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)
And if you stop, you can still get reported for rape. You have no idea how "lack of consent" being eligable to JAIL people is a hilariously vague concept. It pretty much means the act of rape is entirely objective then.
A woman might "Not be too much into it" that night, but she does it anyway. Is that rape?
People make a graph = some how makes it true.
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.
Pretty much lowering to your Level.
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.
The source was provided for you. You dismissed it because you didn't like it. You continue to dismiss it because you still don't like it. You make wild claims of phantasmally large numbers of men being falsely accused of rape without actually providing the source other than your own hunch. It's the responsibility of someone making wild claims to back up their claims with a source.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...cal-fallacies/
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.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Unwilling sexual contact that is displayed obviously.
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'm pretty sure I linked the incidence of lethal car accidents and accidents causing serious injuries the other day. 319 being the amount of people who died in car accidents, 3200ish who got seriously injured. Then 6500 who get raped every year, in Sweden.
I'd say you're more likely to be raped than die from being run over or even getting seriously injured from run over.
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...7#post20177917
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...2#post20178012
He shouldn't assume she wants to have sex.
Last edited by mmoc506e44f6eb; 2013-02-11 at 02:52 PM.
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
Lots of misinterpretations of this graph in the thread. Many imply that whenever someone is directly accused of rape that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that he didn't do it.
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 mmocb100f50513; 2013-02-11 at 02:55 PM.
That's a pretty good point! When someone feels comfortable saying, "I shouldn't have to stop just because she says no, that's absurd", they're pretty thoroughly driving home why women might be more than a little bit concerned. Rapists don't walk around with "rapist" written on their foreheads, they're mostly not the movie version of a rapist, the majority of rapes occur in the context of dates.