• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Asking for it

Helix said:
if your wife says no and you proceed to force yourself on her anyway, that's rape. i can help you with any other questions you might have concerning what is rape and what isn't.
Click to expand...

While such an act is wrong, it is absurd to call it rape.

tecoyah said:
It was an obvious exaggeration of the realities of Muslim treatment of women.
Click to expand...

No, it was a specific false statement about a specific country. It has no basis in reality, therefore it is slander. Iranian law does not prevent women from driving.

In certain Islamic countries women are forbidden from driving or even walking outside alone.
Click to expand...

One. Saudi Arabia. And the punishment isn't death.

Some areas have stoned women to death for getting raped
Click to expand...

This is again, false. Duress is a defense to the crime of fornication in every Muslim country. If you mean that innocent people are sometimes falsely convicted, that's certainly true, but it's true in every country on Earth with respect to every crime.

Of course, if you mean that there are cases where people have murdered victims of rape, then that's true, but there are murders everywhere. They only indicate a problem with the law if the law allows them.

It is undeniable that Islamic nations mistreat females by western standards and are thus considered brutally backward.
Click to expand...

True, but our standards are insane.
 
Attempting to defend actions and attitudes seen as horrific by much of the world...makes you yourself seem horrific to much of the world.

I live in "Much of the World" and see you as such.
 
Paleocon said:
This comment is slanderous. Please support it or retract it.
Click to expand...

One would have to be monumentally ignorant of the meaning of terms to ascribe the word slander to a situation involving an anonymous person making a statement on the internet directed towards no specific person.

Have you ever considered the many merits of a basic high school education? Aspiring towards at least some degree of competency would serve you well.
 
tecoyah said:
Attempting to defend actions and attitudes seen as horrific by much of the world...makes you yourself seem horrific to much of the world.

I live in "Much of the World" and see you as such.
Click to expand...

Fine. I and they view your ideology with horror.

Gardener said:
One would have to be monumentally ignorant of the meaning of terms to ascribe the word slander to a situation involving an anonymous person making a statement on the internet directed towards no specific person.
Click to expand...

It was directed to a specific country.

Have you ever considered the many merits of a basic high school education? Aspiring towards at least some degree of competency would serve you well.
Click to expand...

Have you?
 
Paleocon said:
While such an act is wrong, it is absurd to call it rape.
Click to expand...

no, if your wife says no and you force yourself on her, that's rape. marrying someone isn't a blank check for sexual consent.
 
Helix said:
no, if your wife says no and you force yourself on her, that's rape.
Click to expand...

Funny how no one noticed this until forty years ago.

Helix said:
marrying someone isn't a blank check for sexual consent.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. That's the whole point. A wife (or a husband) doesn't need to keep giving consent, she (or he) already did so, probably in front of about a hundred witnesses.
 
tecoyah said:
It was an obvious exaggeration of the realities of Muslim treatment of women. In certain Islamic countries women are forbidden from driving or even walking outside alone. Some areas have stoned women to death for getting raped.

It is undeniable that Islamic nations mistreat females by western standards and are thus considered brutally backward.
Click to expand...

In the Northern England city of Rotherham, groups of Muslim rapists have been targeting British children for years, In a city of 250000, the child victims of the Muslim rapists total at least 1400, and that is the tip of the ice burg since it is occurring all over the country. The perps call the white children "easy meat", due to their ethnicity, and were aided, abetted and fostered by officials too terrified of being considered prejudiced against Islam or racist against those committing the rapes to actually put the practice to a stop. Despite the fact the perps were exhibiting attitudes of a culture where females are considered inferior and Kaffir females doubly so, you would be surprised at how ingrained are the attitudes in Britain where political correctness demands the continuation of this status quo.

These children not dressing provocatively had little effect on the disgusting things that raped and brutalized them. It was an expression of contempt for women, contempt towards the society in which they lived and an expression of domination over it. It had nothing to do with attire and everything to do with primitive creatures living in an advanced society preying upon the vulnerable.
 
Paleocon said:
Funny how no one noticed this until forty years ago.
Click to expand...

we've made a lot of progress since then.

Paleocon said:
Yes, it is. That's the whole point. A wife (or a husband) doesn't need to keep giving consent, she (or he) already did so, probably in front of about a hundred witnesses.
Click to expand...

incorrect. consent is required regardless of marital status.
 
Paleocon said:
Fine. I and they view your ideology with horror.

...snip....
Click to expand...

Might I suggest then, that if you by chance live in or wish to take advantage of the benefits of western civilization...you either move to or stay in a country that does not have them. You are not ready for or deserving of such things.
 
Helix said:
we've made a lot of progress since then.
Click to expand...

So even though the current view is obviously right, no one noticed it for millennia?

incorrect. consent is required regardless of marital status.
Click to expand...

It's very simple. If they're married, they've already consented.
 
Paleocon said:
It was directed to a specific country.
Click to expand...

You didn't really HAVE to double down on the ignorance, you know.

It was already abundantly clear.
 
CMPancake said:
I didn't wear my bullet proof vest today, does that mean I'm enticing a shooting?
Click to expand...

Yes.



You should probably try to avoid bullets all day today. Keep an eye out for them. It's the QUIET bullets that you REALLY gotta watch.
 
In order for the premise of the OP to be true, then strips clubs must by definition, be havens of rape.
 
Paleocon said:
So even though the current view is obviously right, no one noticed it for millennia?
Click to expand...

people aren't property, which is also a concept not widely accepted for millennia.

Paleocon said:
It's very simple. If they're married, they've already consented.
Click to expand...

incorrect, as i've already explained to you. you're just flat out wrong.
 
Paleocon said:
Funny how no one noticed this until forty years ago.



Yes, it is. That's the whole point. A wife (or a husband) doesn't need to keep giving consent, she (or he) already did so, probably in front of about a hundred witnesses.
Click to expand...

Consent to marriage is not consent to sex 100%, all the time, anytime.
 
Helix said:
people aren't property, which is also a concept not widely accepted for millennia.
Click to expand...

Which society failed to distinguish between people and property?
 
Gardener said:
In the Northern England city of Rotherham, groups of Muslim rapists have been targeting British children for years, In a city of 250000, the child victims of the Muslim rapists total at least 1400, and that is the tip of the ice burg since it is occurring all over the country. The perps call the white children "easy meat", due to their ethnicity, and were aided, abetted and fostered by officials too terrified of being considered prejudiced against Islam or racist against those committing the rapes to actually put the practice to a stop. Despite the fact the perps were exhibiting attitudes of a culture where females are considered inferior and Kaffir females doubly so, you would be surprised at how ingrained are the attitudes in Britain where political correctness demands the continuation of this status quo.

These children not dressing provocatively had little effect on the disgusting things that raped and brutalized them. It was an expression of contempt for women, contempt towards the society in which they lived and an expression of domination over it. It had nothing to do with attire and everything to do with primitive creatures living in an advanced society preying upon the vulnerable.
Click to expand...

I can only empathize and be glad this attitude is not accepted here in the United States. Should such things be attempted here...I can guarantee a couple hundred drunk Texans would gather their guns and have a few bonfires. Hell I might even fly out and roast some Islamic Marshmallow Testicles.
 
helix said:
it doesn't matter what a woman is wearing. There is no excuse for rape.
Click to expand...

ding ding ding ding!:yt

This is 100% correct!

Doesn't matter what she is wearing or not wearing there is no excuse for rape
 
tecoyah said:
I can only empathize and be glad this attitude is not accepted here in the United States. Should such things be attempted here...I can guarantee a couple hundred drunk Texans would gather their guns and have a few bonfires. Hell I might even fly out and roast some Islamic Marshmallow Testicles.
Click to expand...

I hope it doesn't ever get that bad here. The attitudes in Britain regarding the willful abandonment of their children to Muslim rapists strikes me as the end product of the sort of social conditioning the Black Lives Matter movement hopes to accomplish. Any rejection of criminality or expressions of extreme racism coming FROM minorities elicits calls that it is the person rejecting the racism and criminality who is the racist, and is part of a very determined process of intimidation crafted to create a set of double standards favorable to the minority over the majority.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No one "asks" to be raped.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But if you've got a rapist out stalking women in the bars and clubs of a particular city who do you think is more likely to become a target?

A modestly dressed woman who is sober or a drunken woman who is dressed provocatively?
 
should what a woman wears matter?

in a civilized society, no

does it matter in the real world? yes

as a father to two daughters now in their 20's, i made more than one speech to both of them

should it have been necessary? no

was it necessary...yes

a woman showing off her sexuality, wearing revealing clothes, does so for a reason

a. it makes her feel good
b. she may like the stares, leers, and attention dressing that way gets her, and that in itself builds her confidence

it is her right to do so.....as it is also her right if of age, to imbibe alcohol till she feels numb

when a woman combines both of those things, and then gets ATTACKED, it is not her fault.....it is the perps

but as a society, we also look at the behavior and wonder why one would put themselves in such a predicament

that is the conversation i had with my daughters.....not to put themselves in that predicament

and i hope and pray every other father has the same conversation with their kids
 
CMPancake said:
Literally the only thing you needed to say. You are absolutely correct, my clothing has no bearing on people shooting me.




Since you have set the standard that the victims can be blamed for physical acts of violence against them, then I guess it isn't a stretch to say you blame the victims that were shot at in Texas for drawing Mohammad, or the women in Iran that are stoned to death for having the audacity to drive?



There's predators and evil people, that's true but it's absolutely vile to blame the victim rather than hold the predator accountable for his own actions.
Click to expand...

I don't consider it vile to point pout that if you parade around as a tasty vital in front of predators the likelihood is you will eventually get bitten or eaten. That's life and oh yes it is patently unfair. Life sucks and then you die, probably miserably.

And yes to be honest in part those victims brought it on themselves by essentially jumping up and down yelling pick me, pick me via their incredibly stupid actions. If you live in Iran and you are a woman then driving around is probably an exceedingly bad idea, especially if you value your lives. Pamela Geller whom I like by the way, did bring it upon herself to poke the jihadi. Though in her case she was prepared for and conscious of the consequences of her actions. If you are intent on poking a bear at least bring a big enough gun to kill it straight away after you piss it off.

There is a moral to this story. Don't get drunk in public, otherwise bad happen and it doesn't really matter if you be female or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom