Another Controversial Comment

The post that was quoted here has been removed

it sounds like he's back tracking and trying to cover the stupidity of his original statements........with some equally stupid statements. the scenario in his head of a scantily clad woman being chased around by an assailant has more in common with a hollywood horror movie than how things happen in the real world. i bet his next bit of advice was 'and young ladies should stop going for late night walks down by the old deserted amusement park'.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Women should get in the habit of wearing a holster with a stainless 357 revolver. Doesn't much matter then what else she is wearing now does it?

Originally posted by joe beyser
Women should get in the habit of wearing a holster with a stainless 357 revolver. Doesn't much matter then what else she is wearing now does it?

is that encouraging men with 'women with guns' fetishes to commit rape though? im sure there are a few judges in the world that would still say she was 'asking for it'.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
is that encouraging men with 'women with guns' fetishes to commit rape though? im sure there are a few judges in the world that would still say she was 'asking for it'.

I would say that would depend on weather or not she pulled it out and started squeezing ( the trigger).

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I for one am not volunteering to test your theory.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Women should get in the habit of wearing a holster with a stainless 357 revolver. Doesn't much matter then what else she is wearing now does it?

In the UK that will get you shot by the police.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Apparently this is the quote:

""If you are a young woman on her own trying to walk back home through Gloucester Park, early in the morning in a tight, short skirt and high shoes and there's a predator and if you are blind drunk and wearing those clothes how able are you to get away?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/28/tory-mp-richard-graham-rape-short-skirts-high-heels-vulnerable_n_2565059.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I think it is literally, simply a question the answer to which is, "Not as able as if you are sober and in running shoes, but possibly more able than if you are in a burqa or chadri", but it is both unnecessary and politically stupid to ask. there are some topics and turns of phrase that politicians should know to avoid in the world we live in today. Of course who knows what he is really accomplishing with that remark.

Originally posted by JS357
Apparently this is the quote:

""If you are a young woman on her own trying to walk back home through Gloucester Park, early in the morning in a tight, short skirt and high shoes and there's a predator and if you are blind drunk and wearing those clothes how able are you to get away?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/28/tory-mp-richard-graham-rape- ...[text shortened]... ld we live in today. Of course who knows what he is really accomplishing with that remark.

Why is that more offensive than saying that if you leave your car unlocked, someone might be tempted to steal the change out of the cup holder?

Just so that we have it clear:

OK: Tell someone to be sure not to leave their car unlocked

NOT OK: Tell someone to be sure not to walk home drunk in a short skirt and high-heeled shoes in the middle of the night.

Questions:

Is it OK to tell people not to invest money with Bernie Madoff types?

What about cautioning against walking stoned through downtown Detroit singing show tunes at 2am with $100 bills sticking out of your pockets? OK or not OK?

Originally posted by spruce112358
Why is that more offensive than saying that if you leave your car unlocked, someone might be tempted to steal the change out of the cup holder?

Just so that we have it clear:

OK: Tell someone to be sure not to leave their car unlocked

NOT OK: Tell someone to be sure not to walk home drunk in a short skirt and high-heeled shoes in the middle of ...[text shortened]... wn Detroit singing show tunes at 2am with $100 bills sticking out of your pockets? OK or not OK?

The problem is that this comment and its ilk is often used to imply that the woman somehow deserved to be raped or that the perpetrator somehow shouldn't be as much to blame because of it.

In the case of leaving something in your car unlocked, do you think the person shouldn't go to jail for stealing from it? It is not as uncommon as you think for people to have the attitude that if a woman dresses in a revealing way then somehow it is even a mitigating factor in her rape.

I don't care if a woman lies on her back naked at midnight in a bad neighborhood with her legs spread. It is still rape and just as punishable if someone chooses to rape her.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
The problem is that this comment and its ilk is often used to imply that the woman somehow deserved to be raped or that the perpetrator somehow shouldn't be as much to blame because of it.

In the case of leaving something in your car unlocked, do you think the person shouldn't go to jail for stealing from it? It is not as uncommon as you think for pe ...[text shortened]... with her legs spread. It is still rape and just as punishable if someone chooses to rape her.

Suppose a bank invests without proper due diligence and loses everything to a Bernie Madoff type. Would you say the bank has been prudent?

Suppose "a woman lies on her back naked at midnight in a bad neighborhood with her legs spread." Would you say the woman has been prudent?

Why should we be able to say that the bank has been imprudent but...for heaven sake's don't talk about that woman! It's offensive to make any remarks about her!

Originally posted by spruce112358
Suppose a bank invests without proper due diligence and loses everything to a Bernie Madoff type. Would you say the bank has been prudent?

Suppose "a woman lies on her back naked at midnight in a bad neighborhood with her legs spread." Would you say the woman has been prudent?

Why should we be able to say that the bank has been imprudent but...for heaven sake's don't talk about that woman! It's offensive to make any remarks about her!

Suppose a bank invests without proper due diligence and loses everything to a Bernie Madoff type. Would you say the bank has been prudent?

How do you identify a "Bernie Madoff" type?

Suppose "a woman lies on her back naked at midnight in a bad neighborhood with her legs spread." Would you say the woman has been prudent?

Of course not, but I would also say that about someone wearing a burka in a bad neighborhood at midnight. However, I haven't seen any definitive evidence that walking down an alley in a bad neighborhood at midnight wearing a bulky sweater and long pants is much better an idea than a revealing skirt.

A rapist will likely rape a woman either way and in either way it is 100% the responsibility of the rapist and not the woman. The dress of the woman doesn't mitigate the responsibility of the rapist.

Why should we be able to say that the bank has been imprudent but...for heaven sake's don't talk about that woman! It's offensive to make any remarks about her!

That's a wonderfully uncreative misrepresentation of what I was saying.


Do you have any other imperfect analogies?

Originally posted by spruce112358
Why is that more offensive than saying that if you leave your car unlocked, someone might be tempted to steal the change out of the cup holder?

Just so that we have it clear:

OK: Tell someone to be sure not to leave their car unlocked

NOT OK: Tell someone to be sure not to walk home drunk in a short skirt and high-heeled shoes in the middle of ...[text shortened]... wn Detroit singing show tunes at 2am with $100 bills sticking out of your pockets? OK or not OK?

Agreed. I said, "I think it is literally, simply a question the answer to which is, "Not as able as if you are sober and in running shoes, but possibly more able than if you are in a burqa or chadri", but it is both unnecessary and politically stupid to ask."

For the the record, I did not say it was "NOT OK." I said it it unnecessary and politically stupid. Although, for all I know, it served some politically astute purpose. I doubt it serves much of a public safety purpose. Like, duh.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Women should get in the habit of wearing a holster with a stainless 357 revolver. Doesn't much matter then what else she is wearing now does it?

Sorry but if it has to be a revolver, I suggest a blued model, and a .357 is pretty bulky on an ordinary sized female. Regular female garb also presents some issues for concealed carry as well.

The wardrobe choices for a woman who decides to carry are more limited than just avoiding heels and short skirts. Concealed handguns are usually carried in three places.

1. Beside the rib cage (shoulder holsters)
2. Somewhere on the waist
3. On the leg, usually the ankle, but for some women the inside of a thigh

Preferred weapons are thinnish 9mm or .380 semi autos. These guns not only are easier to conceal, but usually have single stack magazines which make for small grips for smaller hands. They don't recoil as hard as revolvers, as some of the recoil is used up by the slide reloading the next cartridge.

Obviously, the choice of location dictates a lot about what a girl can wear.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Of course, no rapist is excused by the dress of his victim. As I mentioned to you in another thread, a woman that is prepared to defend herself, by firearm, martial arts or flight, whatever, is also because of the thought that goes into that action be more in tune with risk avoidance. It is foolish for young women to go out dressed like hookers, and expect men, especially men who have been drinking to treat them like nuns.

Any preparation is better than none. There is no preparation that can be complete, and which will guarantee success. Part of risk avoidance is appearance, where you appear, and in what company. Your politician may have said something not politically correct, but not totally wrong either. He is made to appear stupid by media which has a view totally different from his. You generously give him the benefit of the doubt.