• 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!

US teacher raped in South Africa.

I'm not going to play semantic games here.

This woman's complete and total lack of common sense, situational awareness, and any kind of regard for her own safety and well-being contributed directly to her rape.

At the end of the day each individual is responsible for his or her own safety and this woman took absolutely no responsibility for herself.

In South Africa women should expect that someone will attempt to rape them under any and all circumstances and should always be aware of their surroundings and considering what they can do "right now" to mitigate the tremendous risk they face.

I agree with you that it's not her "fault", but she served herself up on a silver platter.

Her attackers have been caught and I don't think that this woman's bone-jarring stupidity should serve as any kind of mitigation in respect to their crimes.

But at the end of the day she has still been gang raped and her blasé attitude is at least partly responsible for the fact that she'll have to live with that for the rest of her life.

A stupendous piece of victim blaming. Perhaps you think women should never leave the house so that they don't get raped.
Here's an idea: instead of telling women to wear certain clothes or avoid going to certain places to avoid being raped, how about telling men NOT TO ****ING RAPE WOMEN.
 
It is not a game of semantics. By blaming the woman and saying that she was asking for it or bought it on herself, you are saying that she was responsible for the rape rather than the rapists.

Just because she isn't responsible for having been raped does not mean that she shouldn't have taken more precautions for her own safety - especially in a high-crime area.
 
I have good friends from both Victoria and Johannesburg. They tell me at night you generally stay home if you can, and you never leave your car door unlocked at stop lights. They say people will just walk up and try to open your car door.

They say the crime rates have almost quadrupled in the past 20 years.

Well some ares are still better than others, strangely along political lines. Areas controlled by the DA like the Western Cape and Cape Town have less crime than areas where the ANC are popular like the rest of the country. Cape Town and the Western Cape have seen large decreases in crime in recent years which correlates with a large investment in the police force and education initiatives. Part of the increase in crime since 1994 is that the government is not as authoritarian also the white government did not give a **** about crime in the black homelands.
 
It is not a game of semantics. By blaming the woman and saying that she was asking for it or bought it on herself, you are saying that she was responsible for the rape rather than the rapists.

Yes, it is a semantic game.

Because, yes, this woman is partially responsible for the fact that she was raped.
 
A stupendous piece of victim blaming. Perhaps you think women should never leave the house so that they don't get raped.
Here's an idea: instead of telling women to wear certain clothes or avoid going to certain places to avoid being raped, how about telling men NOT TO ****ING RAPE WOMEN.

Simple yes or no question for you:

Would you send your wife/mother/sister/daughter to South Africa and tell her to walk down an alley flaunting it in a miniskirt?

There you go.

Answer either "yes" or "no".

(...and then do the 1234... thing to use up the minimum required characters).
 
Simple yes or no question for you:

Would you send your wife/mother/sister/daughter to South Africa and tell her to walk down an alley flaunting it in a miniskirt?

There you go.

Answer either "yes" or "no".

(...and then do the 1234... thing to use up the minimum required characters).

There are areas, where it would be no worse than in DC or Detroit.
 
There are areas, where it would be no worse than in DC or Detroit.

If 25% of the men in Detroit or DC were rapists, 40% of the women who lived in Detroit or DC could expect to be raped at some point in their lifetime, and a rape occurred in Detroit or DC about every 40 seconds.

If those statistics were factors in Detroit or DC then yeah, everything else being equal, no worse.
 
I'm not going to play semantic games here.

This woman's complete and total lack of common sense, situational awareness, and any kind of regard for her own safety and well-being contributed directly to her rape.

At the end of the day each individual is responsible for his or her own safety and this woman took absolutely no responsibility for herself.

In South Africa women should expect that someone will attempt to rape them under any and all circumstances and should always be aware of their surroundings and considering what they can do "right now" to mitigate the tremendous risk they face.

I agree with you that it's not her "fault", but she served herself up on a silver platter.

Her attackers have been caught and I don't think that this woman's bone-jarring stupidity should serve as any kind of mitigation in respect to their crimes.

But at the end of the day she has still been gang raped and her blasé attitude is at least partly responsible for the fact that she'll have to live with that for the rest of her life.

What blase attitude did she take? How was she stupid? How did she take no responsibility?

She was out jogging. What should she have done? Never leave the house?
 
Simple yes or no question for you:

Would you send your wife/mother/sister/daughter to South Africa and tell her to walk down an alley flaunting it in a miniskirt?

There you go.

Answer either "yes" or "no".

(...and then do the 1234... thing to use up the minimum required characters).

This woman wasn't walking down an alley wearing a miniskirt, she was out jogging in broad daylight.

I wouldn't tell my wife to do anything. If she wore a short skirt and was raped, I certainly wouldn't be blaming her or saying she had any kind of responsibility.
 
Because their questionnaire is publically available.
It was a telephone survey but you can download the questions here...

CDC Stacks | National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2011 victimization questions - 24726 | Library Collection

The questions were very specific. So what was so shoddy about them?

Yes sex with someone who is incapacitated (ie passed out drunk) or who is drugged with sedatives is a legal definition of rape, sex with someone who is impaired but responsive May or may not be depending upon circumstances and state law.

But CDCs study presupposes that sex while impaired is rape.
No it doesn't. Read the questions.

What's funny is that the CDC study shows men reporting being forced to have sex with women at similar rates to women claiming they were raped by men, we know right away that's totally bogus, which tells me to ignore it and look at a better study
We don't know that..or more specifically you don't know that.


"...More than 200 studies have found “gender symmetry” in perpetration of violence against a marital or dating partner in the sense that about the same percent of women as men physically assault a marital or dating partner. Most of these studies obtained the data using the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS). However, these results have been challenged by numerous articles in the past 25 years that have asserted that the CTS is invalid. This article identifies and responds to 11 purported methodological problems of the CTS, and two other bases for the belief that the CTS is not valid. The discussion argues that the repeated assertion over the past 25 years that the CTS is invalid is not primarily about methodology. Rather it is primarily about theories and values concerning the results of research showing gender symmetry in perpetration. According to the prevailing “patriarchal dominance” theory, these results cannot be true and therefore the CTS must be invalid. The conclusion suggests that an essential part of the effort to prevent and treat violence against women and by women requires taking into account the dyadic nature of partner violence through use of instruments such as the CTS that measure violence by both partners. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd...."

Blaming the Messenger for the Bad News about Partner Violence by Women: The Methodological, Theoretical, and Value Basis of the Purported Invalidity of the Conflict Tactics Scales - Straus - 2012 - Behavioral Sciences & the Law - Wiley Online Library

Ah yes, ye ol "patriarchal dominance theory" so of course it can't possibly be true that men report sexual assault almost equal to women. But then....200 studies suggest they do.


The question is, if the one in five rate is false (and I argue it is) does it truly help victims of this crime to trumpet phony numbers?

It's like I fear the phony stories by both Lena Dunham and Rolling Stone have substantially hurt real victims of rape because it gives the impression that most victims lie. And that's the real damage building a case on a bad foundation can cause
I don't think will it hurt. Most people either didn't read the article or have forgotten about it. But even so I doubt it would change many opinions about rape.
 
Last edited:
It was a telephone survey but you can download the questions here...

CDC Stacks | National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2011 victimization questions - 24726 | Library Collection

The questions were very specific. So what was so shoddy about them?

No it doesn't. Read the questions.

We don't know that..or more specifically you don't know that.


"...More than 200 studies have found “gender symmetry” in perpetration of violence against a marital or dating partner in the sense that about the same percent of women as men physically assault a marital or dating partner. Most of these studies obtained the data using the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS). However, these results have been challenged by numerous articles in the past 25 years that have asserted that the CTS is invalid. This article identifies and responds to 11 purported methodological problems of the CTS, and two other bases for the belief that the CTS is not valid. The discussion argues that the repeated assertion over the past 25 years that the CTS is invalid is not primarily about methodology. Rather it is primarily about theories and values concerning the results of research showing gender symmetry in perpetration. According to the prevailing “patriarchal dominance” theory, these results cannot be true and therefore the CTS must be invalid. The conclusion suggests that an essential part of the effort to prevent and treat violence against women and by women requires taking into account the dyadic nature of partner violence through use of instruments such as the CTS that measure violence by both partners. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd...."

Blaming the Messenger for the Bad News about Partner Violence by Women: The Methodological, Theoretical, and Value Basis of the Purported Invalidity of the Conflict Tactics Scales - Straus - 2012 - Behavioral Sciences & the Law - Wiley Online Library

Ah yes, ye ol "patriarchal dominance theory" so of course it can't possibly be true that men report sexual assault almost equal to women. But then....200 studies suggest they do.


I don't think will it hurt. Most people either didn't read the article or have forgotten about it. But even so I doubt it would change many opinions about rape.

There are in fact shoddy questions,

The introduction immediately identifies the purpose of the survey as being about rape and sexual assault, announcing immediate intentions encourages more reporting, whereas NCVS begins by asking about crime in general.

The questions are all phrased "how many times has x happened" presupposing x has already happened, which brings up false positives. It's well established that wording can widely vary answers recieved.

The question on drunken sex is so poorly constructed , and accounts for over two thirds of the positives.

And is near the end. Specifically the respondent is not instructed not to list episodes of drunken sex that were consensual.

And it's not minutia we're talking about, BJS comes up with just over a quarter million total rapes for 2010, and CDC insists there were over 3 million that year. Too much a disparity, and the BJS in general is more highly regarded on numbers anyway.

The CDC has a problem in that they conduct studies meant to be used for political purposes
 
There are in fact shoddy questions,

The introduction immediately identifies the purpose of the survey as being about rape and sexual assault, announcing immediate intentions encourages more reporting, whereas NCVS begins by asking about crime in general.

The questions are all phrased "how many times has x happened" presupposing x has already happened, which brings up false positives. It's well established that wording can widely vary answers recieved.
They wouldn't be answering the question if it didn't happen.


The question on drunken sex is so poorly constructed , and accounts for over two thirds of the positives
Do you have factual evidence supporting your opinion on that?

And is near the end. Specifically the respondent is not instructed not to list episodes of drunken sex that were consensual.
I really don't see how saying they didn't count consensual drunken sex as rape is helping your argument much.

And it's not minutia we're talking about, BJS comes up with just over a quarter million total rapes for 2010, and CDC insists there were over 3 million that year. Too much a disparity, and the BJS in general is more highly regarded on numbers anyway.
Where does the CDC say "there were over 3 million that year?" You still seem to be confusing annual rape statistics with "a rape in their lifetime."

The CDC has a problem in that they conduct studies meant to be used for political purposes

Conjecture.
 
Of course not. I am sarcastic. That is the way how the locals welcomes the visitors. That's why I am not going there. A foreign women gets raped and a man gets burnt alive - with a tire around his neck and hands bound with barbed wire (just in case he tries to escape or remove the burning tire from his neck). Sick if you ask me.


this sort of stuff didn't happen nearly as much when the racist white Nationalist Party was in control

Then again Rhodesia was a net food producer when the UDI took place an Ian Smith was running things, Once the Mugabe thugs took over, the place is a cesspool
 
She went there to teach them and how do they thank her? WTF Welcum to the New South Africa :D
IOLMobile

Big story, because as we all know we eliminated rape in this country years ago.:lamo
 
Of course not. I am sarcastic. That is the way how the locals welcomes the visitors. That's why I am not going there. A foreign women gets raped and a man gets burnt alive - with a tire around his neck and hands bound with barbed wire (just in case he tries to escape or remove the burning tire from his neck). Sick if you ask me.

Do you know much about your own history? Apparently not.

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_yl...511&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=image of lynching
 
this sort of stuff didn't happen nearly as much when the racist white Nationalist Party was in control

Then again Rhodesia was a net food producer when the UDI took place an Ian Smith was running things, Once the Mugabe thugs took over, the place is a cesspool

So the answer to rape is to install a white racist government? I'm not sure I understand your point here.
 
So the answer to rape is to install a white racist government? I'm not sure I understand your point here.

no, the point was that African run nations are often weak in preventing crime
 
They wouldn't be answering the question if it didn't happen.

Not nessecarily, if you plant that something did happen into someone's mind they remember it. The wording can well cause someone to answer differently


Do you have factual evidence supporting your opinion on that?

That they have a question asking if you've engaged in drunken sex without defining the terms and instructing the surveyee the question? It's right on the questionnaire

I really don't see how saying they didn't count consensual drunken sex as rape is helping your argument much.
but they did, question asks have you had sex "while drunk, drugged, high OR incapacitated"

Where does the CDC say "there were over 3 million that year?" You still seem to be confusing annual rape statistics with "a rape in their lifetime."



Conjecture.

In their study, do your own homework.

I already did the math on the NCVS for the in their lifetime number of one in 32 that's a huge factor, to believe the CDC study you would have to believe there are tens of millions of victims that all law enforcement and professional victims advocates have missed for decades.

The studies are still a wide ocean apart.

It may be conjecture but it's educated conjecture, take the question that asks (paraphrasing I don't have it in front of me now) "have you been pressures into sex by someone telling lies or plans for the future that were untrue"
This study marks one as a victim if they've ever had a hookup! Practically.

It simply seems you wish to believe whichever one promises you the higher number
 
Last edited:
But they have guns, how can this be?

Actually the US BJS has collected statistics which indicate that women who use firearms against sexual assault are less likely to suffer injury and become the victim of a completed sexual assault then those who do not, most women do not carry guns though so this benefit only applies to people who use it (duh)
 
you think foreigners coming to teach are licensed to carry handguns?

My understanding is SA is CC friendly, I don't know for foreigners, but my understanding was that a legally registered pistol can be carried concealed in Soith Africa
 
My understanding is SA is CC friendly, I don't know for foreigners, but my understanding was that a legally registered pistol can be carried concealed in Soith Africa

I am not aware if that is true: in most countries, a foreigner working in a country in a temporary capacity is not going to be able to pack a firearm unless they have diplomatic or military status
 
Back
Top Bottom