Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Just now, Omni said:

Hard to make heads or tails out of all that but are you suggesting that because men are generally physically superior to women that they should be able to abuse them?

LOL?! No, of course not. 

Pretend you have ten children that have indetermined sex. All you know might know is that four of them are unusually larger then the rest. If I further assert that of this family three of them are physically abusive, would you not gamble that the physical abusers likely are one of the four, even without knowing their sex?

You then might learn that three of these larger ones are male and one is female. Would you hold that this proves that the cause of violence is due to the males OR due to the larger children without concern of their sex?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There are a lot of surveys and studies that agree with  the "2/3 of rapes and assaults are unreported." There are a variety of reasons why women don't "officially" report.   https:/

1.  That sentence is beyond readable.  I think judges usually make comments with regards to the criminal nature of the convinced, which I never understood frankly.   I think they say that in Canada

Rapists are 94% men.  It makes total sense to me that to stop that violence, measures would be taken that would be geared more for MEN.  Part of the problem has been that rape prevention has tradition

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

LOL?! No, of course not. 

Pretend you have ten children that have indetermined sex. All you know might know is that four of them are unusually larger then the rest. If I further assert that of this family three of them are physically abusive, would you not gamble that the physical abusers likely are one of the four, even without knowing their sex?

You then might learn that three of these larger ones are male and one is female. Would you hold that this proves that the cause of violence is due to the males OR due to the larger children without concern of their sex?

I would raise my children to not be physically abusive, regardless of their size or sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm saying that you cannot logically interpret a statistic claiming an ABSENCE of information with ANY PRECISION.

It's not an absence of information, though.  Through surveys and polls, stats have been gathered that say 2/3 of rapes and assaults on women are not reported to the police.  That means in a survey or poll - 2/3 of the women who responded said that YES they had experienced sexual assault and ALSO said they did not report the assault.

Edited by Goddess
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Goddess said:

Rapists are 94% men.  It makes total sense to me that to stop that violence, measures would be taken that would be geared more for MEN.  Part of the problem has been that rape prevention has traditionally been geared towards women changing their behaviour, instead of addressing men's behaviour.

rape.JPG

The bigger part of the problem is that women prefer men that are giants relative to their own size and men to prefer petite women. If you want to stop this, (if sincere), and you BELIEVE that it is about men's NATURE, then you have to help evolution along by STOP picking partners that are of drastic different physical qualities. In time, if men and women picked those of their own physical sizes, the abuses based on physical differences would prove to be EVENLY distributed among men and women. 

On your suggestions, I certainly don't do ANY of those things. Is it because I'm somehow NOT MALE enough? 

1. I've never put anything in anyone's drink and PREFER only social drinking. But get this: I've been drugged twice (that I'm at least aware of).....BY WOMEN!!! As to drinking though, why is there a bias only for women? if the woman was the one offering the alcohol, would she be liable for the male (or other partner, say, if female)? Are you confirming that ONLY females are so MEEK AND WEAK that they cannot be self-controlling adults who can control whether they can or cannot drink? 

2. I don't bother any stranger usually. You are also being sexist here. If men are not permitted to approach women but the opposite is alright, are you not PROVING that this is the only means by which women have a special privilege of POWER? That is, if women are the ones only favoring men they themselves approach, they it is THEY who actually CHOOSE the kinds of men they end up with. Remember, it is domestic abuses that are most paramount in abuse cases. This means these are couples who CHOOSE to be together at some prior point in time. So the women are the ones who are doing the selecting. CURE: women should also NOT be the ones to approach men given they pick those who tend to abuse them later on!!

3. I'll try not to forget that one!!?? 

It looks like all the others are on the similar trend. 

I'm already in agreement with these in general. But you're not recognizing that the problems are not about the sex but about the individuals with dominance over other individuals only. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Omni said:

I would raise my children to not be physically abusive, regardless of their size or sex.

We are on the same page then. It is not about sex though. It is about 'power' differences. Violent forms of abuses are usually based more directly from the power distinctions based on size/strength differences. Imagine if instead of making laws that favor assumptions about whether men or women are more or less violent that they just make laws that charge those who BEHAVE with abuses based on their type of power as individuals? If I am female and am stronger than my male (or female) partner, then I should not be permitted to use physical dominance to overrule the rights of the relatively weaker partner. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

The bigger part of the problem is that women prefer men that are giants relative to their own size and men to prefer petite women. If you want to stop this, (if sincere), and you BELIEVE that it is about men's NATURE, then you have to help evolution along by STOP picking partners that are of drastic different physical qualities. In time, if men and women picked those of their own physical sizes, the abuses based on physical differences would prove to be EVENLY distributed among men and women. 

I don't think physical size is a precurser to being a rapist.  It may help out if the person IS ALREADY PRONE TO RAPE, but it is not "the bigger part of the problem".

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It's not an absence of information, though.  Through surveys and polls, stats have been gathered that say 2/3 of rapes and assaults on women are not reported to the police.  That means in a survey or poll - 2/3 of the women who responded said that YES they had experienced sexual assault and ALSO said they did not report the assault.

But that is the problem. When one is anonymous and behind a poll, they are less likely to feel risk of lying either. Are not trolls anonymity online a powerful reason why many of them choose to be more unreasonable in some way? We don't hear HOW the stats are derived. Often, they are derived by those INTERESTED in getting an effective poll that favors some agenda. Politicians rely on lying about polls too. I mean, Trump DID have more people on his inauguration than the women's march the next day, .....right!!!! (yes, I'm joking)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

But that is the problem. When one is anonymous and behind a poll, they are less likely to feel risk of lying either. Are not trolls anonymity online a powerful reason why many of them choose to be more unreasonable in some way? We don't hear HOW the stats are derived. Often, they are derived by those INTERESTED in getting an effective poll that favors some agenda. Politicians rely on lying about polls too. I mean, Trump DID have more people on his inauguration than the women's march the next day, .....right!!!! (yes, I'm joking)

So if a woman doesn't report an assault, they are lying, in your view?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

We are on the same page then. It is not about sex though. It is about 'power' differences. Violent forms of abuses are usually based more directly from the power distinctions based on size/strength differences. Imagine if instead of making laws that favor assumptions about whether men or women are more or less violent that they just make laws that charge those who BEHAVE with abuses based on their type of power as individuals? If I am female and am stronger than my male (or female) partner, then I should not be permitted to use physical dominance to overrule the rights of the relatively weaker partner. 

You seem to be needlessly complicating the issue. Laws should, and are, based on protecting a person's human rights without regard as to who is bigger and or stronger. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to statistics, and the fact this was started because of the sentencing of Larry Nassar, we should be able to compile statistics of his case alone. How many victims ended up coming forward, and how many of them kept silent about the crime for years and why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I don't think physical size is a precurser to being a rapist.  It may help out if the person IS ALREADY PRONE TO RAPE, but it is not "the bigger part of the problem".

Of the males that I have known with the tendency to behave this way (rape, assault, harm), it has been about 'power' distinctions. They use their power to harm because they CAN use it and use it most specifically in direct ways....often without foresight or fore-planning. But you are right that physical size is NOT the only way this occurs. It occurs in deceptive ways where one is relatively weaker in SOME way. Thus, where women are more often the smaller of the partner's, their KINDS of abuse are INDIRECT and hidden. It doesn't make them less violent either, just hard to detect. (Poison is usually more associated with women but is also more about those who are passive regardless of sex)

I've known women who do very WICKED things that top what most males do. Also, the males that DO abuse directly based on physical power do so with naivete, not with clever intellect or the planning, as I mentioned. I cannot say this of the women I have in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

So if a woman doesn't report an assault, they are lying, in your view?

Hmmm? How does someone 'lie' where they haven't even reported?

 I don't associate assaults with sex at all. They are EQUALLY distributed on the sexes. Individuals use methods that just work best for them best. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scott Mayers said:

I don't associate assaults with sex at all.

If a man goes up to a random woman on the street and grabs her breasts or other body parts, would you consider that an assault?

What if he does it on a crowded dancefloor?  Does that change your perception of whether or not it is an assault?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Omni said:

You seem to be needlessly complicating the issue. Laws should, and are, based on protecting a person's human rights without regard as to who is bigger and or stronger. 

No, the laws are being used to protect SOME subset of humans to human rights on the assumption that that whole class is harmed and another whole class is the owner of the harm. 

I completely disagree that abuse is a male-owned problem. I also disagree that it is sound to pose statistics based upon hearsay. If I did a poll to ask whether people feel they are victims of assault, how do you assert the validity of such a claim? What kind of person volunteers to the survey? Would an abuser themselves assert they were abusers or would they feel and report themselves as 'victims'? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Goddess said:

If a man goes up to a random woman on the street and grabs her breasts or other body parts, would you consider that an assault?

What if he does it on a crowded dancefloor?  Does that change your perception of whether or not it is an assault?

It depends. The HARM and its degree is what actually matters. Petty concerns of the nature that are used to remove significant politicians are actually more harmful than one's breasts being touched. I think most of us males know that getting kicked in the balls is more harmful. Does a male who's been kicked in the balls become permanently damaged psychologically for the rest of their lives? If a woman politician was discovered to have done this to some boy when she was in high school enough to justify earning a destroyed reputation, job, and possible jail time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

No, the laws are being used to protect SOME subset of humans to human rights on the assumption that that whole class is harmed and another whole class is the owner of the harm. 

I completely disagree that abuse is a male-owned problem. I also disagree that it is sound to pose statistics based upon hearsay. If I did a poll to ask whether people feel they are victims of assault, how do you assert the validity of such a claim? What kind of person volunteers to the survey? Would an abuser themselves assert they were abusers or would they feel and report themselves as 'victims'? 

 

 

Unfortunately, on this issue, the laws as they are applied, tend to protect the harmers more so than the harmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

It depends. The HARM and its degree is what actually matters. Petty concerns of the nature that are used to remove significant politicians are actually more harmful than one's breasts being touched. I think most of us males know that getting kicked in the balls is more harmful. Does a male who's been kicked in the balls become permanently damaged psychologically for the rest of their lives? If a woman politician was discovered to have done this to some boy when she was in high school enough to justify earning a destroyed reputation, job, and possible jail time?

If there is no harm to women in groping, then why is the guy in Edmonton at trial right now for doing it?  Are you okay with random men groping your sisters, mothers and women friends?

I agree it's not as "harmful" as a rape, but it's still a crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Goddess said:

I find it insulting and ignorant that you think unless there's a conviction, a rape or assault didn't happen.

And yes, men are abused too and yes, a lot of it also goes unreported.  

I did respond to the 2/3 stat by posting the article.  There are actually a LOT of articles on that stat.  If you care to look.

A Lot?  How much is a lot exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I'm not sure you understand the point of the OP.

I don't know that I do either.  He asks a question, then answers it - "How do you interpret a statistic ?  You don't !  You ignore it."

Then he says that the stats are made up without any evidence provided.   There really isn't much to be said about this clumsy post is there ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read the entire thread and I didn't see everything that the judge said, with that I'll preface;  I think this guy obviously got life and that's what he deserves, I hope that the other inmates give him another sense of justice as well.  Now, even though he was only charged and convicted with a small number of cases, the judge seemed to use every complaint against him to render her verdict.  I know she was validating the complaints of all other girls/women that he assaulted and for that she'll get some praise, but as a judge, it could be questioned whether that was appropriate conduct considering that he really only plead guilty to a handful of accusations. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

A Lot?  How much is a lot exactly?

I think it's hard to say right now, but most articles/studies I've read say that more and more men are reporting domestic abuse.  It's been sort of a hidden problem - men have been reluctant to report it, I suspect the reasons are similar to why women don't report it - fear of not being believed, the hassle of dealing with police/courts, etc.  I think maybe it's more embarrassing for men to report being abused (Just guessing, not a man, so....)  

I believe we need more studies on males as the abused, not just the abusers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...