Quetzal
New member
Every now and then I find it.And common sense prevails! :thumb:
Every now and then I find it.And common sense prevails! :thumb:
It might not be effective, you might be right. But, that doesn't take away from the very simple idea that the person who takes aggressive, criminal action against someone else is responsible for that very action; not the victim.The whole 'teach men not to rape' agenda is not only misandrist and flat out degrading to men, but it is also outlandishly retarded.
It might not be effective, you might be right. But, that doesn't take away from the very simple idea that the person who takes aggressive, criminal action against someone else is responsible for that very action; not the victim.
What you really mean is that women should accept that men do not wish to change and should take on the responsibility that any reasonable and moral man accepts as his own ...
It's also easier for men to just drop their clothing in the middle of the floor. Picking up after them only endorses sloppy behavior.
Allowing them run out of clean socks, underwear and pants certainly sends a more proactive message.
wake up rusha
you are not going to change them
but
it is possible to protect yourself
if
you assume that responsibility
Women blaming their rapists for raping them, what a concept.It's just women showing the true colors that were in place from the get go- it's nothing more than an exercise in demonizing men and making themselves victims.
That beginning alone makes everything that follows it irrelevant. And I know from past experience that you don't, when called on a thing, support your declarations, but just for the heck of it...If rape is so horrible...
Among the reason your attempt fails is that someone walking into the road would be violating the law. A woman walking home from a bar at night alone isn't making a good decision, but she's still entitled to do it unmolested. Nothing in walking home, sober or tipsy, excuses any unlawful conduct she encounters.then one would do more about it besides sitting their being 'professional victims'. That is, not getting out of the road with incoming traffic, expecting to not get hit and demonstrating some ridiculous victim complex when you do.
Likely because men remain the disproportionate delivery system for violence, control more of the wealth and political power in our system, etc.People are under this spell in which they honestly believe that misogyny is more common than misandry.
Women blaming their rapists for raping them, what a concept.
Who are typically......rapists...
Ah, thought so. :chuckle:
Who are typically...
Ah, thought so. :chuckle:
You are changing the subject because you have nothing left to offer this one.Homewreckers and family splitters are typically women.
Should we teach all women not to be home wrecking, exploitative slatterns?
Oh yeah, that's right, that would be misogyny
You've chosen to not see reality and vouch for a warped nonsense.
Filing for divorce doesn't make you the reason for the divorce.Homewreckers and family splitters are typically women.
Filing for divorce doesn't make you the reason for the divorce.
wake up rusha
you are not going to change them
but
it is possible to protect yourself
if
you assume that responsibility
Wake up Chys
you have made an
unfounded assumption that
I am unwilling and
incapable
of defending myself.
What you conveniently seem to be glossing over is the fact
that not one person on this planet *should have to* protect themselves from rape because ...
Rapists should not exist.
Rape is bad. Mmmmkayyyy ...
Filing for divorce doesn't make you the reason for the divorce.
You are changing the subject because you have nothing left to offer this one.
Because rape appears to be the topic of discussion despite your overwhelming desire to change it to make your argument easier.So is burglary, assault, murder, and so on.
Why is rape highlighted above all others
By trying to apply my line of reasoning to a different topic entirely. No thanks.That's not changing the subject, that's showing you the contradiction of your standing.
Partly, I think it's contested because some people believe that even criminality is "God's doing" in the sense that God allowed it. So SOME blame has to be assessed to the victims, so that God cannot be seen as allowing criminality for no reason or purpose.Nonsense. The only thing I have seen Rusha advocate for is for the sole blame of the crime to be placed on the criminal. I don't understand why this is contested.