Novosibirsk Rape Case Poll

I would need your honest opinion on the following case:

On September 23, 2014 in Novosibirsk, Russia, a male individual went to an apartment to visit his 5 male friends , his 16 year old girlfriend in tow. While the boyfriend of the girl was out to get vodka, things got out of control at the apartment. In his absence his girlfriend ended up consuming intoxicating amounts of alcohol. The scene quickly escalated when the boyfriend returned and all six males ended up sexually assaulting the girl and posting pictures of their deed on vk and other social networks under #SALT.

Original Links:
http://lifenews.ru/news/141318

http://sib.fm/news/2014/09/25/sledovateli-novosibirska-zaderzhali-pervogo-podozrevaemog

http://lifenews.ru/news/141392

English Translations:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://lifenews.ru/news/141318&edit-text=

https://translate.googleusercontent...vaemog&usg=ALkJrhiZL33RDxGBCF21bWDUIkaPUxcX_A

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Flifenews.ru%2Fnews%2F141392&edit-text=

My questions to you guys are posted as a poll above

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really? This Is Hard?

I suppose my only question is how this is a difficult question at all.

Here's the basic way to look at it: Do women exist primarily to be fucked by men?

If yes, then why have rape laws at all, except to protect a man's proprietary claim to any one woman?

If no, then how is this a difficult question at all?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The basic answer is yes, they do. You might also ask if men's primary reason for existence is to fuck women, and the answer would be much the same.

As to the rest of it, any particular individual's answer in this poll is going to be guided solely by their own particular morality.
Is that what you were trying to say? Or are you presenting a case for absolute morality by means of disingenuousness?

Procreation is the name of the game.
How we go about it is how we attempt to place standards on who has the right to do so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Least Surprising Notion ....

Well, you almost made it, there at the end.

Your answer precludes the proposition of civilization.

Or should we call off civilization, too? Will that help increase your odds of getting laid?

 

Bam! Nicely put, Tiassa.

Your natural state is a rapist, Maquis? That’s your justification? You want to control another human being but you can’t even control yourself, too funny. Maybe we should be in charge of the country then, eh?

Sexual coercion does not allow females to choose the males they want to mate with, which are usually males of higher quality, compatible, and/or have good genes that will increase their offspring’s survival and fitness.

If you guys don’t step up to the plate, we’ll have to adapt.

My grandmother told me that her friend’s husband was a drunk, who continually beat and raped her. She told her to call her the next time it happened. She was pregnant and bloody when she showed up at my grandmother’s door. My grandmother quickly made a few phone calls, told ‘em to bring bats and their sewing box. They found him passed out in bed and quickly sewed the top covers to the bottom. After nearly beating him to death, they told him, if he ever laid another hand on her, they’d finish him off. He was only violent when he was drunk. He didn’t drink another drop.

 

The answer to your question lies in your own post:

Don't need to go much beyond that. Sexual assault is a crime.

 

Rape is wrong. But there is also tendency in culture to place all the blame for the woes of the world on the men, with women having victim status with little accountability. This dual standard is based on profiling, with profiling only allowed by feminism.

For example, quotas use the female illogic that all men are responsible for the past abuse of women. If you are a male, even if you did nothing or have supported women all your life, simply being a man makes you a victim of the quota system; quota profiling. While all women benefit even if the bad things never happened to them personally.

Men think in terms of cause and effect and this lacks all semblance of cause and effect, except in a scam sort of way. It makes sense if the goal is the ends justifies the means. This template is also being applied to sexual assault and rape, where a drunk women dressed like a slut, which make her more likely to be assaulted, is always the victim and did not increase her own odds of being a victim.

It is like saying if I am a woman and I place my hand near the fire and I get burnt, it is the fire's fault. Many men sense the irrational injustice and balance the scales on their own.

Everyone knows of women who abuse their husbands, by being a nagging witch. Some guy are actually nice and easy going but loves a nasty abusive woman. This is also abuse, but this is never discussed to balance things out. The discussion needs to include more accountability of some women. This discussion would help to lead us back to root cause of the problem.

Ask yourself this question, why did sexual assault increase after the women's movement? What have women changed about culture that has made the men less respectful and more predatory? The men adapted to the forced change due to law and convention. One needs to get to root causes to make the adjustments needed for a reversal of the trend.

My theory is connected to feminism and the break up of the family. What that did was cause the female to have too much influence over the upbringing of the future males; less male influence. These future males became more predatory under that social arrangement. The feminized culture has shown the young males that blaming others, including the innocent, is how you get ahead.

Men are naturally designed to be self reliant. Say such a male uses the liberal feminine template of blame others to get special benefits; quotas and special laws just for you, but in a self reliant way. He is not being taught work hard and be self reliant to get ahead, but rather blame others to get ahead to get special treatment; liberal template. In his mind, generic women lured him and was asking for it, while quotas show him even the innocent can be victims. He learned to played the game for himself.

 

I say all involved are in the wrong. While the girls wrongdoing is much less than the guys, all of this probably could have been avoided if they weren't piss-stupid drunk

 

I just wanted to capture this little unedited beauty. What the...?

 

We had more influence over the upbringing of future males when we stayed at home.

We’re social animals. We've always relied on other people, males and females. Men were never self-reliant.

And the delicate man; were there never any laws created to protect the delicate man?

Violence is socially programmed, not biologically programmed.

 

This is grotesquely inaccurate.

Hey, here's a profile for you:

"a man's sexual urges are a powerful force. rape is wrong, but dressing sexily is literally providing motivation. i agree with 'girls who dress like sluts are asking for it' because just about every creature is designed for sex, dressing in something sexy flips the switch labelled 'primal urges'. who's to say these urges aren't stronger than the moral codes you're expecting this person to have.

"i know men should act responsibly, but we're literally animals. animals don't ask permission. i am in no way encouraging or condoning rape, its a horrific bestial thing, but i feel people are getting too caught up in morality and stuff, and missing some of the facts.

"again, rape is bad. but if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up? when a man sees cleavage/legs/whatever, there's a lot of chemical reactions going on in his body. high heels arch the feet, simulating feet during orgasm. the stuff you're wearing is designed to expose and emphasise sexual features."​

You see, that profiing was performed by a male defending rapists. And as I frequently remind when noting that episode, none of the masculinists, MRAs, or whatever we might call them, who fret about evil feminism, objected, because it was a man saying it in defense of male privilege.

Profiling? Read the rape safety tips given women by local police departments? Check in with the Infinite Prevention Advocates who would raise demons all over society in order to convince women to reduce their own quality of life, so that they might be decrease their odds of becoming one of the less than ten percent of rape victims who are assaulted in such a manner, but also reject the same sort of prevention advice that would address seventy-two percent of reported male on female rapes because, well, that's just not common sense. And they have a point: sex segregation should not be the answer. The problem is that when take up this kind of advocacy, they're arguing in self-interest.

Think about this bit of advice: Don't let anybody pour you a drink. Do you know where that advice is most applicable? Statistically speaking, women should not let their male intimate partners pour them a drink. But, yeah. How much of that Infinite Protection Advocacy is aimed at, you know, men like the advocates dispensing the advice? The message is clear: "Suspect all men, just #NotAllMen, and specifically #JustNotMe."

Two pieces of advice, Wellwisher: Try supporting your arguments. And if you can't support your argument because it is insupportable, reconsider whether or not you should be making the argument.

 

Yes, and it also could have been avoided if the woman had not had that boyfriend, or if the boyfriend had not had a car, or if they had been in a public place with supervision, or the woman's mother had gotten an abortion. None of that changes the fact that the men are to blame for the act of sexual assault.

 

All the boys there should be held by the police in jail and await there turn at punishment by the court. This is something that should never be tolerated by anyone and why someone there didn't act to stop the attack only shows how demented the whole bunch of them are. The justice should be ramming a baseball bat up the boys rectum without any lubricant.

 

Profiling is a valid scientific approach, since it narrows down options, to the most likely. This allows finite resource to go further. When people go to the Doctor, it is mostly the women who are tested for breast cancer. Even though not all women have breast cancer, medicine will still stop and search, mostly women, due to the real time odds of breast cancer, in the light of finite resources.

It would be a waste of resources not to profile mostly women for breast cancer, due to some irrational emotional sentiment, that says we need to also test all the men and all the small children, since it hurts women's feelings being singled out. That approach would give the least bang for the buck even if it makes PC feel better about itself. Lying is not always possible to spare feelings.

Say we decided profiling is not allowed in medicine, so men, women and children all need to be tested for breast cancer. The resources levels may not change, overnight. This will result in more female deaths by breast cancer, since the resources will not be enough to screen all the women, because more time and resources will wasted on those who show little in the way of acquiring breast cancer. This would be a good scam to increase the need for medical resources, by sacrificing some of the women to create outrage. Then we will blame the doctors and not PC; sound familiar.

If we substitute crime for breast cancer screening and have only a certain amount of resources, but now we cannot profile those with the most criminal (cancer) data, but now have to stop and search little old ladies, babies, and the handicapped, more criminals will escape detection.

Say we could not profile, to preempt crime, like no screening of mostly women to prevent breast cancer. That means fewer criminals (cases of cancer) get caught early due to finite resources. This would look like the total number of criminals (markers for cancer) has gone down. There will be fewer criminals caught and prosecuted (secondary screening) with the same resources. It does not change reality of crime, but only the political perception of reality.


Quotas are form of profiling but these are based on stereo types instead of science data. It is not about real time data, like a doctor uses for breast cancer. It is about using data from the past to describe the present. There is a data disconnect that alters perception of reality.

For example, polio used to be a disease of children, decades ago, that was eradicated. Using the quota template we will allow doctors to scare the parents of today, for the polio of the past, so we can force all children to be tested for polio, to create the illusion there is an epidemic today. There is no real problem but there is a hyped up problem that the gullible will believe. No profiling in this case would be quite useful, because it would diffuse the scam; less appearance of disease.

I tend to think that liberal hearts are in the right place, in terms of eliminating profiling, while confusing science profiling as being the same as retro-data profiling.

 

That is crazy talk. The 16 year old girl got drunk. She shouldn't have done that and her punishment should be a stern talking to from her parents and maybe a grounding. Her punishment should not be getting gang raped and then having pictures of the rape posted on line. I think long prison terms should be given to the men. If your excuse is, "what do you expect them to do with a drunk young girl", then I think there is something wrong with you. Are men just scum who are not able to control themselves and so are willing to violate another human causing a untold suffering? If this is not abnormal behavior worthy of jail, then maybe men really are just scum and we should drug all young men with catration drugs until they marry.

I think I need to take a shower after reading about this whole afair. Bleck!

 

Origin - I apologize if I came off incorrectly - as I said, all involved were in the wrong (the girl for getting drunk, the guys for the gang rape), they were still all in the wrong in some way.

Yes, the guys need a MUCH more severe punishment than the girl. The girl, however, needs to learn better than to go get smashed like that.

Then again, I'm not much a fan of public drunkenness so... mehbe mah feelings is tainted

But either way, I'm not trying to say that her getting raped is a proper punishment; not at all. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was.

 

Something, Something, Burt Ward

What I would remind and encourage is that the two components, while related, are separate issues. Regardless of how you or I might feel about public intoxication (I'm much more lenient, and sometimes consider certain times and places appropriate) the fact is that people have the right to get drunk without being robbed or raped or whatever. Just like however you or I might feel about idiots who raise their children to be stupid, no family deserves to be defrauded. Or just like I might point out that gun owners do have someone they can legally kill—their own selves—any time they want, that still doesn't mean they should.

And part of what we have to remember is that the rhetorical Principle of Charity is very much institutionalized, in a straitjacket, in some of the industrial world's most vital political discussions. That is to say, while you and I, two guys having a near-beer in the pub, can drop a line like that between us, and even I will grant some leeway on the IKWYM scale, it's a really, really problematic formulation. The question of excessive consumption ought to be the health risks of excessive consumption.

You know that #WhyIStayed and #WhyILeft? Survivors might, but frankly only if they're up to taking this kind of hit, try a #WhatIDidWrong campaign, because it would be filled with things like:

#WhatIDidWrong — I went out with my boyfriend.​

I would also pedantically note the nature of Relationships, and in this case yes, the capital R is specific. I mean the interpersonal, one-on-one, intimate relationships. Dating. Marriage. I mean, really, as a functional question: If she cannot get drunk with her boyfriend without placing herself at rape risk, what is the point of such relationships?

And perhaps I'm naïve, but I do remember some stuff about love and trust and having each other's backs; but I'm also a middle-aged cynic when it comes to such relationships, so maybe society finally did away with those expectations and I never noticed.

True, excessive drinking is never wise in any variety of contexts. Rape. Mugging. Driving. Falling off the pier. But at some point we really need to set that aside in order to consider fundamental human relationships.

If, then.

If consumption of alcohol should have any influence over the expectation of trust in friendship or mating, then we're kidding ourselves about who our partners and spouses really are to us.

Plenty have long complained that romance and other such intimate joys are the stuff of myth; they certainly have proper reasons, though it is often a question of whether or not they have the faculties to give those points coherent voice. (And, of course, some of them are just effing idiots embittered for other reasons.)

The question in any prevention context can be fashioned as a quality of life issue. And while it's true that getting loaded isn't the best quality of life expression, the underlying human issues remain unwavering: People have every right to harm themselves without anyone else presuming to take privilege of harm.

This is a basic human issue.

When I lived in Oregon, I learned of a practice among some of my age cohort—my college girlfriend's high school friends—called "chiefing", in which whoever passed out at the party would be punished. Obviously, these heterosexual males didn't rape each other, so they settled on chemical burns.

I mean, come on, really? I get it, sure. There are some mild chemical burns one can cause with extended exposure to certain household goods, including a couple of conditioning shampoos that I wouldn't use, anyway, since that's how they work, chemically burning your hair into submission and then coating it with other stuff to make it feel heavier and softer. So, yeah, we're not talking flesh-removing chemical burns, but still, really?

Maybe there is some cultural consideration owed the idea of our parents telling us who we didn't need as friends because we don't need that kind of friends, because it is largely true, at least among the males of my generation in my corner of the Universe, that some of our favorite memories were crafted with those sorts of people. Still, though, really? I mean, these are friends? It certainly seems small in the terms devised to justify the custom, but at the same time it suggests a pathological need to harm other human beings, and such needs really don't serve society in any construcive manner.

Perhaps the girls chief each other, too; I never did hear the details of that, though it was strongly implied.

There are plenty of reasons to advocate against self-destructive behavior. But those are separate issues, as such. Is it fair to say, "Yeah, we get it, dude, but thanks for illustrating the dangers so neatly"?

Or, you know, don't mind me as I'm just springboarding. We might observe I can't resist taking this dive when the opportunity presents itself.

 

Age of consent in Russia is 16. But rape is rape neverthless, and these "boys" should be prosecuted.

However my main question is to the OP, why the focus is on a rape case in Russia? Why not Poland, USA, UK for example? Or do you think such cases occur in USA and Poland less frequently? I feel that you have a double agenda on disseminating a public opinion of Russia in a bad view.

 

I've said previously, that advising someone to be careful is not rape supporting behavior. It’s just not. There are rapists. They do exist but a victim never creates them.

In this case, though, they weren't punishing her for being drunk. They punished her because she had a sexual encounter with one of his friends. It was a revenge rape. They punished her for being a slut. Only men can be slutty. Although, in spite of what you may think, our natural state is not passivity. Women, too, are sexually aggressive.

A lot of men are overly emotional, never learning to master their emotions. They idolize what they can’t control. They idolize anger and aggression, but most of them use it haphazardly. They only see it as a weakness when it's expressed by a female. Men are angry, females are crazy.

When people are unable to achieve their goals, they use anger to get what they want . They throw childish temper tantrums. Frustration turns to anger, anger to rage. They use their physical strength to get what they want. They belly up to the reward system like little rats. What is it, the male orgasm, 22 seconds of pleasure…at the most?

If superiority was based on strength alone, we’d still be bowing down to the dung beetle.

 

um you know cause it a major case that happened in the previous couple of weeks and is extremely egregious? so rather go off on one of your crazy rants about how the world is out to destroy russia cause its so much better than everyone else take a step back and don't unleash the crazy.