Female Condom Unveiled For World Cup

[Luther Sloan]

I don't see any instance of the work "attack". If you don't want yourself or your opinions criticized, you have no places in a discussion board (note: "discuss the merits and faults"). Kitchen, heat, and all that jazz.

Iguana:

You didn't even read the FAQ section of Trekbbs did you?
Attacking the character of person (by using the word "shit" in reference to their opinion) is not acceptable. Disagreeing with their opinion or the way they communicate is quite another.

However, I would like to point out a couple of sentences from your other link:
What about you calling tsq "tasteless" and telling her she shouldn't have posted that here in the forum? So, maybe you should check your backyard before crying fault.

I am offended by the wrong language used (especially in reference to children). That is not an attack on that person's character, but on the way they communicate. And I never said that she couldn't post about child rape. I was merely saying to use more cleaner communication involving it (not involving colorful language or intimate details). I don't care how folks talk about adults. But when it comes to referencing children. There has to be a line drawn somewhere (whether that person was a child victim or not). Now, that is just my opinion. And it was not an attack on her character. But just a voiced concern on how I feel about communication on such matters here on this forum.

And that has no bearing on my heart felt concern in what has happened to her or anyone else here. I deeply feel for anyone who has been attacked. And it angers me too that they have been thru such a horrible ordeal.

Her opinion that some women that dress sexy or chat with guys in clubs are asking to be raped and brought it on themselves? You betcha I'm disrespectful or that opinion.

That's not the only one thing she was trying to say. She was also trying to say that women shouldn't go to nightclubs and let men touch them and then not expect to get into trouble (if it comes).

I'm not kind to people that condone or justify rape.

She was not justifying rape by the way women dress. What she meant was that women have to be smart or they can put themselves into that situation by being overly flirtatious and slutty looking. Granted, this still doesn't excuse what the rapist does to them, though. But like I said before, if you play with fire (or flaunt your 100 dollar bills in a shady part of town), your gonna get burned (or your money taken). This doesn't mean that a woman shouldn't prevent herself from being attractive to men, though. She just has to use her head and not come off looking like a slut in a bad part of town (where such things happen). Granted, this is not the case in all rapes. But most of the time the shark is going to be lured in by the most attractive bait.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I'm glad the "women are asking for it" nonsense got the kind of "welcome" it deserves.

It saddens me that there are still people who think rape victims are somehow responsible for their victimization.

The lack of self-control some people have (as evidenced by the stories posted by tsq, Kestra, and others) is just disgusting.

 

[iguana_tonante]

But talking about the actual insertion involving children on a public forum is personally dis-tasteful to me because they are innocent and can't join the forum to defend themselves.

Raped South-African woman can't joint the forum and defend themselves, too, but it seems you have no qualms about criticizing them for using "unnatural" devices.

It can be viewed to some as disgusting and inappropriate. At least for me it is anyways.

If I have to listen to people defending rapists, you could as well listen to mentions of children's genitalia when dealing with the reality of child abuse.

Iguana:

You didn't even read the FAQ section of Trekbbs did you?

Of course I did. I quoted it to you.

Attacking the character of person (and using the word "shit" in reference to their opinion) is not acceptable. Disagreeing with their opinion is quite another.

I'm not attacking the "character" of any person. I am criticizing their opinions on a subject and calling those opinions "shit". Now, I think I'm fully within my rights to call someone's opinions "shit", especially when blaming the victims of rape for what happened to them. This forum doesn't moderate swearing. If you think an abuse has occurred, I invite you to notify a mod and I will gladly accept their ruling.

I am offended by the wrong language used (especially in reference to children).

And I am deeply offended by the suggestion that raped women somehow asked for it by dressing suggestively or, my God, chatting with guys. Whatchagonnado?

That is not an attack on that person's character, but on the way they communicate. (...). Now, that is just my opinion. And it was not an attack on her character.

Good to know that we both use the same line of defense. So, now, since you were the first to complain about it, maybe you should rethink your strategy.

That's not the only one thing she was trying to say. She was also trying to say that women shouldn't go to nightclubs and let men touch them and then not expect to get into trouble (if it comes).

And do you think that's better!?

What she meant was that women have to be smart or they can put themselves into that situation by being overly flirtatious and slutty looking. Granted, this still doesn't excuse what the rapist does to them, though. But like I said before, if you play with fire (or flaunt your 100 dollar bills in a shady part of town), your gonna get burned (or your money taken). This doesn't mean that a woman shouldn't prevent herself from being attractive to men, though.

Good grief.

 

[sidious618]

Iguana:

You didn't even read the FAQ section of Trekbbs did you?
Attacking the character of person (by using the word "shit" in reference to their opinion) is not acceptable. Disagreeing with their opinion or the way they communicate is quite another.

What he said was fine. I felt what she said was disgusting shit, too. Iguana did not call Angela disgusting shit- that would've been moderator worthy. Saying an opinion is shit is nothing as evidenced by the fact that many people say "bullshit" right here in Misc.

 

[Luther Sloan]

It saddens me that there are still people who think rape victims are somehow responsible for their victimization.

Robert:

You may or may not agree with me.
But in either case: the rapist should never should get a free pass card because of what women do. And in most cases: women are 100% blameless for such victimization. But if certain women who know better and do stupid things (i.e. let men feel them up in nightclubs) and dress inappropriately (i.e. overly sleazy), then they are playing with fire and should know that there is a chance that they are going to get burned (because of the situations or scenarios they are putting themselves into).

 

[Luther Sloan]

Iguana and Sidious:

Peace be unto you, my friends.
Just know, both me and Angela are pretty much on the same side as you are here. With the exception of the colorful language, we both hate rapists. And we both agree that rapists never deserve a free pass card when it comes to what women do. Let's leave it at that if we can shall we?


Side Note:

Oh, and I will try and leave this topic. Please do not blame me, if I need to further explain what I wrote later down the road in the thread (if need be).

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It saddens me that there are still people who think rape victims are somehow responsible for their victimization.

Robert:

You may or may not agree with me.
But in either case: the rapist should never should get a free pass card because of what women do. And in most cases: women are 100% blameless for such victimization. But if certain women who know better and do stupid things (i.e. let men feel them up in nightclubs) and dress inappropriately (i.e. overly sleazy), then they are playing with fire and should know that there is a chance that they are going to get burned (because of the situations or scenarios they are putting themselves into).

Wrong again! In ALL cases--every last one of them--there is no "fault" but with the rapist. Period.

You know what? I don't care if she wandered into the party stark naked and passed out on the pool table. If some guy puts his dick in her and she is either unaware or resistant, then he is a rapist and he is at fault.

Should women protect themselves? No shit, Sherlock. But don't fool yourself into thinking any level of protection is going to stop a determined rapist. There is ample evidence that measures women take in the hopes of protecting themselves often don't work or make them even more vulnerable, so this whole notion that women could avoid being raped if they'd just be a little smarter and safer is horseshit and deserves to be called out as such.

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with you, it is a matter of fact and reality.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Iguana and Sidious:

Peace be unto you, my friends.

Do you really think people would fall for your corny preacher persona?

 

[Luther Sloan]

It saddens me that there are still people who think rape victims are somehow responsible for their victimization.

Robert:

You may or may not agree with me.
But in either case: the rapist should never should get a free pass card because of what women do. And in most cases: women are 100% blameless for such victimization. But if certain women who know better and do stupid things (i.e. let men feel them up in nightclubs) and dress inappropriately (i.e. overly sleazy), then they are playing with fire and should know that there is a chance that they are going to get burned (because of the situations or scenarios they are putting themselves into).

Wrong again! In ALL cases--every last one of them--there is no "fault" but with the rapist. Period.

You know what? I don't care if she wandered into the party stark naked and passed out on the pool table. If some guy puts his dick in her and she is either unaware or resistant, then he is a rapist and he is at fault.

Should women protect themselves? No shit, Sherlock. But don't fool yourself into thinking any level of protection is going to stop a determined rapist. There is ample evidence that measures women take in the hopes of protecting themselves often don't work or make them even more vulnerable, so this whole notion that women could avoid being raped if they'd just be a little smarter and safer is horseshit and deserves to be called out as such.

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with you, it is a matter of fact and reality.

Robert:

So, when are you going to start flaunting your 100 dollar bills in a shady part of town next?

It's no different then that my friend. And just so there is no confusion. I agree that it is the rapist who is the majority at fault every time. Most of the time he is 100% at fault. But don't kid yourself for a second that your not going to get burned if you don't play with fire. If you drive drunk, you get in accident and die. If your a stunt man, chances are your going to get injuries.


Side Note:

Again, with the insulting language . Not necessary people.
It doesn't really help your argument any.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Robert:

You may or may not agree with me.
But in either case: the rapist should never should get a free pass card because of what women do. And in most cases: women are 100% blameless for such victimization. But if certain women who know better and do stupid things (i.e. let men feel them up in nightclubs) and dress inappropriately (i.e. overly sleazy), then they are playing with fire and should know that there is a chance that they are going to get burned (because of the situations or scenarios they are putting themselves into).

Wrong again! In ALL cases--every last one of them--there is no "fault" but with the rapist. Period.

You know what? I don't care if she wandered into the party stark naked and passed out on the pool table. If some guy puts his dick in her and she is either unaware or resistant, then he is a rapist and he is at fault.

Should women protect themselves? No shit, Sherlock. But don't fool yourself into thinking any level of protection is going to stop a determined rapist. There is ample evidence that measures women take in the hopes of protecting themselves often don't work or make them even more vulnerable, so this whole notion that women could avoid being raped if they'd just be a little smarter and safer is horseshit and deserves to be called out as such.

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with you, it is a matter of fact and reality.

Robert:

So, when are you going to start flaunting your 100 dollar bills in a shady part of town next?

Do you have even the slightest idea how insensitive it is to compare being mugged with being raped?

It's no different then that my friend. And just so there is no confusion. I agree that it is the rapist who is the majority at fault every time. Most of the time he is 100% at fault. But don't kid yourself for a second that your not going to get burned if you don't play with fire. If you drive drunk, you get in accident and die. If your a stunt man, chances are your going to get injuries.

No, it's not a "majority" of fault, it's all of it. 100%. Every time. Are you getting it yet?

The victim of rape is NEVER at fault. Get that into your head because I'm sure gonna get tired of repeating it. Stop using ridiculous analogies. Rape is rape. It's not anything else.

Side Note:

Again, with the insulting language . Not necessary people.
It doesn't really help your argument any.

Actually, it is necessary since you seem to have some reading comprehension problems and/or problems with reality.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Iguana and Sidious:

Peace be unto you, my friends.

Do you really think people would fall for your corny preacher persona?

Iguana:

If that's not insulting of my character than I don't know what is (which falls under the guidelines of flaming someone). Of which I have never done to anyone here on this forum. I may disagreed with a person's use of language or their opinions. But I never attacked or insulted a person's character.

Besides, it's not an act. It is what my heart felt to say at the time. You may judge or criticize me for saying so. Or even call me a liar. But know that I genuinely do care for everyone here (Although, we may not see eye to eye).

 

[Luther Sloan]

No, it's not a "majority" of fault, it's all of it. 100%. Every time. Are you getting it yet?
The victim of rape is NEVER at fault. Get that into your head because I'm sure gonna get tired of repeating it. Stop using ridiculous analogies. Rape is rape. It's not anything else.

Robert:

So if a woman hangs out where she knows rapists go or where she think she could get raped (and even lures them on), it's not even in a smallest way (in part) her fault?

I don't buy that. It's the same theory as if you were flaunting 100 dollar bills in a shady part of town and you get mugged because of it. How is that any different?

Actually, it is necessary since you seem to have some reading comprehension problems and/or problems with reality.

No. We have a difference of opinion. Pure and simple. Using colorful language doesn't help your case. Ask anyone if they ever felt helped when you used insulting language in a conversation with them. Chances are, most people are going to say no.

 

[STR]

can we get past that and talk about the device itself again, whether it would help or hurt maters, etc?

nothing says a would-be rapist isn't going...first...look for this thing either.

This is the crux of the issue. This isn't a deterrent. It's a one shot counterattack. Once the criminal sickos become aware of this, either through this news story or from personal experience, it completely loses its effectiveness.

Stepping back a bit and losing the emotion, let's look at this scientifically. We'll say that half the time a rapist gets bit by one of these, he runs off, the other half, he either removes it (which as I pointed out is not anywhere near as hard is the inventor makes it sound) or attacks. So 50% success rate the first time against Rapist X. Rapist X tries again later. Now, what is the effectiveness the second time? Damn near close to zero, since it will be removed. Third? Even closer to zero.

Deterrents only work if A) the first time it's used it kills or maims the target, permanently disabling it from trying again (e.g. nuclear weapons). B) They're reasonably effective every time it's challenged. C)There is no easy countermeasure.

This item fails in all aspects.

 

[Teelie]

Some women do provoke unwanted advances and comments/catcalls but it's not the same thing as saying they provoke a rape. The two are not the same. A woman has no right to complain she is oggled and leered at if she's wearing clothing that invites it. That doesn't make it acceptable for anyone to touch, let alone rape them.

I have every right to complain, thank you very much. I should be able to dress however I please without being harassed. But, frankly, it makes no difference. A woman can walk down the street in a giant down coat and rain boots and be catcalled and yelled at. I was wearing my grey parka and rubber boots the time I was asked, "Why don't you walk that sweet pussy over here?!" So, two points -- one, I'm going to wear whatever I please, because no one has the right to dictate my fashion choices! And two, I'm going to complain and complain and complain about the inappropriate comments, gestures, stares (and, just to be clear, a guy can check a lady out without being rude and boorish, I'm talking about the over-the-top leering), until our society changes.

I'm talking about when a woman wears revealing clothing, leaving little hidden or intentionally gives off signals or an attitude to tease. You can't say "I'm going to dress or act sexual and have a right to complain when men respond to it." It doesn't work that way.

You lose a right to complain when you intentionally provoke a response of that nature. Dressing conservatively or attempting to dress in a way not to draw unwanted attention to yourself is a different matter entirely. If someone remarks to you while you're not trying to draw that kind of attention, you do have a right to complain but I suspect you're just trying to make an arguement where none exists.

The problem is people like you (women and men) who think they have a right not to be offended and yet do things that might draw offensive comments, remarks or looks. If a man were to walk down the road in a speedo and look severely unattractive in it, he would have no right to tell people not to make comments on his physique. When you go into public, you should go out knowing what your dress choices are going to cause.

Walking down the street in a barely covering outfit is going to draw remarks. Learn to live with it or learn to dress more appropriately in public. Despite your logic, society does not have to conform to your personal choices, you must bend to its. Maybe in a few decades things will change to your liking but I severely doubt that human nature (women are far from innocent in this btw) is going to change that much.

 

[greenguy]

It saddens me that there are still people who think rape victims are somehow responsible for their victimization.

Robert:

You may or may not agree with me.
But in either case: the rapist should never should get a free pass card because of what women do. And in most cases: women are 100% blameless for such victimization. But if certain women who know better and do stupid things (i.e. let men feel them up in nightclubs) and dress inappropriately (i.e. overly sleazy), then they are playing with fire and should know that there is a chance that they are going to get burned (because of the situations or scenarios they are putting themselves into).

This is [a] fucking disgusting [opinion.] "Most" cases victims are blameless? So by your logic there does remains a percentage of rape victims who aren't blameless, and thus can be at least partially blamed for non consensual violent crimes committed against them. The only victims of violent crime I can think of who are partially deserving of blame are organized criminals who get shot or something. Are we equating wearing a tank top from Target when a woman goes out with rolling with the Crips?

How dare you suggest that any actual victim of rape is ever "playing with fire." You can thank whatever bullshit deity you choose (or choose not) to worship that something like this has never happened to you and move the fuck on and up out of here, because you clearly do not understand the realities or manifestations of this particular crime.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Thinking, reasoning beings commit the rapes. Thus the thinking, reasoning beings are to blame. Not the "bad neighbourhood" or the "slutty dress". Those are simply buildings and fabric.

I see the basic reasoning behind "dressing down" in the hopes that the rapist won't "pick" you, but as this thread alone has showed, it doesn't work that way.

 

[Jan]

I find it amazing that there are people who can read and write on this very thread who can't seem to differentiate between a man's natural response/attraction to an attractively dressed female and rapists.

I think we've got an extraordinary sampling of people, not all of them male, afflicted with an unfortunate madonna-whore attitude. They can be recognized by the use of terms such as 'sleaze' and 'slut'.

Jan

 

[Amaris]

^ Agreed, Jan. No matter what clothing a woman is wearing, if a man is going to rape her, it does not matter whether she wears a sweater and jogging pants or a slinky dress. It does not factor into the equation at all, because a normal male is not going to try and rape a woman regardless of what she is wearing.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

No, it's not a "majority" of fault, it's all of it. 100%. Every time. Are you getting it yet?
The victim of rape is NEVER at fault. Get that into your head because I'm sure gonna get tired of repeating it. Stop using ridiculous analogies. Rape is rape. It's not anything else.

Robert:

So if a woman hangs out where she knows rapists go or where she think she could get raped (and even lures them on), it's not even in a smallest way (in part) her fault?

Now you're getting it!

I don't buy that. It's the same theory as if you were flaunting 100 dollar bills in a shady part of town and you get mugged because of it. How is that any different?

Actually, that wouldn't be the fault of the person flaunting their money, either. It may not be very smart to go around flashing Benjamins in the 'hood, but it's still a crime for someone to mug you for it, and it's still entirely the fault of the mugger--you know, the one actually committing a crime.

Actually, it is necessary since you seem to have some reading comprehension problems and/or problems with reality.

No. We have a difference of opinion. Pure and simple. Using colorful language doesn't help your case. Ask anyone if they ever felt helped when you used insulting language in a conversation with them. Chances are, most people are going to say no.

I hate to break it to you, but reality is not a matter of opinion. Your stance--which is demonstrably wrong, by the way--deserves all the derision it gets

I couldn't care less what you think about how I state things. Your opinion is fucking offensive and doesn't merit one iota of respect.

 

[SiorX]

Some women do provoke unwanted advances and comments/catcalls but it's not the same thing as saying they provoke a rape. The two are not the same. A woman has no right to complain she is oggled and leered at if she's wearing clothing that invites it. That doesn't make it acceptable for anyone to touch, let alone rape them.

I have every right to complain, thank you very much. I should be able to dress however I please without being harassed. But, frankly, it makes no difference. A woman can walk down the street in a giant down coat and rain boots and be catcalled and yelled at. I was wearing my grey parka and rubber boots the time I was asked, "Why don't you walk that sweet pussy over here?!" So, two points -- one, I'm going to wear whatever I please, because no one has the right to dictate my fashion choices! And two, I'm going to complain and complain and complain about the inappropriate comments, gestures, stares (and, just to be clear, a guy can check a lady out without being rude and boorish, I'm talking about the over-the-top leering), until our society changes.

I'm talking about when a woman wears revealing clothing, leaving little hidden or intentionally gives off signals or an attitude to tease. You can't say "I'm going to dress or act sexual and have a right to complain when men respond to it." It doesn't work that way.

You lose a right to complain when you intentionally provoke a response of that nature. Dressing conservatively or attempting to dress in a way not to draw unwanted attention to yourself is a different matter entirely. If someone remarks to you while you're not trying to draw that kind of attention, you do have a right to complain but I suspect you're just trying to make an arguement where none exists.

The problem is people like you (women and men) who think they have a right not to be offended and yet do things that might draw offensive comments, remarks or looks. If a man were to walk down the road in a speedo and look severely unattractive in it, he would have no right to tell people not to make comments on his physique. When you go into public, you should go out knowing what your dress choices are going to cause.

Walking down the street in a barely covering outfit is going to draw remarks. Learn to live with it or learn to dress more appropriately in public. Despite your logic, society does not have to conform to your personal choices, you must bend to its. Maybe in a few decades things will change to your liking but I severely doubt that human nature (women are far from innocent in this btw) is going to change that much.

There you go, TSQ. You've been told. Next time you're going to have the audacity to go out in public, have the good sense to leave your boobs at home. You're inflaming the menfolk by being visibly female in public.