In Interviews With 122 Rapists, Student Pursues Not-So-Simple Question: Why?

[Walkie]

Yes. But inspired in fleshing out some details from her own experience. I'm not saying that my
initial feeling about Walkie's post was particularly justified mind you.

I got that, on first reading. (yayyyy  me!  )  and that's one of things I really admired about your response to me (hope you noticed the plus?) . Thoroughly candid and unpretentious.  No attempt to disguise the fact that you being  teeny bit petty there.  Sorry if that ain't the effect you're after ,  but you just keep going up and up in my estimation lately,  Cal.

I think obsessing over karma is silly, though I admit to checking mine sometimes, cause it's useful to know what people did and didn't enjoy reading. 

I like to masturbate to mine.

[Lestat]

Regarding karma, IMO its fine for multiple people to plus or ghey someone, because it serves as an indicator of post quality. If twenty people each say 'aren't you great for ABC' then its less likely to be asskissing than a single comment from a single user. If 20 people say 'WHAT a CUNT' then again, less likely to be a vendetta.

As for personal stance on checking it, if mine changes I look to see who and what. That way I get an idea why opinions are as they are, and whatever might be going on behind the scenes, and if it has changed, it makes sense to find out why.

And being a pretentious cunt, that just ain't walkie. She's bright and sparky, and her heart is in the right place. She's certainly no backstabbing cunt. At least I have no reason at all to believe so. I've good reason to think otherwise. Walkie, along with 'raxy is one of only two people here who know pretty much the full story about a certain event in my life, and I would NOT just talk about it to any old cunt. I'd have to have damn good reason to consider them trustworthy before they so much as heard the name of one of the actors in it, much less wrote it with their own fingers. Were many people to so much as SPEAK that name I'd fucking break their kneecaps.

[Walkie]

If I might take this thread even further off-topic  (  too late to stop me :p) ...

Karma is lot more interesting than you guys think.  Rather  than giving a biased view of the forum , like you said Cal, it  tends to show up people's biases, and I'm often happy to notice that people are not near so biased as you'd think. Often people will plus their worst enenemy, if they happen to like their worst enemy's lates post. Anyway, the sum of everybody's bias adds up to no bias at all, doesn't it?
Then there's sympathy karma. Trivial ,you might say,  if you're looking for intelligent discussion,. But I don't only  care about intelligent discussion. I also care about people, so I nearly always click on the sympathy karma to see what's up.
There's karma given to a mate, just because.  Totally transparently, and I've no problem with that.  It's a quick way of finding out who's mates with whom. 
I notice that a very small minoriry are intensely clicky , and plus their mates almost exclusively.  That tends to make me groan.  But the vast majority of us, for  the vast majority of the time, judge  by the merit of the post, not the poster . I'm pretty damned impressed with us!
Some people have a very strong preference for  certain sections of the board, and will therefore give karma more often in that section  (one must therefore be caredul not to confuse that bias with other forms of bias)
There;'s vendetta karma. Pain the ass cos it tends to target posts totally randomly, and you're a bloody fool to click on it.  But I do like to know who's feeling that grudgeful  towards whom. Helps build up a picture of forum dynamics.
 Sudden flare -ups of nergative karma  also help me find the latest drama quickly and easily  !Oh! and , more importantly , alerts me to the presence of drama.  I can then decide if I really want to read the fucking board right now, or if I'd rather watch the drama on TV 
And there's LOL karma of course.  To help you find  the funniest posts really  fast
Oh! and  you can find Al plussing Odeon, and Odeon plussing Al surprisingly often. Sometimes.   Hmm. That probably belongs in one of the above headings, but one could equally call it "Restore your faith in human nature" karma

All useful and interesting info, IMO.

[Calandale]

Yes. But inspired in fleshing out some details from her own experience. I'm not saying that my
initial feeling about Walkie's post was particularly justified mind you.

I got that, on first reading. (yayyyy  me!  )  and that's one of things I really admired about your response to me (hope you noticed the plus?) .

I almost never notice Karma changes, I fear. If I did, I might behave differently - lots of people didn't like what I say.

Thoroughly candid and unpretentious.  No attempt to disguise the fact that you being  teeny bit petty there.  Sorry if that ain't the effect you're after ,  but you just keep going up and up in my estimation lately,  Cal.

I just like to tear everything down. Including myself.


Where you should be amazed is if I ever actually compliment someone. I suck at that.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Walkie has a point.

It can be tedious skimming over the countless inane posts full of confected butthurt, long-winded insults, trolling, and so on. Particularly considering that many contributors are obviously very intelligent.

So yes, it is a breath of fresh air to read something that is intelligently written and thought provoking.

[El]

No, hang on , I'll say one more thing: The last time I had people picking my words apart to hunt for the non-existent insult, and cross-examining me over every little syllable,  there was a reason for that. It was because some malicious rumours about me were circulating, behind the scenes, and those people believed the rumours.   But that was somewhere  else, and more than a decade ago.  I didn't think the same the thing would happen here,
However, much to my surprise, it has come to my attention that malicious rumours about Yours Truly are in circulation  again -  amongs members of I2!  I don't know the content, exactly, nor do I know how many people have given them credence and passed them on (probably not many at all)  But I do know they exist.
I am extremely hesirtant to put two-and-two together here, because I do believe it  would be totally out- of-character for Al to give credence to anything like that. But I can't help wondering can I?

Maybe there are (I'm not plugged into the grapevine here so wtf do I know), but Al specifically has also kind of gone off the deep end the last year or two (I've lost track) and often finds fights where there are none.

[Jack]

It is in a woman's best interests to see every guy as a potential rapist.

Don't think it's overly common for females to view all males as potential rapists. Though do believe it's common for females to view all females as potential rape victims. The latter is important and likely unavoidable in teaching/learning personal risk assessment; the former strikes as unhealthy.

The point is not to demonise every man as a potential rapist.

The point may not to be to demonize every male, but generalizing males that way does demonize males. Rape is no exception to violent crime, as primarily perpetrated by males; this is true, but the population percentages of violent criminals related to any type of violence in no way justify generalizing all males as potentially any type of violent criminal. Every male is a potential murder, batterer, robber, whatever; it's a bunch of demonizing crap.

The reality is that most women are not attacked by random strangers or by acquaintances who have personality types or reputations which make them identifiable as potential rapists.

It's also a reality a major risk factor for both victim and perpetrator is alcohol and/or drug use. Studies indicate at least 50%, with some studies citing focusing on young people being much higher up to 80%. That's a big risk factor and a single simple thing both females and males can consider. The risks are age, inebriation, promiscuity, education, and income, in that order. It's true; it's usually not the stranger and the reality is, one's own circumstances, state of mind, and lifestyle choices do play a role.

[El]

It's also a reality a major risk factor for both victim and perpetrator is alcohol and/or drug use. Studies indicate at least 50%, with some studies citing focusing on young people being much higher up to 80%. That's a big risk factor and a single simple thing both females and males can consider. The risks are age, inebriation, promiscuity, education, and income, in that order. It's true; it's usually not the stranger and the reality is, one's own circumstances, state of mind, and lifestyle choices do play a role.

Can you cite your source for this?

I'm not doubting you, I'd just be interested to see source material.

[Calandale]

Walkie has a point.

It can be tedious skimming over the countless inane posts full of confected butthurt, long-winded insults, trolling, and so on. Particularly considering that many contributors are obviously very intelligent.

So yes, it is a breath of fresh air to read something that is intelligently written and thought provoking.

I find it easiest to ignore anything that isn't easier to assess than looking at the karma.


Or, just pick a couple words out, and worry about them.

[Calandale]

The point may not to be to demonize every male, but generalizing males that way does demonize males. Rape is no exception to violent crime, as primarily perpetrated by males; this is true, but the population percentages of violent criminals related to any type of violence in no way justify generalizing all males as potentially any type of violent criminal. Every male is a potential murder, batterer, robber, whatever; it's a bunch of demonizing crap.

Why?


I mean, we seem willing to demonize butter, smoking, and drinking and driving based upon such statistics, why not
clearly identifiable segments of a population? It may well be worth study - but for those who want a rule of thumb,
it seems reasonable to adjust based upon such data.


Incidentally, I'm a safer driver when slightly inebriated. I remember a study (no, I'm not gonna look it up) that
showed not only is the legal limit for alcohol safer than even no-hands cell phones, but it ended up safer than
their control group; I don't remember seeing any follow-ups on it, probably due to politicization of science
and what gets funded.

[Jack]

It's also a reality a major risk factor for both victim and perpetrator is alcohol and/or drug use. Studies indicate at least 50%, with some studies citing focusing on young people being much higher up to 80%. That's a big risk factor and a single simple thing both females and males can consider. The risks are age, inebriation, promiscuity, education, and income, in that order. It's true; it's usually not the stranger and the reality is, one's own circumstances, state of mind, and lifestyle choices do play a role.

Can you cite your source for this?

I'm not doubting you, I'd just be interested to see source material.

Okay. Let me find some stuff.

[Walkie]

It's also a reality a major risk factor for both victim and perpetrator is alcohol and/or drug use. Studies indicate at least 50%, with some studies citing focusing on young people being much higher up to 80%. That's a big risk factor and a single simple thing both females and males can consider. The risks are age, inebriation, promiscuity, education, and income, in that order. It's true; it's usually not the stranger and the reality is, one's own circumstances, state of mind, and lifestyle choices do play a role.

ermm.. so you're more likely to rape or be raped if you're old, intoxicated , promiscuous , highly educated and rich?  or are some of those factors inveresly correlated with rape?
sorry to ask a stupid question, but if  I assume that you meant the inverse of what you said here and there (and I'm very much tempted to do so) then your statement will only be reinforcing my preconceptions won't it? which is counter to your actual intention (I think I can safely assume).

[Jack]

The prevalence of alcohol and drugs is why Department of Justice in 2012 amended the definition of rape, to include anyone who is too mentally incapacitated to give consent. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape

Female risk factors are identified by the Center for Disease Control on pg. 11. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/global_campaign/en/chap6.pdf

As for the drug/alcohol percentages, it's a mixed bag. Sort of like rape stats in general; they're largely based on surveys. So even if one were to take the lowest numbers, 50% is about it.
The National Institute of Justice states 'at least half' https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/campus/pages/alcohol.aspx
The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse states 'about half' https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/campus/pages/alcohol.aspx
The US Department of Justice states 47% https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf
This article cites 80% from a university age study that isn't open source so can't verify the quote, but here's the article and study.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/10/sexual_assault_and_drinking_teach_women_the_connection.html
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/JACH.57.6.639-649#.UliRFCSE6kA

[Jack]

It's also a reality a major risk factor for both victim and perpetrator is alcohol and/or drug use. Studies indicate at least 50%, with some studies citing focusing on young people being much higher up to 80%. That's a big risk factor and a single simple thing both females and males can consider. The risks are age, inebriation, promiscuity, education, and income, in that order. It's true; it's usually not the stranger and the reality is, one's own circumstances, state of mind, and lifestyle choices do play a role.

ermm.. so you're more likely to rape or be raped if you're old, intoxicated , promiscuous , highly educated and rich?  or are some of those factors inveresly correlated with rape?
sorry to ask a stupid question, but if  I assume that you meant the inverse of what you said here and there (and I'm very much tempted to do so) then your statement will only be reinforcing my preconceptions won't it? which is counter to your actual intention (I think I can safely assume).

It's just the nature of the prevalence of violent crime in general. Young, drugs and alcohol, uneducated, poor; these are the common denominators of violent crime for both criminals and victims. That's not to say it doesn't happen outside of these traits, but it still is what it is.

[Lestat]

Jack , closed access? not any more it isn't. Just let I2's chemist and part-time witchdoctor in residence grab his voodoo human skull and spine rattle (the name for that if you wondered, in actual voodoo, is an 'asson;

doi.org/10.3200/JACH.57.6.639-649 one paper

I'd be inclined to agree. If somebody is pissed out of their head and unsteady on their feet, then they are a more viable target for somebody out to rape. Sheerly because their coordination is impaired, judgement is off, they are less likely to be vigilant and they are likely to be disinhibited and more trusting as a result, allowing a predator to get in closer before attacking.

On a strictly biological basis, it makes sense. If it were to be put in a less emotionally laden context, say I am to fight twice, the same opponent. One on one. First time I'm stone cold sober, there is a good chance of the assailant ending up seriously damaged.  If I were force fed a pint of vodka, chances are I'd hit the deck like a sack of potatoes, unless I got a lucky crippling shot in first by chance. Without the impairment I've as good a chance as any at taking down the opponent. With, I'm screwed, unless I happen by sheer chance, to get in a lucky tendon-avulsing blow to the knee or something like that by just chance.

Its not going to be different for the rape victim or potential rape victim; and there are pieces of flesh in people-suits who would undoubtedly go out looking for a drunk potential victim. Just to make the rapist's time of it easier. Disgusting, but true. There are a lot of fucking shitbags about. It doesn't mean every man is one of them, nor does it mean everyone is even a potential rapist. But women (the most likely to be raped, compared to men by far) should take extra care when they are drunk, knowing that such impairment is imparted by consuming large amounts of alcohol, and knowing that such scum as will take advantage are around. I'd suggest travelling in groups personally, that way, even if the girls are drunk, ten on one is probably going to mean the wouldbe rapist is driven off, and potentially, hopefully, the recipient of serious bodily harm. You'd have to have a group of REALLLLY pissed women for ten on one to be even odds most likely.

Against a pack of sober fighters then its likely messy unless the number is relatively small and the single fighter prepared to not think twice about using strikes which break ribs, shatter kneecaps, rip tendons from bones, shove fingers in eyes, reach down trousers to grab nuts, twist and rip. If your willing to fight dirty (and in a self-defense situation its the only way to go. There is no such thing to consider as the queensberry rules, or 'no below the belt' when someone is trying to mug you, kick your head in and leave you for dead for personal amusement. You just do it, no fucking about, and make sure the first fuck to swing a punch ends up cripped severely, and likely as not, permanently. No worrying about morals, no wasting time, just jump the fuck in and smash a bottle in the pricks eyes, kick him in the nuts and knee him in the face. If you want to walk away, you can't afford to mess about worrying about oh dear, is my assailant going to be able to walk again at some point in life, or is he going to end up a quadriplegic fed through a stomach-tube)

Think some really badly drunk girl is going to be alert, mind on the surroundings she is in and of who is in them? it is less likely and if an attacker is detected first their chance of managing to abduct, rape, rob, assault etc. is far higher.

The more focus and self-control any person has against any attack, the less likely the attacker is to end up executing their attack with success.

Doesn't make it that any woman DESERVES to be raped. But it does increase the likelihood of somebody succeeding in doing so, being fucked up. Of course nobody deserves to be raped, not unless they are some cunt like oprah or jenny mccarthy. And like THAT is going to happen, nobody could beg somebody THAT hard as to deter the rapist from running away screaming whilst clawing at their eyes. with fingers dipped in some hastily begged bleach. But it IS logical that the less able to defend themselves somebody is, the more likely they will come to harm should somebody seek to do so.