getting drunk alone, or going back to a strangers hotel room are not safe acts. If you can't take reasonably decent precautions in doing so, then don't engage in that behavior, and find something safer to do.

But it's very easy after the fact to point out how the woman "did not take the correct precautions". So a woman who gets raped by a stranger shouldn't have gone home with him. A woman who went on some dates first clearly didn't go on enough dates. Ten dates isnt enough to assess the risk.

Well.... Since I'm not communicating with the victim, but to people here on boards, then I'm pointing these things out before the incident occurs. So, you also could stop rehashing the same objection of commenting after the fact, which has been addressed many times already.

Dating reduces the risk. It's really that simple. It doesn't remove the risks. It simply reduces them. Far better than heading off with a stranger you know very little about, and had no time in which to gauge them as a person.

How do we know? Because this woman went on ten dates and got raped.

The article in the OP refers to a casual encounter. If you're talking about your own experience, then... how do we know anything about it?

So again, women should not be chastised for taking low risks if that risk happens to lead to victimization. Their "responsibility" should not be discussed.

You have a strange idea of what is low risk for women.

I'd imagine going to an unknown Algerian males room for sex and then refusing to have sex as being reasonably high risk. Their culture is dismissive of women, and has strong beliefs about how women should behave in regards to men. Especially when it comes to casual sex, and their own perceptions about the "liberty" of western women.

Their responsibility should be discussed to raise awareness of the dangers of such behavior. Then, other people can make an informed decision to ignore the dangers if they wish.

You actually have completely ignored that point multiple times and all the points about other low risk behaviours that people engage in and never get blamed for.

Because you keep using unrelated examples. Driving a car? Whoop-tie do. Taking an airplane? nah. Getting out of bed? Use examples that relate to the discussion in hand.

Dating. Yup. There's a solid example. Casual sex/ONS, solid examples.

Again ignoring that behaviour is low risk. This thread is about ONE incident. A horrible incident. Could you guess an estimate for the percentage of women who get gang raped on a one night stand?

Nope. Can you?

So after all those posts saying you're not victim blaming we get to the crux of it. You are literally victim blaming. You want there to be more victim blaming.

Funny. Typical attitude. Victim blaming regardless of what is said. To reiterate:

- The person who commits the assault/rape is to blame.

- The victim is responsible for taking reasonable precautions to prevent it from happening.

- If it happens regardless of taking those precautions, then no criticism should be leveled at her.

- If it happens without taking precautions, then it's worth identifying why, and what she could have done to reduce to risk to her. It's not about assigning blame... because the blame is already firmly pointed at the perpetrator.

You seem to have issues understanding my stance on the topic. Here's an opinion piece:

"Personal responsibility is a mindset and if you take it seriously, you have done all that you can, pre-event. After this, the thin red line is drawn and of course, there is no blame to sit at the feet of victims."

Maybe their words will deliver the message better than I have. And since we're not communicating to the victim, and discussing an event that has already occurred (the OP article), we're talking about prevention.

LLMMLL · 13-04-2018 04:37PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And back to this again. It doesn't matter what type of criticism is leveled against her for her behavior, or the type of behavior, she is being 'blamed' regardless of what she does. I have repeatedly pointed out the expectation of reasonable precautions when engaging in behavior that carries risk, and you repeatedly come back to this being blamed perspective.

Because your reasonable precautions aren't all that reasonable. The only precaution you'll accept is not having sex with a stranger. Why should you get to "expect" a woman shouldn't do this? Especially when it's a low risk behaviour.

Well, no. It leads to reducing the risk of being raped or assaulted. I daresay being commented on by me isn't too bad compared with that. I notice your own involvement in commenting on her situation clearly isn't an issue. :rolleyes:

Yes it leads to a reduced risk "by cutting out the behaviour". I don't know why you said no in reply to me. I said it leads to cutting out the behaviour and you say no it leads to something that can only be achieved in your eyes by cutting out the behaviour.

If my responsibility for my physical assaults were being discussed online I'd really like if someone argued with those victim blaming me. So I'm pretty comfortable with a victim reading my.posts in this thread.

Because you object so strongly to the idea of taking precautions. You revert to any such suggestion as being victim blaming and therefore should not be mentioned. Once you remove a topic from conversation, you are giving tacit approval for that kind of behavior.

Getting drunk alone, or going back to a strangers hotel room are not safe acts. If you can't take reasonably decent precautions in doing so, then don't engage in that behavior, and find something safer to do.

Again I don't object to taking precautions. I have said I am happy for people to take precautions. I have said that I think it's absolutely fine for you yourself to make the precautions you take.

I've said numerous times that what I'm against is people criticising other people who engage in low risk behaviour for not taking the precautions that they personally believe are necessary.

Any individual woman is free to take whatever precautions she likes. If some women choose to never have casual sex then that's absolutely fine. It's their choice.

If a woman does have casual sex and is attacked then I am against people saying "she should have gone on more dates first" "she should never have casual sex at all" etc etc.

Going back to a strangers hotel is a relatively safe act.

Well.... Since I'm not communicating with the victim, but to people here on boards, then I'm pointing these things out before the incident occurs. So, you also could stop rehashing the same objection of commenting after the fact, which has been addressed many times already.

Dating reduces the risk. It's really that simple. It doesn't remove the risks. It simply reduces them. Far better than heading off with a stranger you know very little about, and had no time in which to gauge them as a person.

It is all after the fact analysis though. If she went on a few dates with this guy, it wouldn't be enough. One could easily say "oh he could keep up a nice guy act for three dates, clearly she should have gone on more dates, or just assumed because he was algerian that he was a rapist". Once you know the facts that lead to an attack it's easy to paint it as "she should have done ......" To avoid it.

You have a strange idea of what is low risk for women.

I'd imagine going to an unknown Algerian males room for sex and then refusing to have sex as being reasonably high risk. Their culture is dismissive of women, and has strong beliefs about how women should behave in regards to men. Especially when it comes to casual sex, and their own perceptions about the "liberty" of western women.

Their responsibility should be discussed to raise awareness of the dangers of such behavior. Then, other people can make an informed decision to ignore the dangers if they wish.

So your issue is not that she went to a hotel with a stranger but that she went with an algerian? Because before it seemed like you thought a woman should not engage in casual sex at all.

Because you keep using unrelated examples. Driving a car? Whoop-tie do. Taking an airplane? nah. Getting out of bed? Use examples that relate to the discussion in hand.

Dating. Yup. There's a solid example. Casual sex/ONS, solid examples.

They're only unrelated because it doesn't suit you to discuss them. Because they're low risk behaviours that can go wrong that people engage in all the time and nobody would dream of suggesting that people don't engage in them.

Nope. Can you?

Yes. Very low.

Funny. Typical attitude. Victim blaming regardless of what is said. To reiterate:

- The person who commits the assault/rape is to blame.

- The victim is responsible for taking reasonable precautions to prevent it from happening.

- If it happens regardless of taking those precautions, then no criticism should be leveled at her.

- If it happens without taking precautions, then it's worth identifying why, and what she could have done to reduce to risk to her. It's not about assigning blame... because the blame is already firmly pointed at the perpetrator.

You seem to have issues understanding my stance on the topic. Here's an opinion piece:

"Personal responsibility is a mindset and if you take it seriously, you have done all that you can, pre-event. After this, the thin red line is drawn and of course, there is no blame to sit at the feet of victims."

Maybe their words will deliver the message better than I have. And since we're not communicating to the victim, and discussing an event that has already occurred (the OP article), we're talking about prevention.

You keep saying reasonable precautions. But the only real precaution is that women do not have casual sex. I don't find that reasonable given that it's a low risk behaviour. Anything less strict than complete abstention from casual sex can be deemed to be "irresponsible" after an incident happens. You say women should date before sleeping with a man. How many dates? You're going to say that's a grey area. I agree. Because if you came up with ana actual figure and a woman who kept to that number of dates got raped, you could easily come along and say "well should have dated longer". If we use something vague like "until she feels she knows him" and she subsequently gets raped, then you could say "well obviously her own judgement is irresponsible and she should have waited longer".

Women. Can't. Win.

PowerToWait · 13-04-2018 05:32PM

Where do you people get the time, not to mind the motivation and commitment to argue in such detail?

13-04-2018 08:19PM

PowerToWait wrote: »

Where do you people get the time, not to mind the motivation and commitment to argue in such detail?

I work from as a freelancer at a computer from home, and can type fast.

Doesn't take more than five (edit: ok, 15-20 mins) minutes to answer such a post. As for motivation, we are on a discussion board.

13-04-2018 08:54PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Because your reasonable precautions aren't all that reasonable. The only precaution you'll accept is not having sex with a stranger. Why should you get to "expect" a woman shouldn't do this? Especially when it's a low risk behaviour.

It wasn't low risk behavior for the woman in the article or any women who come to harm from engaging in it. You perceive it as low risk behavior, and I would have agreed with you twenty years ago. I don't anymore. The world has changed and become more risky as a result.

And you're once again, throwing in that the only precaution I'll accept is not engaging in the behavior at all. I haven't said that. I have said taking precautions to reduce the risk. Getting to know someone before going to their home for sex is a good step to reducing the risk.

Yes it leads to a reduced risk "by cutting out the behaviour". I don't know why you said no in reply to me. I said it leads to cutting out the behaviour and you say no it leads to something that can only be achieved in your eyes by cutting out the behaviour.

Because you seem to believe in all or nothing. Engaging in a ONS or casual sex with a stranger is risky. Engaging in casual sex with people from a different cultural background such as an Islamic or M.Eastern culture is riskier.

I've not said to stop doing so. People should acknowledge the risks in what they do, and take the precautions they can make. If they want to engage in such behavior in situations which are obviously risky, that's their choice. It's my choice to believe them foolish to do so. There are less risky ways of getting sex.

If my responsibility for my physical assaults were being discussed online I'd really like if someone argued with those victim blaming me. So I'm pretty comfortable with a victim reading my.posts in this thread.

For you, Victim blaming really does cover everything, doesn't it?

So much for making adult decisions.

Again I don't object to taking precautions. I have said I am happy for people to take precautions. I have said that I think it's absolutely fine for you yourself to make the precautions you take.

I've said numerous times that what I'm against is people criticising other people who engage in low risk behaviour for not taking the precautions that they personally believe are necessary.

And there we differ. Your belief in what constitutes low risk.

Any individual woman is free to take whatever precautions she likes. If some women choose to never have casual sex then that's absolutely fine. It's their choice.

Yup. I've never actually said otherwise.

So your issue is not that she went to a hotel with a stranger but that she went with an algerian? Because before it seemed like you thought a woman should not engage in casual sex at all.

No, I generally believe that going to any strangers hotel room regardless of their cultural background for sex is risky. I also believe going back to a strangers room for sex and refusing sex is risky.

I think there is increased risk because of his cultural background, and the way that their culture considers women.

Lastly, Once again... I have not said that a woman should not engage in casual sex. I have said that such behavior carries greater risk than getting to know someone through dating and then having sex with them. It can still be casual sex if she knows the guy for a while first.

They're only unrelated because it doesn't suit you to discuss them. Because they're low risk behaviours that can go wrong that people engage in all the time and nobody would dream of suggesting that people don't engage in them.

They're unrelated because they're completely unrelated to the area of discussion. this is not about women who are injured falling down steps, or women who have been hurt on their door handle. This is a topic concerning sex, assault and rape.

Yes. Very low.

No. Not low. Not high. No idea at all. Neither of us do, otherwise you would have presented the statistics yourself.

You keep saying reasonable precautions. But the only real precaution is that women do not have casual sex.

Dating doesn't mean girlfriend and boyfriend. Dating means meeting someone for a while before you engage in sexual relations. You can easily engage in casual sex with someone you have been dating for a while. It doesn't mean you have to be exclusive with them.

Ahh... I get it. This is not about casual sex. This is about the right to have sex with a complete stranger. Yup. I view having sex with complete strangers to be very risky behavior.

I don't find that reasonable given that it's a low risk behaviour. Anything less strict than complete abstention from casual sex can be deemed to be "irresponsible" after an incident happens. You say women should date before sleeping with a man. How many dates? You're going to say that's a grey area. I agree. Because if you came up with ana actual figure and a woman who kept to that number of dates got raped, you could easily come along and say "well should have dated longer". If we use something vague like "until she feels she knows him" and she subsequently gets raped, then you could say "well obviously her own judgement is irresponsible and she should have waited longer".

You really can't get your head around the idea of reducing risk, rather than eliminating it completely. Like as if I can really suggest precautions that are going to remove all risk from the situation. There is no such thing.

I love the way you seem to just know how I would respond to these other situations though. Doesn't that take some fun out of discussions? But then, my opinion doesn't really matter because regardless of what I say, I will be victim blaming. Unless I agree with you, of course.

Women. Can't. Win.

Ahh... so you represent all women then? :rolleyes:

13-04-2018 09:01PM

years ago a mate of mine read an article in FHM called unbelievable facts, aloud whilst we all had our friday night chinese.

that week it was facts about the most dangerous places on the planet, oh all the usual attendees were present and accounted for, kingston Jamaica, Bogata, south africa, the congo and I remember st petersburg ranked at No2 at the time close to Washington DC would you believe.

Fun fact I bore in mind, it is permissible to kill someone in some part/parts of algeria if they don't even acknowledge a hello!!! this was back when FHM had gail porter on the cover yo..but still as john Candy would say smiling,,,,really lovely people!!:D

NI24 · 13-04-2018 09:23PM

klaz most people don't have the patience to scroll through your walls of text and try to respond so I'll pose my question here. Why do you continually ignore the studies that show women are far more likely to be raped by someone they know? Your entire argument is based on your refusal to accept that fact. Furthermore, you're continually contradicting yourself, especially with the whole "I'm not saying don't have sex with a stranger, I'm saying get to know someone before having sex with someone." Umm, I'm not sure if you know this, but if you get to know someone first, then they are no longer a stranger.

LLMMLL · 13-04-2018 09:38PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It wasn't low risk behavior for the woman in the article or any women who come to harm from engaging in it. You perceive it as low risk behavior, and I would have agreed with you twenty years ago. I don't anymore. The world has changed and become more risky as a result.

Wow. I don't think you understand what low risk means. Low risk means there is a small chance of the negative incident happening. So of course some people have the negative incident happen to them. We can't actually use the word low risk anymore if you want to define it as "well it happened to one person so it wasn't low risk".

And you're once again, throwing in that the only precaution I'll accept is not engaging in the behavior at all. I haven't said that. I have said taking precautions to reduce the risk. Getting to know someone before going to their home for sex is a good step to reducing the risk.

It would seem to be the only way to avoid a public shaming. If she engages in sex outside a LTR then you or someone like you will come along and dissect her actions and examine them for responsibility. Even the language you use about the precautions that you will "accept" is judgemental.

Because you seem to believe in all or nothing. Engaging in a ONS or casual sex with a stranger is risky. Engaging in casual sex with people from a different cultural background such as an Islamic or M.Eastern culture is riskier.

I've not said to stop doing so. People should acknowledge the risks in what they do, and take the precautions they can make. If they want to engage in such behavior in situations which are obviously risky, that's their choice. It's my choice to believe them foolish to do so. There are less risky ways of getting sex.

For you, Victim blaming really does cover everything, doesn't it?

So much for making adult decisions.

You're obviousky free to have thoughts about foolishness etc. But when you publicly point out the supposed foolishness of a victim then that's victim blaming. I know you keep saying you're not victim blaming. And if you kept pretending that you just wanted to offer advice maybe I'd believe you. But now you've stated talking about the foolishness of victims. Under what definition of victim blaming is that not victim blaming.......

And there we differ. Your belief in what constitutes low risk.

Yeah mine is based on reality. I could speculate as to what yours is based on. A paternal attitude to women, or a prudishness about casual sex. There must be something that makes you think an activity that generally does not result in a negative outcome is actually high risk.

No, I generally believe that going to any strangers hotel room regardless of their cultural background for sex is risky. I also believe going back to a strangers room for sex and refusing sex is risky.

I think there is increased risk because of his cultural background, and the way that their culture considers women.

Lastly, Once again... I have not said that a woman should not engage in casual sex. I have said that such behavior carries greater risk than getting to know someone through dating and then having sex with them. It can still be casual sex if she knows the guy for a while first.

But if she does Engage in casual sex and gets raped then you will publicly assess the risks she took and whether they were foolish or not?

Because even though it's a rare occurrence you have decided it's risky.

They're unrelated because they're completely unrelated to the area of discussion. this is not about women who are injured falling down steps, or women who have been hurt on their door handle. This is a topic concerning sex, assault and rape.

It's also a topic about risk. And people take risks every day that they are not chastised for. Why is it different for sexual risks. Why can a woman take a low risk car ride, get in a crash and receive nothing but sympathy, but engage in even lower risk casual sex and be judged to be foolish or irresponsible? It's completely relevant.

No. Not low. Not high. No idea at all. Neither of us do, otherwise you would have presented the statistics yourself.

We both know it's low. Unless a MASSIVE number of rapes are going unreported or I am MASSIVELY underestimating the number of people who have casual sex every week then it's very low.

I accept that you're going to be obstinate though and demand figures that can't be calculated.

Dating doesn't mean girlfriend and boyfriend. Dating means meeting someone for a while before you engage in sexual relations. You can easily engage in casual sex with someone you have been dating for a while. It doesn't mean you have to be exclusive with them.

Ahh... I get it. This is not about casual sex. This is about the right to have sex with a complete stranger. Yup. I view having sex with complete strangers to be very risky behavior.

No I've no interest in rights. It's more about the meanness and stupidity of people criticising a victim for a low risk behaviour because they erroneously believe it to be high risk.

You really can't get your head around the idea of reducing risk, rather than eliminating it completely. Like as if I can really suggest precautions that are going to remove all risk from the situation. There is no such thing.

I love the way you seem to just know how I would respond to these other situations though. Doesn't that take some fun out of discussions? But then, my opinion doesn't really matter because regardless of what I say, I will be victim blaming. Unless I agree with you, of course.

You don't have to agree with me to stop victim blaming. Just don't victim blame anymore. Don't talk aboutthe responsibility or foolishness of a woman in a thread about a horrific incident that happened to her. It's easy.

Ahh... so you represent all women then? :rolleyes:

What an odd thing to say.......

Sand · 13-04-2018 09:42PM

NI24 wrote: »

klaz most people don't have the patience to scroll through your walls of text and try to respond so I'll pose my question here. Why do you continually ignore the studies that show women are far more likely to be raped by someone they know? Your entire argument is based on your refusal to accept that fact. Furthermore, you're continually contradicting yourself, especially with the whole "I'm not saying don't have sex with a stranger, I'm saying get to know someone before having sex with someone." Umm, I'm not sure if you know this, but if you get to know someone first, then they are no longer a stranger.

Is it possible that some scenarios can be higher risk, without actually being the most common cause? I think you're mixing cause and correlation. Placing yourself in a vulnerable situation with a stranger you met 1-2 hours ago is a different order of risk to placing yourself in a vulnerable situation with someone you know and trust. The latter situation is much more common, and over time that adds up, but it doesn't prove the former situation is not riskier.

At the end of the day, there is two message that can be drawn. 1) Avoid being in vulnerable situations with strangers. 2) Go out, get drunk, meet new people, have fun and if something bad happens its not your fault. Both are good messages, but the first one is better advice to people whose safety and well-being we care about.

professore · 13-04-2018 09:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You have a strange idea of what is low risk for women.

I'd imagine going to an unknown Algerian males room for sex and then refusing to have sex as being reasonably high risk. Their culture is dismissive of women, and has strong beliefs about how women should behave in regards to men. Especially when it comes to casual sex, and their own perceptions about the "liberty" of western women.

It would be similar to me walking down the Shankhill Road drunk late in the evening draped in a tricolour and shouting "Orange bastards" at everyone I met. Ah but sure I'm more likely to be attacked by someone I know ... so the statistics will protect me. :rolleyes:

NI24 · 13-04-2018 09:47PM

On second read, I realize klaz is saying don't have sex with a stranger at all. Casual sex, fine, but stranger sex no.

13-04-2018 09:49PM

NI24 wrote: »

Why do you continually ignore the studies that show women are far more likely to be raped by someone they know?

I haven't ignored such studies. The OP article refers to a stranger she had met in a hotel. Do you exclude the dangers that strangers present just because most other cases of rape come from an acquaintance you might know?

As for my wall of text, that comes with responses to LLMMLL. Strange that my long posts bother you, but his/hers doesn't.

Your entire argument is based on your refusal to accept that fact.

Nope. My whole argument is based around the responsibility in taking precautions in your behavior to reduce the risk that something negative happens.

Umm, I'm not sure if you know this, but if you get to know someone first, then they are no longer a stranger.

Exactly my point.

Although I haven't said to stop having casual sex with strangers if that's what someone wants. Just that casual sex with a stranger carries a higher risk of something negative happening. I'm not to suggesting an all or nothing perspective here.

If you've taken all the precautions you can reasonably make, and are aware of the risks involved, go right ahead.

professore · 13-04-2018 09:49PM

NI24 wrote: »

klaz most people don't have the patience to scroll through your walls of text and try to respond so I'll pose my question here. Why do you continually ignore the studies that show women are far more likely to be raped by someone they know? Your entire argument is based on your refusal to accept that fact. Furthermore, you're continually contradicting yourself, especially with the whole "I'm not saying don't have sex with a stranger, I'm saying get to know someone before having sex with someone." Umm, I'm not sure if you know this, but if you get to know someone first, then they are no longer a stranger.

It stands to reason, since women would in general be more cautious with a man they don't know than one they think they know well. In fact in my experience it's a minority of women that will even talk to a strange man. And a lot of women seem very bad at determining which guys are decent and which aren't. Male feminists in particular seem popular with them, even though the vast majority of them are awful creeps.

NI24 · 13-04-2018 09:53PM

To Sand, I actually completely agree with your post. But in doing so, I admit I am engaging in victim blaming. When I or anyone else places some of the responsibility of crime on a victim's behavior, and that includes not taking proper precautions, then I am blaming the victim in part.
If some people were less cowardly, they would also admit it.

LLMMLL · 13-04-2018 09:54PM

professore wrote: »

It would be similar to me walking down the Shankhill Road drunk late in the evening draped in a tricolour and shouting "Orange bastards" at everyone I met. Ah but sure I'm more likely to be attacked by someone I know ... so the statistics will protect me. :rolleyes:

It is absolutely nothing like that.

NI24 · 13-04-2018 09:55PM

professore wrote: »

It stands to reason, since women would in general be more cautious with a man they don't know than one they think they know well. In fact in my experience it's a minority of women that will even talk to a strange man. And a lot of women seem very bad at determining which guys are decent and which aren't. Male feminists in particular seem popular with them, even though the vast majority of them are awful creeps.

My experience is completely different. I find most anti-feminists complete creeps. And major anger problems as well.

Also, only a minority of women will talk to strangers in your country. In my country, it's quite common. ONS, not so much.

Sand · 13-04-2018 10:25PM

NI24 wrote: »

To Sand, I actually completely agree with your post. But in doing so, I admit I am engaging in victim blaming. When I or anyone else places some of the responsibility of crime on a victim's behavior, and that includes not taking proper precautions, then I am blaming the victim in part.
If some people were less cowardly, they would also admit it.

I'd be more concerned with giving good advice to someone I care about than what it says about me to be honest.

NI24 · 13-04-2018 10:42PM

The problem Sand, is that most people aren't giving good advice to people they care about. They're giving unwanted advice to people they don't know so they can wave a self righteous and smug finger at people's misfortunes while deluding themselves that that kind of thing would never happen to them. And I'm not accusing you specifically. I'm guilty of it myself from time to time.

13-04-2018 10:51PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Wow. I don't think you understand what low risk means. Low risk means there is a small chance of the negative incident happening. So of course some people have the negative incident happen to them. We can't actually use the word low risk anymore if you want to define it as "well it happened to one person so it wasn't low risk".

Except that it happens to a lot more than one person. The threat of rape, physical and/or sexual assault are very real risks.

Once again, your belief of what is 'low risk' is completely different from mine.

It would seem to be the only way to avoid a public shaming. If she engages in sex outside a LTR then you or someone like you will come along and dissect her actions and examine them for responsibility. Even the language you use about the precautions that you will "accept" is judgemental.

Lol. and that comment isn't judgmental? Considering I, or "someone like me" hasn't said she's to blame for what happened. I haven't sought to publicly shame her.

And just where did I say a woman needs to be in a LTR?

You're obviousky free to have thoughts about foolishness etc. But when you publicly point out the supposed foolishness of a victim then that's victim blaming. I know you keep saying you're not victim blaming. And if you kept pretending that you just wanted to offer advice maybe I'd believe you. But now you've stated talking about the foolishness of victims. Under what definition of victim blaming is that not victim blaming.......

Except, of course, I didn't call the victim foolish. Care you show me where I did? I did say I consider doing something knowing the risks and not taking precautions foolish... but where did I call the victim of the attack foolish?

Yeah mine is based on reality. I could speculate as to what yours is based on. A paternal attitude to women, or a prudishness about casual sex. There must be something that makes you think an activity that generally does not result in a negative outcome is actually high risk.

Ok. I'm done. It was the same in the other thread. To date, I haven't insinuated anything about you personally or made any comments about your "personal" claims. And yet, there always comes a point in a discussion where you can't resist behaving like this.

professore · 13-04-2018 10:55PM

NI24 wrote: »

My experience is completely different. I find most anti-feminists complete creeps. And major anger problems as well.

Also, only a minority of women will talk to strangers in your country. In my country, it's quite common. ONS, not so much.

Ehhh men are not divided into male feminists and anti feminists.

13-04-2018 11:00PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

You don't have to agree with me to stop victim blaming. Just don't victim blame anymore. Don't talk aboutthe responsibility or foolishness of a woman in a thread about a horrific incident that happened to her. It's easy.

Except, that the victim is probably not on boards reading this thread. Any indication that she is?

Unless you're talking about yourself? So maybe don't subscribe/post in threads about something horrific that supposedly happened to you... Because probably people are going to discuss everything related to it.

This is the internet and an open boards system. You can claim anything you want, doesn't mean I'm going to believe it, or consider you an authority to be believed just because you say so.

It's not as if you've built up an image of credibility to lean against when making such a claim.

professore · 13-04-2018 11:01PM

NI24 wrote: »

The problem Sand, is that most people aren't giving good advice to people they care about. They're giving unwanted advice to people they don't know so they can wave a self righteous and smug finger at people's misfortunes while deluding themselves that that kind of thing would never happen to them. And I'm not accusing you specifically. I'm guilty of it myself from time to time.

That's a very odd way of looking at it. I'm not interested in some sort of moral superiority at all. I am only interested in analyzing risk. And if you are even remotely honest with yourself, going home with a horny strange man from an openly misogynist religion and culture and refusing him sex is a high risk behaviour no matter what way you look at it.

I would go so far as to say it is bloody stupid behaviour and I'd be extremely annoyed if my daughter did it. But hey if you want to do it, I don't really care, it's your life to do with as you wish and I'm not going to stop you, or even criticise you.

Maybe if some girl or woman out there reads this and later reconsiders going home with some strange man and avoids being raped, I would be delighted. But I don't have any interest in waving smug fingers.

LLMMLL · 13-04-2018 11:10PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except that it happens to a lot more than one person. The threat of rape, physical and/or sexual assault are very real risks.

Once again, your belief of what is 'low risk' is completely different from mine.

Yes it happens to more than one person. But you're using one example as a measure of how risky something is. Your response to low risk is an example of it happening without any mention of the pool of potential incidents. So if there's 10000 possible incidents and 3 actual incidents. Then that would probably be a low risk to most people. Pointing to 1 of the 3 incidents doesn't change that and displays a complete lack of understanding of how the term risk is used.

Lol. and that comment isn't judgmental? Considering I, or "someone like me" hasn't said she's to blame for what happened. I haven't sought to publicly shame her.

And just where did I say a woman needs to be in a LTR?

Except, of course, I didn't call the victim foolish. Care you show me where I did? I did say I consider doing something knowing the risks and not taking precautions foolish... but where did I call the victim of the attack foolish?

I do judge you. I judge your lack of empathy among other things. You're not a victim. So that's ok. And I've no problem with you judging me and my posts. Indo have a problem with you blaming blaming victims of violent crime.

Sure you walk this line. You don't call her foolish. You say you judge people who take certain risks to be foolish. You say she took risks such as being alone with an algerian. But you're not calling her foolish....... Give me a break.

Ok. I'm done. It was the same in the other thread. To date, I haven't insinuated anything about you personally or made any comments about your "personal" claims. And yet, there always comes a point in a discussion where you can't resist behaving like this.

Personally I don't see the issue with what I said. You've offered no reason as to why you view non sexual low risks as different to sexual low risks. That leads me to wonder what the actual reason is. I've seen in other posts you've made a paternal attitude towards women. I believe that's the reason you view women taking low sexual risks as different to other forms of low risk. It's not an insult.

13-04-2018 11:24PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

I do judge you. I judge your lack of empathy among other things. You're not a victim. So that's ok. And I've no problem with you judging me and my posts. Indo have a problem with you blaming blaming victims of violent crime.

You know nothing about me except what I choose to share here. So, perhaps reserve the observations about what I know, think or feel.

And to date, I have not blamed any victims on this thread, in spite of your repeated claims that I have.

Personally I don't see the issue with what I said.

Haha... Oh lord. Enough. Waste of time typing anything more.

ahnowbrowncow · 13-04-2018 11:25PM

NI24 wrote: »

My experience is completely different. I find most anti-feminists complete creeps. And major anger problems as well.

Also, only a minority of women will talk to strangers in your country. In my country, it's quite common. ONS, not so much.

It's not uncommon to slur those with an opposing view to your own. But by doing so you're just showing your own unwavering prejudice and an unwillingness to cede no matter the validity of the opposition's view which results in your argument losing credibility.

LLMMLL · 13-04-2018 11:45PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You know nothing about me except what I choose to share here. So, perhaps reserve the observations about what I know, think or feel.

And to date, I have not blamed any victims on this thread, in spite of your repeated claims that I have.

Haha... Oh lord. Enough. Waste of time typing anything more.

You haven't said "the victim is to blame".

You've said that you judge people for being foolish based on risks they take. You said that the woman took risks that re unacceptable to you. So youre basically victim blaming but clever enough not to say it directly.

NI24 · 13-04-2018 11:55PM

professore wrote: »

NI24 wrote: »

My experience is completely different. I find most anti-feminists complete creeps. And major anger problems as well.

Also, only a minority of women will talk to strangers in your country. In my country, it's quite common. ONS, not so much.

Ehhh men are not divided into male feminists and anti feminists.

And male feminists aren't creeps. You state your opinion as facts, I state mine.

Irish woman gang raped by 6 men in Czech hotel

Comments