It's called heat son.
My fiance packs a Caracal C in her inside-the-waste-band holster and she knows how to use it, we train with it regularly. She isn't afraid of any men.
She's accurate as shit too, she'd fuck your shit up quick if you attacked her. (she's damn near better at concealed draw than I am)
A woman might "Not be too much into it" that night, but she does it anyway. Is that rape?
It's not. It's wrong.
Growing up I had some dumb bitch accuse me of hitting her.. You know what it took for my friends and ect to believe her?
Nothing, they believed her on face value.
There is something wrong with this world.
Always woman's side, so much for equality.
A glaring issue with that graph is it's so called "people who are not prosecuted."
How do you know they're rapists if they're not found guilty.
THEY ARE NOT, unless found guilty.
Here is the hitch.
Rape is not a norm is it?
Then you don't need to be afraid of it. You're more likely to be violently beaten up in the street than rape, or run over.
People should care more about general personal safety than worrying the evil man in the tenchcoat might want some poon.
See: Near the bottom, "On the Attack" section, "Burden of Proof" fallacy. You're making wild claims without providing any kind of proof, and proof to the contrary is being shown to you and you're dismissing it on the grounds of not liking it.
If a woman doesn't want to have sex, but let's you have sex anyway, LEADING YOU ON that she wants to have sex, how is that rape?
If she then reports the man, Is that fair on him? He had no idea.
Hell, what if they're both drunk, why is the man automatically assumed to be the rapist.
I'd say you're more likely to be raped than die from being run over or even getting seriously injured from run over.
He shouldn't assume she wants to have sex.
Last edited by Tiili; 2013-02-11 at 02:52 PM.
Close your eyes and smile.
[15:53] <PizzaSHARK> you have such a cute accent! ^_^
If a women avoids a black male because the fear of rape she is a racist but if a women avoids a white male she is being cautious
That is NOT the case at all.
It essentially boils down to the question:
How many women (who report rapes) actually accuse a certain person versus how many women (who report rapes) have no idea who the rapist was?
Let me elaborate:
Those 70% of rapes that get reported and do not go to trial clearly imply that nobody was blamed directly, else those cases would be viewed as a false accusation thus go to a different subgroup.
The 20% of reported rapes that go to trial and the suspect is found not guilty would have to be viewed as false accusation as well had the reporting woman blamed a man directly. So again those are cases with an unknown suspect.
The 10% of reported rapes that go to trial and are convited is a composition. For simplicity assume that this is a 50/50 split of unknown suspect and known suspect (meaning directly blamed by the reporting woman).
This leads to the following conclusion:
If a woman directly claims that a certain man raped her there is only a 5/7 (71%) chance that it is true. Or in other words in 2/7 (29%) of those cases the man is not guilty.
(Edit: It is important to point out that this result heavily depends how you split those 10 convicted rapists. So I'm not claiming that these percentages are true.)
HOWEVER all the graph wants to actually show is:
The chance for a random woman to be raped in todays society is approximately 500 times higher than for a random man to be falsely accused of being a rapist. Further, at least 90% of reported rapes are commited by men that are masked or unknown to the reporting woman.
Both of these stats are probably true.
Last edited by gend; 2013-02-11 at 02:55 PM.