The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity

[Fraggle Rocker]

But we should NOT be TELLING (not teaching, telling) women to be scared of men. How is that ANY different than someone asshole justifying themself for telling someone to be scared of someone else based on their ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc..!

It's no different at all; in fact it's identical. We're telling women exactly to be scared of someone based on his gender!

"We're supposed to be slowly and steadily improving civilization." - Fraggle . . . . While that might have some validity, it's driving us away from evolution at the same time.

Evolution works best in the natural world. It ain't gonna do shit for us in the unnatural world we have been creating ever since the first tribe of cavemen discovered how to cultivate plants and herd animals, taking us from the Paleolithic Era into the Neolithic. Ever since then, we have been steadily transcending nature. That often backfires, but when it succeeds, it's breathtaking.

Evolution simply does not work fast enough to adapt us to every Paradigm Shift we create. Deep down inside, we're still Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who would rather sleep on the ground and shit in the woods. We mollify our Inner Caveman with pizza, TV, cold beer, motorcycles, football, air conditioning, and a domesticated wolf at his feet who thinks he's God. But every now and then he gets restless and does something utterly Paleolithic. Most of the time we're able to clean up the mess, but not always.

Especially when some asshole with the gift of rhetoric convinces an entire population to let their Inner Cavemen take over, and start a war.

Growing up in the sixties and seventies we never wore seat belts . . . .

Wow! My dad bought the first set of seat belts in Arizona out of the J.C. Whitney catalog and installed them in our 1955 Studebaker.

When our last president started rattling sabers at Saddam Hussein I thought there was no way that would fly in this civilized day and age.

I've been living in the Washington region since 2002 and I can assure you that 9/11 shook a lot of people down to their chanclas. (We've both lived in California so I assume you know the jargon. ) Many of my friends work at GEICO in Chevy Chase and watched the Pentagon burn from the roof of their office building.

Something like that just changes you, if only temporarily. Americans were ready to burn the first person they could find who had the slightest responsibility for that. Unfortunately we were under the leadership of a traitor who didn't dare let us know that 9/11 was almost completely planned, financed, managed and executed by Saudis, because the Saudi royal family are his daddy's bosom buddies in the energy industry. His daddy had already convinced us that Saddam (arguably the leader of the only major secular, pro-Western government in the Middle East--not to mention the ally we supported with money and guns during his war with Iran) was a monster. So even though he knew that the U.N. inspectors had already discovered that he had no WMDs, we didn't know that, so he told us we had to take him out.

If he'd told the truth and threatened to bomb Riyadh and Mecca instead of Baghdad and Kabul, King Abdullah (does anybody really think that he didn't know where his own renegade brother-in-law was at every moment?) would have had Osama's head delivered to the White House service entrance in a FedEx truck within 36 hours, and this would have all been over. And nobody would be blaming Obama for the $3 trillion increase in the deficit that Backward Baby Bush created by simply borrowing the money for the war from China.

Surprise, surprise, surprise! When he showed up in my neck of the woods a few years later I advised him to turn himself in for his crimes.

If only somebody had the balls to prosecute the Bush family for their crimes!

 

[Bells]

both sides of this argument have used absolutes - that's what makes it so infuriating. It's become... well, damn near political. Side A says one thing, so Side B says the opposite JUST to be argumentative. Side A and B go at it, meanwhile subsides C and D form and take up sides close to, but not identical to, sides A and B, and then there's a few of us just staring at this whole shitfest like "wtf mate"

The long and short of it, in my opinion, is this:

A sexually-active/interested person (be it guy or girl) has a RESPONSIBILITY and DUTY to acknowledge and understand the wishes of the person(s) he/she wishes to be sexually active with. It is their responsibility to reign in their sex drive.

AT THE SAME TIME - it is the other parties responsibility to not be an absolute flirt, then stonewall.

To explain:

If a guy and a girl are at a bar and have been watching each other for a bit, and the guy has had a bit to drink, it's HIS responsibility to know that he IS, in fact, mildly inebriated and to make a conscious effort NOT to succumb to basal desires. At the same time, the girl SHOULD be aware to the fact that, because of the alcohol, any flirtatious behavior on her part could be more easily misconstrued and thus should use due caution to make sure she doesn't come off as overly interested if she is, in fact, not.

If the guy and girl start flirting, and one or the other comes to the conclusion that this ISN'T something they would like to pursue, then they need to be clear about that and the other should accept that gracefully. Trying to forcibly push the situation... I cannot see ANY way it can possibly end in anything good.

Anyone claiming they "cannot control themselves" just because a woman is wearing short shorts or a low cut top... they need to give serious consideration to therapy.

Are there people out there that aren't quite wired right? Of course... pedophiles, serial rapists, the list goes on and on... but that ISN'T the norm, and asking women to treat EVERYONE like it is, and to be on the defensive 100% of the time... it's stupid.

It's like checking over your should for a runaway bus while watching TV in your living room. Could it happen, a bus comes plowing through your house? Of course! Is it likely to happen? No. Is being paranoid about it going to change anything? Not at all.

Because saying "no" is not enough of an indication and not clear enough? How about if she tries to push you away, or crawl away? I'd say that's pretty clear. How about if she's too drunk or unconscious? I mean, that's a pretty clear thing there, if she isn't able to say yes or no, does not mean she wants to have sex, even if she was flirting with the guy earlier.

The biggest issue with rape prevention arguments is that it treats women as though they are stupid and dimwitted. As though they don't have a clue and need to be reminded and told. I mean, we need to be told to be clear about our intentions? Perhaps we can start wearing flashing signs tied to our chests and give a tick or cross flashing on it, you know, just to make sure we're really clear. It's silly. Because if someone is going to rape you or even considering it, whether we are clear or not is not going to matter.

The other issue with rape prevention arguments is that it solely caters to stranger rapes. They all do. I mean one State in the US is telling women to walk down the middle of the street to avoid getting raped by walking on the sidewalk near buildings or shrubs. This is the recommendation given by the Government in Mississippi, to women. And that was just one of the stupid recommendations. The rest of the recommendation for walking outdoors advised women to be rude, not speak to any male, not look at them, to pretty much run and keep looking over your shoulder, to always wear clothes they can run in.. It was astounding. The rest of the advice was just as hysterical, one bordered on illegality (drive away at the scene of an accident).

It's akin to you telling your wife 'don't talk to strangers, don't smile at strange men, make sure you always wear running shoes or flat shoes when you go out, lock the car door when you are in the car, etc' each time she goes out. I'd wager she'd probably tell you to shove it if you kept reminding her to not speak to strangers or get into a car with strangers. Because she is not a child. I don't understand why even people in this thread keep repeating the same inane warnings about "stranger danger" to grown women, because apparently, this will stop them from getting raped. Firstly, once again, we aren't stupid or children and secondly, we are much less likely to be raped by a stranger than by someone we know.

And that's the biggest danger with rape prevention advocacy. They never tell women that they are more likely to be raped by someone they know and most likely trust, than by a stranger. Statistically, and by a huge margin, I am safer walking down the street at 2am, by myself and in high heels, then I am in my own home with someone I know and trust and am perhaps already in a relationship with. I mean sure, we can take Billvon seriously and expect women to just know which one is likely to rape her, but as we all clearly now know, it's not easy to tell. In fact, it is nearly impossible.

So on the one hand, women have people constantly reminding them of 'rape prevention' and on the other hand, we have pretty much the same people reminding women that not all men are rapists and whining about how offended they are that women think this, while ignoring the part that the rape prevention crap they peddle forces women to believe that all men are potential rapists..

To reiterate, we're not stupid. Perhaps people should stop treating us as if we are.

 

[Tiassa]

You Still Owe a Demonstration of Your Claim

Exactly. The statement "Men are evil" is YOUR (not specifically yours but) feelings. The statement "Some men are evil" is functional reality, because that is reality! There are some men that are evil, just like there are some women that are evil. And as you said, functional reality kind of trumps your feelings.

You miss the point.

The functional reality is that, your feelings notwithstanding—as they are irrelevant in this context—the underlying burden of rape prevention theory requires women to guard against all men.

But when SOME women, mainly self-proclaimed Feminists use the blanket statement of "Men are evil", it's persecuting all men, generalizing all men as if we're nothing but evil that should be feared and killed off. That is why the #notallmen started. (Personally I'm not one of them who's used it, I don't use Twitter and I hate hash tags but whatever) Is that men, and some women are just getting tired of it. IF you mean only SOME of something, bloody use SOME. That goes for everyone and yes, I'll probably make that slip up myself and if I do, PLEASE call me out for it.

You are ably demonstrating the problem of #NotAllMen.

And you need to get this part through your skull: The question of all men or not exists solely because of Infinite Protection Advocacy. You do not get to complain about an outcome while blithely ignoring what leads to it.

Furthermore, you have yet to answer:

"Bells using her awful tragedy ... as if it was some victim card to discredit anyone on a whim."​

Demonstrate.

Go. Do. Now.

Demonstrate, retract and apologize, or stand down.

 

[Kittamaru]

Because saying "no" is not enough of an indication and not clear enough? How about if she tries to push you away, or crawl away? I'd say that's pretty clear. How about if she's too drunk or unconscious? I mean, that's a pretty clear thing there, if she isn't able to say yes or no, does not mean she wants to have sex, even if she was flirting with the guy earlier.

The biggest issue with rape prevention arguments is that it treats women as though they are stupid and dimwitted. As though they don't have a clue and need to be reminded and told. I mean, we need to be told to be clear about our intentions? Perhaps we can start wearing flashing signs tied to our chests and give a tick or cross flashing on it, you know, just to make sure we're really clear. It's silly. Because if someone is going to rape you or even considering it, whether we are clear or not is not going to matter.

The other issue with rape prevention arguments is that it solely caters to stranger rapes. They all do. I mean one State in the US is telling women to walk down the middle of the street to avoid getting raped by walking on the sidewalk near buildings or shrubs. This is the recommendation given by the Government in Mississippi, to women. And that was just one of the stupid recommendations. The rest of the recommendation for walking outdoors advised women to be rude, not speak to any male, not look at them, to pretty much run and keep looking over your shoulder, to always wear clothes they can run in.. It was astounding. The rest of the advice was just as hysterical, one bordered on illegality (drive away at the scene of an accident).

It's akin to you telling your wife 'don't talk to strangers, don't smile at strange men, make sure you always wear running shoes or flat shoes when you go out, lock the car door when you are in the car, etc' each time she goes out. I'd wager she'd probably tell you to shove it if you kept reminding her to not speak to strangers or get into a car with strangers. Because she is not a child. I don't understand why even people in this thread keep repeating the same inane warnings about "stranger danger" to grown women, because apparently, this will stop them from getting raped. Firstly, once again, we aren't stupid or children and secondly, we are much less likely to be raped by a stranger than by someone we know.

And that's the biggest danger with rape prevention advocacy. They never tell women that they are more likely to be raped by someone they know and most likely trust, than by a stranger. Statistically, and by a huge margin, I am safer walking down the street at 2am, by myself and in high heels, then I am in my own home with someone I know and trust and am perhaps already in a relationship with. I mean sure, we can take Billvon seriously and expect women to just know which one is likely to rape her, but as we all clearly now know, it's not easy to tell. In fact, it is nearly impossible.

So on the one hand, women have people constantly reminding them of 'rape prevention' and on the other hand, we have pretty much the same people reminding women that not all men are rapists and whining about how offended they are that women think this, while ignoring the part that the rape prevention crap they peddle forces women to believe that all men are potential rapists..

To reiterate, we're not stupid. Perhaps people should stop treating us as if we are.

And that just furthers my point - in general, common sense should be enough for any decent people to prevent things like this from happening - unfortunately, there ARE unscrupulous individuals out there who are bound and determined, for some twisted "reason", to harm others, and Rape is one of those ways of harming others. In the end, no amount of prevention on either side is going to totally stop those twisted, suck fucks... which saddens me to no end. I can't comprehend it - the desire to harm someone in such a... I don't even know... such a surreal and intimate way as to rape them... I can't understand such a desire!

 

[GeoffP]

both sides of this argument have used absolutes - that's what makes it so infuriating.

Only one side of the argument has used absolutes. The 'risks' side has described partial risks, but I recall no point at which they have assigned the responsibility for a woman's assault to the woman herself. The only absolutes come from the other group. I don't think anyone could make the case that billvon and Trooper and Kremmen have argued an absolute. If they have, what absolute is it?

It's become... well, damn near political. Side A says one thing, so Side B says the opposite JUST to be argumentative. Side A and B go at it, meanwhile subsides C and D form and take up sides close to, but not identical to, sides A and B, and then there's a few of us just staring at this whole shitfest like "wtf mate"

I think you'll find that Side A says one thing, Side B raises objections and Side A rejects Side B philosophically and personally, replete with misrepresentation and character attacks. I haven't identified subgroups within A or B.

As far as your characterisation of relative risks goes, what can I say? Sure, it pays to avoid risks of various types. Sure, innumerable situations create risks and not all risks can be dealt with in all situations, nor even select risks within certain situations. And - nearly - no amount of probity will protect absolutely. Bells and Tiassa are correct when they object to the societal onus being placed on women; yet in the practical sense there is nothing wrong with risk avoidance. However, relative risk is actually probably higher vs strangers, in contrast to overall risk. A woman is almost certainly not safer walking at 2 AM in a dark alley than in their home on a minute-to-minute scale.

 

[Bells]

And that just furthers my point - in general, common sense should be enough for any decent people to prevent things like this from happening - unfortunately, there ARE unscrupulous individuals out there who are bound and determined, for some twisted "reason", to harm others, and Rape is one of those ways of harming others. In the end, no amount of prevention on either side is going to totally stop those twisted, suck fucks... which saddens me to no end. I can't comprehend it - the desire to harm someone in such a... I don't even know... such a surreal and intimate way as to rape them... I can't understand such a desire!

The thing with rape prevention ideology and the way it pushes stranger rape as the "rapist", it gives women and girls this sense of comfort if they are at home with a loved one or out with people they trust. The rape prevention strategies even say to leave your drink with someone you trust and not unattended. That someone you trust is more likely to rape you. Then these women are raped and they ask themselves how and why. Because they took all the steps to protect themselves. You know, they acted with common sense. They were at home with people they trusted.

We cannot be expected to cater against random individuals who may or may not rape us. What may attract one rapist may repulse another.

It's that expectation that we are meant to remain always on the alert, and hyper aware, alter our behaviour completely just in case some person within our vicinity may decide to rape us. When we don't, then you get the "but" after the "it's not your fault".. There is no fucking "but".

And that constant fucking reminder.. Yet another one..

Bells and Tiassa are correct when they object to the societal onus being placed on women; yet in the practical sense there is nothing wrong with risk avoidance.

Thank you captain fucking obvious.

No, really, why do people feel the need to keep pressing this fucking stupid point?

I don't think anyone could make the case that billvon and Trooper and Kremmen have argued an absolute. If they have, what absolute is it?

Well let's see, we've had the don't dress a certain way and compared women's bodies to laptops left in an unattended car, we've had another declare that women can and should apparently know what man is likely to rape her in the future, and the other blame women for drinking, getting in cars with strange men, etc.. You don't see those as absolutes? Oh wait... I forgot who I was speaking to.

However, relative risk is actually probably higher vs strangers, in contrast to overall risk. A woman is almost certainly not safer walking at 2 AM in a dark alley than in their home on a minute-to-minute scale.

This would only be so if you are alone in your house, with everything locked up and a weapon by your side.

The statistics again..

Approximately 2/3 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim.1
73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger.1
38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance.1
28% are an intimate.1
7% are a relative.1

The Perpetrator's not Hiding in the Bushes

More than 50% of all rape/sexual assault incidents were reported by victims to have occured within 1 mile of their home or at their home.2

4 in 10 take place at the victim's home.
2 in 10 take place at the home of a friend, neighbor, or relative.
1 in 12 take place in a parking garage.
​

So please, for the love of all that his holy, stop creating this false sense of security for women under the guise of "rape prevention".

And stop lecturing women as though we are stupid because you feel the need to keep reminding us that "in the practical sense there is nothing wrong with risk avoidance". WE KNOW THIS ALREADY!

So STOP TELLING ME ABOUT RISK AVOIDANCE when you are incapable of understanding what that actually entails when it comes to rape. If I wanted to really embrace "risk avoidance", I'd stop associating with all males and live the life of a god damn hermit.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Bells and Tiassa are correct when they object to the societal onus being placed on women; yet in the practical sense there is nothing wrong with risk avoidance. However, relative risk is actually probably higher vs strangers, in contrast to overall risk. A woman is almost certainly not safer walking at 2 AM in a dark alley than in their home on a minute-to-minute scale.

Good ponts that shoud be stressed more often... thanks.!!!

 

[Bells]

Good ponts that shoud be stressed more often... thanks.!!!

How about this..

A little scientific experiment for you and GeoffP. Since, you know, those good points need to be stressed more often..

Each time your wives leave the house, you remind her that:

1) She should not speak to strangers.
2) She should not walk home alone or in a dark alley alone at 2am.
3) She should not accept any food or drink from a stranger.
4) She should not, under any circumstances, accept a ride from a strange man.
5) She should not give her address or contact details to strangers.
6) She should not get into bed or undress in front of strangers.
7) She should not dress in a manner that could be construed as being provocative to someone out there.. somewhere.
8) She should not drink to the point where she is not in charge of her faculties.

Write that up and put it by her car keys. Just so that she knows. Remind her of it every day. Stress those good practical points as often as you can.

And then, tell us how many days go by before she asks you why you think she is stupid and why you are treating her like a child.

But let us know how well you go and how welcome she is of these good points that need to be stressed more often.

I invite both of you to undertake this experiment. If you feel uncomfortable lecturing her about these good points that need to be stressed more often, because you know, there is nothing wrong with risk avoidance, do it 3 times a week. Tell her this 3 times a week. That should be fairly easy, shouldn't it?

And then, you can both tell us how many times you had to repeat it to her before she questioned why you were treating her as though she was a 5 year old.

Since they are good points and all.

She shouldn't mind, should she? After all, you both love your spouse. You want to make sure she remains safe and stops any potential rapist from raping her. So why would she mind if you kept reminding her of this great practical advice and good points?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

How about this..

A little scientific experiment for you and GeoffP. Since, you know, those good points need to be stressed more often..

Each time your wives leave the house, you remind her that:

1) She should not speak to strangers.
2) She should not walk home alone or in a dark alley alone at 2am.
3) She should not accept any food or drink from a stranger.
4) She should not, under any circumstances, accept a ride from a strange man.
5) She should not give her address or contact details to strangers.
6) She should not get into bed or undress in front of strangers.
7) She should not dress in a manner that could be construed as being provocative to someone out there.. somewhere.
8) She should not drink to the point where she is not in charge of her faculties.

Write that up and put it by her car keys. Just so that she knows. Remind her of it every day. Stress those good practical points as often as you can.

And then, tell us how many days go by before she asks you why you think she is stupid and why you are treating her like a child.

But let us know how well you go and how welcome she is of these good points that need to be stressed more often.

I invite both of you to undertake this experiment. If you feel uncomfortable lecturing her about these good points that need to be stressed more often, because you know, there is nothing wrong with risk avoidance, do it 3 times a week. Tell her this 3 times a week. That should be fairly easy, shouldn't it?

And then, you can both tell us how many times you had to repeat it to her before she questioned why you were treating her as though she was a 5 year old.

Since they are good points and all.

She shouldn't mind, should she? After all, you both love your spouse. You want to make sure she remains safe and stops any potential rapist from raping her. So why would she mind if you kept reminding her of this great practical advice and good points?

Yikes... sounds like a scenario you have personaly experienced an are jus ventin frustrations.!!!

 

[Tiassa]

Clueless Disrespect

Yikes... sounds like a scenario you have personaly experienced an are jus ventin frustrations.!!!

How about this: Be useful to the discussion, or stand down.

But do be sure to let us know what your wife says.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I thank my best course of action will be to just agree wit you an stand down... an my wife agrees

 

[Bells]

Yikes... sounds like a scenario you have personaly experienced an are jus ventin frustrations.!!!

See, I have been told these things numerous times in this thread alone. How women should not talk to strangers, walk home alone or in a dark alley alone at 2am, etc.. Too many times in this thread to count.

And that's just from this thread.

So perhaps you can understand why I, as a woman, find it frustrating when yahoo's on this site choose to speak to me and other women on this site as though we were 5 year olds by constantly reminding us of these "very good points" and "practical points" each time rape is discussed.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

See, I have been told these things numerous times in this thread alone. How women should not talk to strangers, walk home alone or in a dark alley alone at 2am, etc.. Too many times in this thread to count.

And that's just from this thread.

So perhaps you can understand why I, as a woman, find it frustrating when yahoo's on this site choose to speak to me and other women on this site as though we were 5 year olds by constantly reminding us of these "very good points" and "practical points" each time rape is discussed.

O i didnt mean it to be directed at you or womens in particular... i thank such thangs shoud be stressed to anybody who dont show good sinse about such thangs.!!!

 

[Bells]

O i didnt mean it to be directed at you or womens in particular... i thank such thangs shoud be stressed to anybody who dont show good sinse about such thangs.!!!

Which would be children or people with the mental capacity of a child.

Why do people keep reminding women of it?

 

[GeoffP]

The thing with rape prevention ideology and the way it pushes stranger rape as the "rapist", it gives women and girls this sense of comfort if they are at home with a loved one or out with people they trust. The rape prevention strategies even say to leave your drink with someone you trust and not unattended. That someone you trust is more likely to rape you. Then these women are raped and they ask themselves how and why. Because they took all the steps to protect themselves. You know, they acted with common sense. They were at home with people they trusted.

This has not actually been specified. No one has told women to stay at home "or else". Where is this written in the comments of your opposition?

We cannot be expected to cater against random individuals who may or may not rape us.

"Cater"?

Thank you captain fucking obvious.

No, really, why do people feel the need to keep pressing this fucking stupid point?

Language. Why do you feel the need to enlarge the "meaning" of this point to encompass fault in the hyper-aware state you're proposing exists?

It's that expectation that we are meant to remain always on the alert, and hyper aware, alter our behaviour completely just in case some person within our vicinity may decide to rape us. When we don't, then you get the "but" after the "it's not your fault".. There is no fucking "but".

Where is this "but"? Who is employing it? As a conjunction, what exactly does it imply?

Well let's see, we've had the don't dress a certain way and compared women's bodies to laptops left in an unattended car, we've had another declare that women can and should apparently know what man is likely to rape her in the future, and the other blame women for drinking, getting in cars with strange men, etc.. You don't see those as absolutes? Oh wait... I forgot who I was speaking to.

Define in what way those are absolutes. They're binary choices, certainly.

So please, for the love of all that his holy, stop creating this false sense of security for women under the guise of "rape prevention".

And stop lecturing women as though we are stupid because you feel the need to keep reminding us that "in the practical sense there is nothing wrong with risk avoidance". WE KNOW THIS ALREADY!

So STOP TELLING ME ABOUT RISK AVOIDANCE when you are incapable of understanding what that actually entails when it comes to rape. If I wanted to really embrace "risk avoidance", I'd stop associating with all males and live the life of a god damn hermit.[/QUOTE]

Who is lecturing? I will continue to post and re-post as appropriate. Also, you cannot on the one hand claim that its mention is redundant and then on the other hand say it's irrelevant because "you are incapable of understanding what that actually entails when it comes to rape". Neither have I "created this false sense of security for women under the guise of "rape prevention"". What are you trying to say?

 

[GeoffP]

How about this..

A little scientific experiment for you and GeoffP. Since, you know, those good points need to be stressed more often..

Each time your wives leave the house, you remind her that:

1) She should not speak to strangers.
2) She should not walk home alone or in a dark alley alone at 2am.
3) She should not accept any food or drink from a stranger.
4) She should not, under any circumstances, accept a ride from a strange man.
5) She should not give her address or contact details to strangers.
6) She should not get into bed or undress in front of strangers.
7) She should not dress in a manner that could be construed as being provocative to someone out there.. somewhere.
8) She should not drink to the point where she is not in charge of her faculties.

Write that up and put it by her car keys. Just so that she knows. Remind her of it every day. Stress those good practical points as often as you can.

Why would I remind her of it every day? Is that the rational frequency at which I should remind her that has some similitude to an external point you are obliquely referring to? Where are you getting this external standard from?

 

[GeoffP]

Which would be children or people with the mental capacity of a child.

Why do people keep reminding women of it?

It appears to me that the people in the thread are simply raising counterpoint against a proposition that seems unitarian. It would be good if all sides could clarify their language on this subject, certainly.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

O i didnt mean it to be directed at you or womens in particular... i thank such thangs shoud be stressed to anybody who dont show good sinse about such thangs.!!!

Which would be children or people with the mental capacity of a child.

Why do people keep reminding women of it?

That souns like a argument a ignorent bratty child might make... lol.!!!

Nobodys perfect... even adults wit high iq's might develope unsafe habits... an if ther rational an not in an overly emotional state they coud even appreciate such reminders from a loved one.!!!

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Yikes... sounds like a scenario you have personaly experienced an are jus ventin frustrations.!!!

See, I have been told these things numerous times in this thread alone. How women should not talk to strangers, walk home alone or in a dark alley alone at 2am, etc.. Too many times in this thread to count.

And that's just from this thread.

So perhaps you can understand why I, as a woman, find it frustrating when yahoo's on this site choose to speak to me and other women on this site as though we were 5 year olds by constantly reminding us of these "very good points" and "practical points" each time rape is discussed.

Whether or not a person is frustrated... does not give them the right to falsly label people as misogynists an rape suporters.!!!

I thank an apology for such actions woud go a long way toward makin this thred meaninful.!!!

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to Fraggle Rocker, re: your # 521 post.

Thanks for the excellent post! You should make an effort to send it (the Bush references) to "Rolling Stone" and see if they like it!

So...I am not alone with my personal assessments of "the usurper of the popular vote by proxy of the Supreme Court".

(You forgot to mention "Daddy Bush" the "war hero" that left his rear-gunner to die when the plane was hit..."too bad for the poor man" as H.W. would later say.

(like father, like son...no real records exist that the "Shrub" actually served more the a few hours at best with the Alabama Air National Guard (res.) Talk about "spin" and

"creative fiction!" Holy shit!

You know something "funny?" All the fighter pilots in the World consider themselves as the elite "Knights of the Air" and "Childe Rolands" and will NOT tolerate cowards or

shirkers...and yet NO ONE can "really remember" flying with the "Shrub"...how is this even possible? (Dan Rather fell for "deliberately planted false evidence" concerning Bush's

?military career? and Rather got his nuts cut-off for it...everyone in journalism "got the message" and ceased looking into matters "ain't no bidnuss of yers, buddy")

.....

(no...no "sucking-up" or "kissy-face" from me...I JUST LOVE THIS POST!!!!)


(Thanks for reading!)