Talk of the Town: Chrissie Hynde says it was her 'fault' biker gang sexually assaulted her

[Lucille]

"I don't think I'm saying anything controversial am I?"

Oh boy... The SJW are on the attack: https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&...hynde&src=typd

Someone how I doubt they'll let her narrate her own experiences, determining for herself what has and has not been harmful.

Here's some advice, Chrissie:

“Do not apologize.”

This is the hardest advice to accept. When dealing with sane, normal people apologies have power. We move on. SJWs are not sane, normal people.

An apology is a display of weakness. SJWs will punish you for displaying weakness.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-happened.html

Singer Chrissie Hynde has been slammed by women's charities for saying that rape victims 'have to take responsibility' for what happened to them.

Speaking about her own experiences, the Pretenders rocker, 63, said she blames herself after being forced to perform sexual acts under the threat of violence when she was 21.
[...]
Chrissie made the comments to the Sunday Times Magazine in relation to an incident that happened to her when she was younger.

The star recalled how she crossed paths with members of one of Ohio's leather-clad gangs who promised to take her to a party - but instead took her to an empty house.

Despite that, she says she takes 'full responsibility' for what happened.

She continued: 'Technically speaking, however you want to look at it, this was all my doing and I take full responsibility.

'You can't f*** about with people, especially people who wear "I Heart Rape" and "On Your Knees" badges... those motorcycle gangs, that's what they do.

'You can't paint yourself into a corner and then say whose brush is this? You have to take responsibility. I mean, I was naive...'

When asked whether the gang took advantage of her vulnerability, she replied: 'If you play with fire you get burnt. It's not any secret, is it?'

Hynde went on to say that women who dress provocatively while walking down the street drunk are also to blame if they are attacked.

'If I'm walking around in my underwear and I'm drunk? Who else's fault can it be?'

She explained: 'If I'm walking around and I'm very modestly dressed and I'm keeping to myself and someone attacks me, then I'd say that's his fault.

'But if I'm being very lairy and putting it about and being provocative, then you are enticing someone who's already unhinged - don't do that. Come on!

That's just common sense. You know, if you don't want to entice a rapist, don't wear high heels so you can't run from him.

'If you're wearing something that says 'Come and f*** me', you'd better be good on your feet... I don't think I'm saying anything controversial am I?'

But her comments were condemned by the charity Victim Support who said that victims 'should not blame themselves'.

Lucy Hastings, the charity's director, said: 'Victims of sexual violence should never feel or be made to feel that they were responsible for the appalling crime they suffered - regardless of circumstances or factors which may have made them particularly vulnerable.

'They should not blame themselves or be blamed for failing to prevent an attack - often they will have been targeted by predatory offenders who are responsible for their actions.

'It is critical that nothing deters victims of sexual violence from coming forward to the police or to independent organisations so they can get the help and support they need.'

You know, she doesn't sound too traumatized over it. Maybe taking responsibility and not dwelling on it helped her.

[RJB]

I understand where SJW come from to an extent. A rapist should be jailed no matter what the rape victim was wearing.

However some people get a sense of entitlement. Yes, it's against the law to rape a woman dressed provocatively. Yes, most men will respect that but some things override the laws of humanxs.

I don't walk across the street on a crosswalk with a green signal when a truck is barrelling down the road and trust that he'll see me and respect my right of way. The laws of physics override the laws of men. I don't get a relaxing beer at a bar if a patron has sworn to kill me. I don't flash hundred dollar bills around in a rough neighborhood.

I've heard people complain of something bad happening to them that went against the laws of men, ethics, courtesy, and morals. They usually trusted in man made ideal rather than common sense and self-protection. This is a dangerous mindset.

[Rothbardian Girl]

There are a lot of problems with Hynde's statements, but I'll just point out that her remarks give people the wrong impression of how most rapes occur. Most rapes statistically are not something where a stranger attacks you in a dark alley after you're walking home drunk from the club. The perpetrator is more likely to be someone the victim knows as an acquaintance or even a "friend." Rapists look for vulnerability above all. There's even some evidence that stranger rapists target people who are covered up (but who happen to have a nervous/fearful look about them), rather than people who walk confidently and with a destination in mind. The really dangerous ones ingratiate themselves with people and use moments of weakness/anything other than strong affirmative consent to achieve their ends. Unfortunately I know of people in college who prey on women this way; it's not uncommon, and it's the main concern people have when discussing campus rape cases.

The woman quoted at the end of this excerpt also makes excellent points. With the backlog of rape cases currently on the books, decaying in evidence rooms, it's already very hard for a victim to be assured that his or her case will be investigated. When the police's first reaction is to judge attire/drunkenness/etc., it makes it more likely that the crime will not be reported. I don't think it's very libertarian to give authoritarians more excuses to be ineffective. Libertarians concerned with dismantling the "justice" system should find lots of red meat here.

I'm all for potential victims being able to defend themselves. Libertarians concerned about sexual violence should and do promote cultural standards of (1) arming everyone to prevent heinous crimes like these, and (2) strong affirmative consent [not those harebrained laws that try to do the same thing in a coercive manner]. And from a quick Wikipedia of Ms. Hynde, I see that she's a "vegetarian and strong supporter of PETA." If I may be allowed to make inferences here about this woman's likely political stance on gun ownership, she is literally the worst kind of person. She wants people to be sitting ducks by having them fix their clothes and pray that they won't be attacked. Sure, their choice of fashion will protect them from being raped more than a damn gun would! Such thinking is the height of absurdity. I hate liberals with old-fashioned views so much.

[RJB]

Sure, their choice of fashion will protect them from being raped more than a damn gun would!

I agree that that is an odd sentiment.

When the police's first reaction is to judge attire/drunkenness/etc.,

From that perspective, I agree as well. I do think Ms. Hynde is being a bit hard on her self. She did some stupid things but a crime was committed against her, and I don't think it was her fault.

From my perspective, I'm a father of two daughters who are coming of age and I do not want this to happen to them. I see a lot of anti-rape campaigns devoted to educating men that "no means no." However, I never needed such education as well as most men. The men who commit rape are sociopaths who probably can't be educated. I believe the anti-rape message should be devoted to women on how to spot sociopaths, how to avoid attracting their attention, and once you have their attention how to stop the sociopath.

BTW, I know these discussions get heated, but I'm not in this discussion to win with my opinion but rather to discuss how to prevent my daughters from getting in this situation.

[luctor-et-emergo]

I'm a big opponent of all that 'consent' stuff. No however means no. I don't think in the heat of the moment you should have to ask to do xy or z but on the other hand I don't think you should force it on someone either. Big difference.

I think this is a pretty weird story written by a pretty confused individual who might think she's knows it all after what she's been through. She is however still as naive as when this story started off. At least that's my take of her story.

[RJB]

I think this is a pretty weird story written by a pretty confused individual who might think she's knows it all after what she's been through. She is however still as naive as when this story started off. At least that's my take of her story.

The few times I've seen her quoted over the years, she seems to speak her mind without filters, doesn't care what others may think of her, and usually has a unique outlook. I'm not sure if that's the way she is or if that's her way of staying in the headlines.

[Rothbardian Girl]

BTW, I know these discussions get heated, but I'm not in this discussion to win with my opinion but rather to discuss how to prevent my daughters from getting in this situation.

I'm definitely no parent, so I don't know how valuable my "advice" will be, but I will say that the way I was raised has made me feel more vulnerable toward these kinds of situations. Not because my parents taught me to dress provocatively, but because I was raised in some ways to be a people-pleaser. What do I mean by that? It means I have a hard time saying no to people because, among other things, I don't want to hurt their feelings. I think a great number of females are generally raised to put others' needs before their own. I'm sure some men are raised that way, but our culture tends to encourage assertiveness in one gender but not the other, generally speaking. So if I could maybe impart some advice from my standpoint of having exited my teenage years only a few years ago, it would be to raise your daughters to be confident, assertive and not afraid to get themselves the hell out of situations and away from people that make them uncomfortable. Don't let them be so preoccupied with being awkward or "rude" that they don't put their safety and comfort first. Everyone is different, of course, but if you know your daughters have some self-esteem issues or whatever, I would say to watch out for them just a little bit more.

Also, don't make sex seem like a scary thing or give them the impression that men are sex-obsessed pigs. Blind fear will counter-intuitively shut down their instincts around creepy people. Being scared of men makes it harder to say no to them, to put it bluntly. That's how women get into the situation of saying "yes" when they didn't really have their heart in it, because they are literally scared of hurting other people's feelings or even enraging them. These women don't "say yes and cry rape later" because they have some diabolical plan to entrap men; they do it because they don't have self-esteem and confidence. One other thing - this is another reason why I think teaching sex is something shameful is so damaging - if a woman enthusiastically consents at first, but then her parents or circle of friends see her as a slut or a chewed-up wad of gum, the backlash she may receive may sour her attitude toward the encounter, thus providing another reason to "claim rape."

Again, this is why I get so angry when I see people claiming sex is sacred. People with conservative attitudes toward sex imbue it with this almost-mystical significance, while at the same time loudly complaining about attempts to establish a firm affirmative consent cultural standard, or the possibility that consent isn't always black and white. The former phenomenon leads to the "gray-area" rape cases, so these people are just doubling down on the damage here.

[Anti Federalist]

Well, good for her.

Yes, there is some culpability here, as described.

Put your hand in an alligator's open mouth, you're liable to get bit.

Poke at militarized, trigger happy cops, and you're liable to get shot.

Hang out with gangs, and you're liable to get raped.

[Anti-Neocon]

One thing I'll offer is that "SJW"-shaming is one of the most counterproductive things an actual libertarian can do to promote personal responsibility.

"SJW" has become such a nebulous term that it at this point it basically means "anyone that is assertive for some social cause". Sure there may be a lot of anti-freedom people who fit that description, but rather than make freedom the issue, it makes assertion the issue, and frankly what we need more of is more assertion rather than less, only toward better causes.

In a way, all forum members are "SJW" as we like to fight for our own ideals which we think bring a sort of social justice through freedom and actual equal opportunity, and we better be damn proud of being warriors.

RJB, RG, and AF made good posts here. It makes sense that the all people, including women, should be defending themselves, rather than blaming themselves. I really think some men are so turned off by the idea of women having spines and being on equal footing with them that they end up taking the side of those who take positions which ironically stand in opposition to some of the most important principles of liberty.

Yeah, there is smart behavior and dumb behavior in public, and the woman here was both naive and a victim. But naivete is not a crime. It's a consequence of many factors. We should work to fix those factors and use that to give us motivation to teach self-defense and responsibility more strongly than ever before.

[oyarde]

I like her music

[acptulsa]

I like her music

I do, too. And one of the reasons I do is she speaks her mind in it. And I like that about her music because I often like what she has on her mind.



The SJW crowd refuses to differentiate between a situation where a girl was deliberately playing with fire and a situation where a girl was doing nothing of the sort, and got raped anyway. I understand they do that because they're trying to stand on principle, and they're trying to convey sound principles. Fair enough. But actual justice is a principle worth standing for as well. If you don't make allowances for the proven fact that some women actually want to be 'raped', and that some women will cry 'rape' after a consentual act, then you water down your own message with any reasonable person.

[Lucille]

The SJWs are still twisting the rape victims words and slamming her on twitter at a rate of about one tweet per 20 seconds. They call that "swarming."

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...their-actions/

The popular singer Chrissie Hynde has been reprimanded by feminist campaigners for speaking common sense. Hynde, who is somewhat more astute than most landfill rock slebs, has advanced the proposition that women should take a degree of precaution to ensure that they are not sexually attacked by men. Such as not wandering the streets, pissed out of their skulls, in their underwear.
[...]
Come on indeed. But there has been a furious response from rape support groups. The gist of their argument being that women should never ever have to take responsibility for how they behave, how drunk they are, etc. Hynde had been talking about an occasion when she was young and willingly accompanied a man with an ‘I Love Rape’ patch on his jeans into a deserted building late at night. The rapist is of course not exonerated. Nobody in their right minds would suggest such a thing. But it is not a perfect world, is it?

(Thanks for your input, Anti-Neocon, but you obviously have no idea what SJW means or how vicious and evil SJWs really are. I'll respond to that portion of your post in the SJW thread when I have the time and inclination.)

[presence]

wandering the streets, pissed out of their skulls, in their underwear

doesn't make rape legit... it just makes it likely

[helmuth_hubener]

There are a lot of problems with Hynde's statements, but I'll just point out that her remarks give people the wrong impression of how most rapes occur.

She is talking about her own experience! What, should she lie, or keep silent, because it you have this idea that the truth will give people "the wrong impression"?

Hopefully your answer is no. And so (if so): great. Then there is no "problem" with Miss Hynde's statements. Excellent.

Libertarians concerned about sexual violence should and do promote cultural standards

Right!

1. Modesty
2. Chastity
3. Abstinence before marriage
4. Ubiquitous arms-bearing
5. Chivalry
6. Escorts for young ladies when they go out in public

There must be strong social disapproval for violations of items two or three, especially -- by either men or women. Promiscuity should meet with disgust and complete lack of sympathy, as the anti-civilization behavior that it is. No welfare for unwed mothers, only ostracism. Most rapes in the USA today, exactly as you say, Rothbarian Girl, are really just promiscuity gone wrong. Not that I know a lot about it, but I have no reason to think you're incorrect; I think you're correct. So the solution is to build a terrific society with strong moral values, strong families, a wholesome culture, and very low promiscuity rates. Win-Win(-Win-Win-Win)!

[helmuth_hubener]

Again, this is why I get so angry when I see people claiming sex is sacred.

It is.

Why would you get angry at me for claiming that?

People with conservative attitudes toward sex

Highly successful, proven, time-tested attitudes, you mean. The only attitudes with a track record of actually working, of actually resulting in stable, happy, prosperous societies. The attitudes that civilized humans have held for thousands of years. Yep, those attitudes.

[dannno]

I agree with Rothbardian Girl that a lot of false accusations of rape are solely due to women who are scared of what people will think of them - they may have participated in the heat of the moment, when they were drunk and were totally into it - but like a hangover the next morning after a crazy drunken night of fun, they suddenly become scared of what people will think of them. In the haze of being drunk, they may not recall the fact that they helped initiate and move the encounter forward because it may not be in their nature to be promiscuous.. but when you get drunk, these type of inhibitions often will be loosened, especially for women who have been ingrained with anti-sexual attitudes. Either way, as they begin to try and put the pieces of the puzzle together from the night before, they may totally fail and talk themselves into something that never happened.

A lot of women get drunk for the purpose of having a sexual encounter of this kind, so it is sometimes confusing for some men when they are with a girl who is getting drunk for some other purpose.. but for a percentage of THOSE women, some of them slip and become promiscuous against their nature.

I don't think sex is 'sacred', it is a natural and healthy human activity that should be encouraged to participate in healthy and honest ways. Monogamy, fine, open relationships, fine. Do it responsibly and do it often. There are plenty of safe and effective birth control methods. I don't think women needing to get plastered just so they can decrease their inhibitions enough to have sex without that nagging voice in the back of their head is particularly healthy, and that is the situation we have today.

[osan]

You know, she doesn't sound too traumatized over it. Maybe taking responsibility and not dwelling on it helped her.

Ah rape... one of the old standards that gets people all crazy. OK, here is my take on the article: typical is the treatment/response as made apparent in the quoted text of the OP. It is like abortion and other such issues that put people on polar opposites with little room in the middle for truth. Note how the "women's groups" immediately light into her with no regard for the truths she spoke, meriting credit. Let us take a peek:

Singer Chrissie Hynde has been slammed by women's charities for saying that rape victims 'have to take responsibility' for what happened to them.

What is wrong with responsibility, where applicable? The subtext here, of course, is that no woman has ever carried a shred of responsibility for having been raped. That, I must say, is pure hogwash. Before anyone gets in a pinch, hold your rage a moment until we get to the end of this little adventure and pull it all together such that reason shall become apparent.

Speaking about her own experiences, the Pretenders rocker, 63, said she blames herself after being forced to perform sexual acts under the threat of violence when she was 21.

Note that she was speaking for herself only. Her own experiences. She has blamed nobody in any other cases, save herself in her own.

The star recalled how she crossed paths with members of one of Ohio's leather-clad gangs who promised to take her to a party - but instead took her to an empty house.

Despite that, she says she takes 'full responsibility' for what happened.

Note the very subtle innuendo at work with quoting "full responsibility", but failing to elaborate on what she meant, or at least making clear that the interviewer failed to drill down on the point to come to a precise meaning.

She continued: 'Technically speaking, however you want to look at it, this was all my doing and I take full responsibility.

Here I would say she mis-spoke. It was partly her responsibility, to be sure, but the rapists carried the bulk of it, assuming that had she not assented to go to the party with her, they would have left her alone; admittedly a sizable assumption.

It is in such places of partial error that others make their ignorance, bad habits, and corruption apparent by attacking one as being categorically wrong and attributing some evil to their words and deeds. Whereas they so react in their stupidity and perfidy, the proper response is to do as I have done above and point out the places where one has gone wrong while not stating or implying that the speaker is 100% in the wrong and attributing it to reasons not in evidence, such as corruption.

But there is no gentle fiber in such people, for they are full of hate, anger, and are blind to any truth not according with their world views.

'You can't f*** about with people, especially people who wear "I Heart Rape" and "On Your Knees" badges... those motorcycle gangs, that's what they do.

Here she makes a very valid point. To volunteer your association with people giving off such free signals places significant onus upon you for the results that come to pass. This does not excuse the criminals for the crimes they commit, but it does underscore the fact that if you don't want a haircut, do not go into a barber shop.

'You can't paint yourself into a corner and then say whose brush is this? You have to take responsibility. I mean, I was naive...'

Once again, she speaks with all good reason and sense.

When asked whether the gang took advantage of her vulnerability, she replied: 'If you play with fire you get burnt. It's not any secret, is it?'

Here I become suspicious because the response quoted does not well match the question posed. It at least raises the question of whether we are witness to editorial chicanery for the purposes of painting misleading pictures. I suppose one might try to find a video record in the effort to get a better look-see.

Hynde went on to say that women who dress provocatively while walking down the street drunk are also to blame if they are attacked.

And she speaks correctly. The dangers are out there. In a better world, they would be absent, but wish in one hat, $#@! in another and see which one fills up first. Reality must be dealt with on reality's terms and not one's wishful thinking, particularly when circumstances stand to become immediately dangerous to life and limb. This is where the so-called "progressive" fails miserably as intellect, with eyes tightly shut to that which displeases him. I see this every day, especially now that I have to deal with some of these sorts at the radio station. They are as idiot children throwing a tantrum of refusal as they reject cold hard reality no matter what the circumstance. What can one say?

'If I'm walking around in my underwear and I'm drunk? Who else's fault can it be?'

Note once again the possibility of the editor playing his games: context is not clear at all, but is implied only. Fault for WHAT? To what fault does her quote refer? Fault for being naked and drunk in the street or for being raped? In this case, the context matters because it completely alters the predication of her assertion.

She explained: 'If I'm walking around and I'm very modestly dressed and I'm keeping to myself and someone attacks me, then I'd say that's his fault.

'But if I'm being very lairy and putting it about and being provocative, then you are enticing someone who's already unhinged - don't do that. Come on!

That's just common sense. You know, if you don't want to entice a rapist, don't wear high heels so you can't run from him.

'If you're wearing something that says 'Come and f*** me', you'd better be good on your feet... I don't think I'm saying anything controversial am I?'

All perfectly reasonable statements.

But her comments were condemned by the charity Victim Support who said that victims 'should not blame themselves'.

And they are dead-wrong. Blame where due, which in such cases distributes to the victim in some measure insofar as they failed to take prudent precautions. But we live in a "no fault" culture where nobody wants to assume responsibility for anything they do, regardless of how ill-conceived and outright stupid.

Lucy Hastings, the charity's director, said: 'Victims of sexual violence should never feel or be made to feel that they were responsible for the appalling crime they suffered - regardless of circumstances or factors which may have made them particularly vulnerable.

'They should not blame themselves or be blamed for failing to prevent an attack - often they will have been targeted by predatory offenders who are responsible for their actions.

More lopsided drivel from an apparently "progressive" mindset that commonly advocates for the right to behave like a complete idiot without ever having to suffer the consequences of such behavior. Were they able to make the demand without losing all credibility, progressives would dictate the law of gravity null and void for those falling off cliffs, jumping off roofs, and bungie jumping off 200-foot high bridges with a 300 foot cord. They categorically refuse to concede the obligation for personal responsibility in a generally applicable sense. They are, however, all for responsibility of some to others, a great example being the heterosexual obligation to praise everything the homosexual does, but the homosexual holds no such obligation to so much as respect the personal boundaries of his heterosexual counterparts. FAIL.

Hypocrisy is the very foundation of the mindsets of such people.

'It is critical that nothing deters victims of sexual violence from coming forward to the police or to independent organisations so they can get the help and support they need.'

Note the nonsequitur, attempted through implication that taking responsibility for one's choices somehow deters victims from coming forward, etc. Pure FAIL and the mark of deep personal corruption or the simple absence of any qualification to author such an article. Either way, the author makes himself look very bad.

Where applicable, victims should acknowledge their responsibility for that which has befallen them, not for the sake of punishment and shaming, but for learning such that they do not make the same error again. That is what "responsibility" is about in such cases. It is not about blame - but blame is all that some people are able to see when the word "responsible" issues from others. It is a strong indicator of how they see the world and it betrays their loathing of the very concept.

[Rothbardian Girl]

She is talking about her own experience! What, should she lie, or keep silent, because it you have this idea that the truth will give people "the wrong impression"?

Hopefully your answer is no. And so (if so): great. Then there is no "problem" with Miss Hynde's statements. Excellent.


Right!

1. Modesty
2. Chastity
3. Abstinence before marriage
4. Ubiquitous arms-bearing
5. Chivalry
6. Escorts for young ladies when they go out in public Promiscuity should meet with disgust and complete lack of sympathy, as the anti-civilization behavior that it is. No welfare for unwed mothers, only ostracism. Most rapes in the USA today, exactly as you say, Rothbarian Girl, are really just promiscuity gone wrong. Not that I know a lot about it, but I have no reason to think you're incorrect; I think you're correct. So the solution is to build a terrific society with strong moral values, strong families, a wholesome culture, and very low promiscuity rates. Win-Win(-Win-Win-Win)!

I'm... not entirely sure you remember what it's like to be a teenager or young adult, to be honest with you. Even Victorian social norms were routinely violated, if you look beneath the surface. And since people were shamed for engaging in what at the end of the day is a perfectly normal, healthy and inevitable activity, there is reason to believe that encouraging sexual repression ultimately leads to a net decrease in societal welfare. I would rather move in a direction that encourages liberal attitudes about sexuality. A good portion of bad sex happens, I wager, because some women (and some men as well) have no idea how to tell their partner what they like personally, and have them do it. It's likely that this issue crops up partly because sexual activity is not something that is really discussed openly in our society. Like, people think these memes are funny, right?

But is this biology or is this because women's sexual partners are forced to fumble around down there because many women can't actually voice what they want without feeling embarrassed or like they're going to hurt their partner's feelings? I think there's reason to believe the biological portion is smaller than what people tend to assume.

I don't think rape is "promiscuity gone wrong" at all (I actually resent the twisting of my words that was done there), but I think there are women (and men) who have sex and then later regret it. The two phenomena are totally separate, but it is also true that rapists prey on insecure women, particularly in acquaintance rape cases. I want to make very clear that there's a distinct line between regretting sex and actual rape, and part of the reason why rape is such a heinous crime is because observers in our society will always have the tendency to ask "Was s/he actually raped, or is s/he just regretting it?" My goal is to remove or at least critically alleviate the possibility of 'regretting it', so that we don't have the terrible second-guessing/guessing of motives that frequently arises around discussions of rape cases.

Unfortunately those standards of sexual morality that have supposedly led to prosperous societies (the budding statistician in me shudders at how casually a correlation between these two variables has been asserted) have also caused a lot of disruption and misery for men and women who were indulging in what modern folks now know to be a fairly normal aspect of human experience. You say men and women should both be met with disdain for promiscuous behavior, but history has shown over and over again that one sex tends to bear the brunt of the shame, ostracism and cruelty directed towards violators more than the other. And unless your anti-promiscuity society comes with the unpacking of the narrative that women are naturally less sexual creatures than men (and thus female transgressors are abnormal and should be punished more severely), I can't see it producing many positive results.

She is talking about her own experience! What, should she lie, or keep silent, because it you have this idea that the truth will give people "the wrong impression"?

I am of the opinion that most people are guilty of having reductionist viewpoints on issues, which is a natural failing, because no one has time to examine all sides of every issue. But reductionism, and specifically in this case the pigeonholing of rape to one scenario (imagine someone who *only* reads Hynde's statements to form an opinion on how rape occurs), is potentially very dangerous.

[amy31416]

I agree that that is an odd sentiment.



From that perspective, I agree as well. I do think Ms. Hynde is being a bit hard on her self. She did some stupid things but a crime was committed against her, and I don't think it was her fault.

From my perspective, I'm a father of two daughters who are coming of age and I do not want this to happen to them. I see a lot of anti-rape campaigns devoted to educating men that "no means no." However, I never needed such education as well as most men. The men who commit rape are sociopaths who probably can't be educated. I believe the anti-rape message should be devoted to women on how to spot sociopaths, how to avoid attracting their attention, and once you have their attention how to stop the sociopath.

BTW, I know these discussions get heated, but I'm not in this discussion to win with my opinion but rather to discuss how to prevent my daughters from getting in this situation.

I totally agree about being able to spot sociopaths. That doesn't just help women, but men as well.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Of course it was her fault, at least partially. It's a classic case of 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes'. You don't go off gallivanting with a bunch of criminal degenerates, and then get surprised when things land $#@!-side up. I'm glad she's mature enough to learn from the experience, and not make herself a perpetual victim.

[Danke]

Of course it was her fault, at least partially. It's a classic case of 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes'. You don't go off gallivanting with a bunch of criminal degenerates, and then get surprised when things land $#@!-side up. I'm glad she's mature enough to learn from the experience, and not make herself a perpetual victim.

Wait, are you saying I would be naive to walk into an ISIL held town as a white dude backpacking? How about the Bronx?

[RonPaulIsGreat]

She may have worded things poorly, but she's correct.

If you hang out with a biker gang of ill repute, you are essentially saying "rape me". Duh, that's what thugs do. Should they, nope, but they shouldn't be in a criminal biker gang at all. Duh. Hang out with meth addicts, the odds of things disappearing from your house go up to. Does that mean meth addicts are innocent, nope, it means they are demon possessed (more or less), just like criminal biker gangs are evil. Don't hang out with evil people and expect them to have good character. DUUYUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHH...


It's really simple, don't go where bad people like to go, and the odds of getting victimized by a bad person go down.

I don't even drive around in the worst section of this town, and that is easy to determine by reading the local news. Where are the shootings? Where are the arrests for fights, etc.... Now, if I were to go there and stand around at midnight, would my odds of being assaulted go up or down? If I were assaulted would it be because of my own stupidity for being there? I've 0.0 reasons to go there anyway, as I'm not seeking to hang out with violent people, whorish people, or drug addicted people.

[helmuth_hubener]

It's really simple, don't go where bad people like to go, and the odds of getting victimized by a bad person go down.

Not allowing more and more statistically bad people to come live near to you also could help.

Yes, Section 8 is related as an issue to immigration.

Section 8 is forced integration on a city / neighborhood level. Good neighborhoods go down the tubes as more and more black welfare hoodlums, lazy hispanic gang members, and, yes, white trash, move into neighborhoods they cannot afford and where they do not belong, thanks to Uncle Sam. And they take over. The formerly quiet, bourgeoisie suburb becomes the hood.

Unlimited nondiscriminatory immigration policy is forced integration on a national / continent level. Good countries and good continents that were nice places to live go down the tubes as low-skill, low-intelligence, and even no-skill refugees and criminal underclass flood into countries where they do not belong. And they will eventually take over, extrapolating the mathematical trends. Formerly high homogeneity, high-mutual-trust, high social cohesion, high intelligence (that thus living standard) societies are broken apart and replaced by a hodgepodge of incompatible peoples who do not like each other, do not trust each other, and do not even understand each other. Crime goes up, social cooperation goes down. Also, because the people coming in are of a lower productivity, skill level, and intelligence than those who were there before, the overall standard of living in the country will go down.