Notices
Results 1 to 100 of 100
Like Tree19Likes
  • 1 Post By cosmictraveler
  • 1 Post By jrmonroe
  • 1 Post By jrmonroe
  • 1 Post By seagypsy
  • 1 Post By zinjanthropos
  • 1 Post By arKane
  • 1 Post By cosmictraveler
  • 2 Post By Phlogistician
  • 1 Post By arKane
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By madanthonywayne
  • 1 Post By cosmictraveler
  • 2 Post By madanthonywayne
  • 1 Post By seagypsy
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By seagypsy
  • 1 Post By adelady

Thread: Woman suing Match.com after brutal attack

  1. #1 Woman suing Match.com after brutal attack 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Does anybody think she should win her ten million dollar suit against Match.com? Anytime you get together with someone you are taking your chances. I don't believe her law suit has any merit and should be thrown out.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    No I do not think she can win. Everyone knows that when you buy into a dating service all that they can do is give you selections that YOU must decide from. Since YOU decide who YOU want to see and not them then it would be up to YOU to be careful as to who YOU decide to go out with.

    The dating services cannot reasonably find out everything about someone except for what they tell them in their fact sheet. So buyer beware and since the man who beat her up now is dead she is trying to get whatever she can from anyone she can without taking in her own responsibility to insure her own safety.

    But then again a good lawyer will have a chance to get something for her and just might recieve something.


    seagypsy likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    match: the fact or appearance of corresponding.

    IMHO the internet site is (mis)leading its users, depending how you look at it, into thinking or believing that Match.com's selections correspond to a person very similar to or exactly as they desired. Match.com is no different than a store that sells you something you believe you can trust in but eventually proves faulty. Since they are dealing with real people then I think it would behoove Match.com to at least add a disclaimer for obvious reasons. If I can sue a bar for selling me booze then how would this be any different? Precedents have been set, so I think it's worth a try. I think she has a chance to win in court but perhaps an out-of-court settlement is in the offing.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    It does lead to an interesting question though, if a commercial enterprise is making money on the basis of the outcome of meetings between people it has itself arranged should they also carry some of the risk is things do go that seriously wrong? I mean if you book to go on a coach trip some where and are injured because that coach that the company arranged turns out to have been dangerous would that company be at the very least partially responsible, if not totally culpable?

    What I mean is that in life we take risks such as going on dates etc..., but these are calculated risks made with some thought behind them, well at least usually, but if you are using something like a dating site/service then surely you are at the very least passing on some of that risk in return for the financial compensation made to the company in return for the services. I can't really think of many companies that are not actually in any way legally culpable for the services they provide and I really can't see why a dating service is or should be treated any differently.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    So buyer beware and since the man who beat her up now is dead she is trying to get whatever she can from anyone she can without taking in her own responsibility to insure her own safety.
    Since when have women been able to "insure" their own safety? Apart from never going out and never staying home.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    So buyer beware and since the man who beat her up now is dead she is trying to get whatever she can from anyone she can without taking in her own responsibility to insure her own safety.
    Since when have women been able to "insure" their own safety? Apart from never going out and never staying home.
    Having a handgun is a way to be safe if you are threatened. She said she was affraid of the guy so why not carry a handgun if she felt that way? She also might have had other friends that could have "talked " to him for her.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Match.com is either naive as hell, very stupid or not worried. Number rule in business is to cover your ass, protect your assets. I wonder if they have insurance? If not then it could be possible that no insurance company would underwrite them or the site couldn't afford or were unwilling to pay the premiums. If that's the case then Match.com will have assumed all risks and then it's just a matter of getting the check book out and finding a number. Maybe they have set aside a little cash just for these occasions. It's something they may have expected to happen at some point so it comes down to the cost of doing business, although they would never admit it.
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; January 27th, 2013 at 08:00 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Having a handgun is a way to be safe if you are threatened.
    Not unless you're a trained bodyguard or a psychopath. The only way to be "safe" with a handgun is to have

    1) lightning reflexes to draw as soon as needed,
    2) keeping your gun loaded, with the safety off at all times,
    3) accuracy in shooting despite a stressful/noisy/confused environment and
    4) no compunction about killing.

    Not common qualities or recommended circumstances. Which is why the statistics tell us that you are more, rather than less, likely to be injured or killed by a handgun if you carry one.

    And for those who thought the woman was after money? She's not.

    The woman is not seeking monetary damages. Rather, she wants the court to issue an injunction to prevent anyone new from joining Match.com until it undertakes to enact screening for sexual offenders.
    Read the article. Match.com sued after alleged sexual assault | Technically Incorrect - CNET News
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    This really shouldn't turn into another gun control debate thread...

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Not unless you're a trained bodyguard or a psychopath.
    Psychopath? Really? You don't like firearms. We get it. That's a personal choice on your part.
    But calling everyone else a "Psychopath" is utterly out of line.
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The only way to be "safe" with a handgun is to have
    1) lightning reflexes to draw as soon as needed,
    2) keeping your gun loaded, with the safety off at all times,
    It takes about 1/30th of a second to flick the switch from safety on to safety off.
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    3) accuracy in shooting despite a stressful/noisy/confused environment and
    Accuracy certainly helps but just the SIGHT of a handgun in a victims hand can send a crook running. Besides, accuracy is good if your intent is to kneecap the perp or make sure you get 'em between the eyes. Other than that, most any firearm related injury is liable to eliminate the perp as a threat. I know this from experience. I've been shot twice. (Military combat, not being a perp, myself.)
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    4) no compunction about killing.
    Aside from wounding- you assume too much- again.
    A person can have qualms about killing, yet do so in order to protect home and family. Do you have qualms about killing animals? Yet you buy meat at the store. I guess that killing doesn't bother you since it wasn't your hands doing the deed.
    Would you kill to protect a child? It's a rhetorical question... I think the demonstration is clear: A person may have an issue with killing but still do so when necessary. I guess your attitude toward it relates to you calling us "psychopaths" above.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Which is why the statistics tell us that you are more, rather than less, likely to be injured or killed by a handgun if you carry one.
    Trouble is- does suicide actually count?
    GunCite - Gun Control Web Site: A Gun in the Home

    Yes, we get it. You don't like firearms and the other "psychopaths" out there need to be taught a lesson. Let's not turn every thread into an opportunity to show those psycho's what's up. And flawed statistics to push an agenda are unimpressive, at best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    No. Not everyone else. Just highlighting how difficult it is for anyone, let alone a woman on a date, to think clearly and react quickly and appropriately to unexpected assault. You need to have the right mindset to do this, or at least be confident enough to do such things decisively. Whether that confidence and decisiveness comes from training or from an unusual psychology doesn't much matter in the end. They're both so uncommon that they're irrelevant for the sort of circumstance we're talking about. Dating is supposed to be a social event, not a war zone.

    I was assaulted a few times. It's a long time ago now, but I can't think of exactly when during these incidents I might have threatened to use or actually used a firearm, especially faced with a much stronger man who could have got the weapon away from me. It's a bit difficult to think straight when you're still staggering and your head's still ringing from the last strike with a fist.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    No. Not everyone else. Just highlighting how difficult it is for anyone, let alone a woman on a date, to think clearly and react quickly and appropriately to unexpected assault.
    But with proper training, which is available, those wanting to use a firearm can receive instructions on how to do so. If you buy a handgun please always learn how to use it or else it will be you getting shot and not the perp. As was also stated, just the sight of a handgun will usually send the perp fleeing.

    Do not lower the expectations of all women just because you feel the way you do.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    She won't win, but she might force Match.com to "settle out of court for an undisclosed amount of money".

    After the years/decades of talk (and common knowledge) about the dangers of meeting someone over the Internet — the ex-con, the convicted killer, the serial rapist, the child molester — oh please ...
    Neverfly likes this.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I think if her lawyer is good she can make a strong case of it.

    Adelady- Mace? Pepper Spray?
    Last edited by Neverfly; January 28th, 2013 at 06:02 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Adelady- Mace? Pepper Spray?
    All right for the street / train groper, grabber, 'persistent' talker - someone, somewhere, you can run from.

    The big problem with the date turned stalker is "Can I get away?" and "What happens next?" Having read a few of these stories I'm starting to think that the old-fashioned whistle has a lot going for it. Screaming or calling for help can mean that a lot of people won't come to see what they can do. People who are alerted or annoyed by loud, sustained, repeated use of a whistle will already be fired up to do something to stop it. Much more likely to react in a useful way when they see what's really going on. Most importantly, the kind of attacker who likes to hear that the victim is distressed will be a bit put off, hopefully with ringing ears - at least enough to slacken off or reconsider continuing the attack, this time.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post

    The woman is not seeking monetary damages. Rather, she wants the court to issue an injunction to prevent anyone new from joining Match.com until it undertakes to enact screening for sexual offenders.
    Well I have to say I thought she had a case to begin with, but if that's all she really wants then I very much hope she is successful, if this company is currently not even screening for sex offenders before fixing people up then they are willfully putting there clients at risk and it should be stopped, if not by them then by the courts.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    But people lie and any sex offender or other criminal type can easily lie to get into any dating service because those dating services do not take the time to investigate what people tell them about themselves. Imagine if every dating service had to take the time to look up all the criminal activity of each of their customers.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Adelady- Mace? Pepper Spray?
    All right for the street / train groper, grabber, 'persistent' talker - someone, somewhere, you can run from.

    The big problem with the date turned stalker is "Can I get away?" and "What happens next?" Having read a few of these stories I'm starting to think that the old-fashioned whistle has a lot going for it. Screaming or calling for help can mean that a lot of people won't come to see what they can do. People who are alerted or annoyed by loud, sustained, repeated use of a whistle will already be fired up to do something to stop it. Much more likely to react in a useful way when they see what's really going on. Most importantly, the kind of attacker who likes to hear that the victim is distressed will be a bit put off, hopefully with ringing ears - at least enough to slacken off or reconsider continuing the attack, this time.
    I guess this is where a personal bias on my part comes in. If I hear someone calling for help- I won't ignore it.

    I'm not sure how many attackers are turned on by screaming in distress.
    In safety training, women are taught to scream for help as an attacker is much more likely to flee if she resists. An attacker usually wants an easy victim. One that will struggle or fight back rather than resign themselves to fate bear a greater chance of getting away.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    One that will struggle or fight back rather than resign themselves to fate bear a greater chance of getting away.
    Hate to tell you this, but there's a significant group that we can't ignore that find overcoming struggle or fighting back by someone who is physically weaker than they are to be the impetus for further violence. So fighting back with one of these people can make things worse rather than better. If struggle has a good chance of getting you into a position to run - and you're not wearing high heels - then go for it.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    No. Not everyone else. Just highlighting how difficult it is for anyone, let alone a woman on a date, to think clearly and react quickly and appropriately to unexpected assault.
    But with proper training, which is available, those wanting to use a firearm can receive instructions on how to do so. If you buy a handgun please always learn how to use it or else it will be you getting shot and not the perp. As was also stated, just the sight of a handgun will usually send the perp fleeing.

    Do not lower the expectations of all women just because you feel the way you do.
    First I'd like to say I'm not getting any notifications at my new email address or I'd have been participating more in this thread. I have changed my email in my settings and do not know what the problem is.

    Next, it's a proven statistic that if you own a hand gun you have a greater chance of getting killed either by your own gun or a criminal protecting himself while you are still deciding to shoot or not. Also, if you have a family, having a gun in the house could become a major tragedy that you will never forgive yourself for.

    I think a better option is get the strongest pepper spray you can get. You won't be afraid to use it and you won't have any death to deal with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post

    The woman is not seeking monetary damages. Rather, she wants the court to issue an injunction to prevent anyone new from joining Match.com until it undertakes to enact screening for sexual offenders.
    Well I have to say I thought she had a case to begin with, but if that's all she really wants then I very much hope she is successful, if this company is currently not even screening for sex offenders before fixing people up then they are willfully putting there clients at risk and it should be stopped, if not by them then by the courts.
    Does anybody know what information a dating site gathers on it's members and how much verification it does on that information? It seems to me that if they know enough you wouldn't be able to get away with any kind of shit like what happened, so why would you do it?

    Also, dating sites have been around for a very long time now, and I've not ever heard of anything like this before. That strikes me as better odds than picking dates in a bar or some other usual way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Duplicate- happened when site went all cloudflare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Next, it's a proven statistic that if you own a hand gun you have a greater chance of getting killed either by your own gun or a criminal protecting himself while you are still deciding to shoot or not.
    This is quite simply- Untrue. The "Statistics" are shown that way by including pre-meditated suicides.

    As to the next bit- Don't hesitate.

    To claim that someone is safer by being Unarmed against an armed assailant simply because they might hesitate is absolute total nonsense.
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Hate to tell you this, but there's a significant group that we can't ignore that find overcoming struggle or fighting back by someone who is physically weaker than they are to be the impetus for further violence. So fighting back with one of these people can make things worse rather than better. If struggle has a good chance of getting you into a position to run - and you're not wearing high heels - then go for it.
    I'm not suggesting it be ignored. However, in womens safety training courses, women are taught to struggle and fight back because the odds are very much against an assailant wanting that kind of trouble. That's just the way it is- it's a matter of odds.
    Safety Tips | Women's Center at the University of Washington
    Top 10 Safety Tips For Women « Power to Change

    Couple examples I googled up.

    The vast majority of the time, assailants pick out what they think will be an easy target. The vast majority of invasions where the assailant completed his objective were completed when the woman cooperated hoping he'd spare her.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    hoping he'd spare her.
    She might have been right - if she was spared additional or extreme violence.

    There's bad. Then there's dead or disfigured or crippled or bankrupt from hospital costs.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    hoping he'd spare her.
    She might have been right - if she was spared additional or extreme violence.

    There's bad. Then there's dead or disfigured or crippled or bankrupt from hospital costs.
    I really have no idea at all why we're arguing about this. Adelady, are you really suggesting that women should not resist when assaulted?!?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    It's down to the woman and the circumstances she finds herself in. The old-fashioned advice was to always resist as strongly as possible. Firstly because no-one believed a woman was raped unless she had additional injuries to substantiate her claim. There are still far too many people who suggest that it's not really rape if the woman doesn't have other scars or injuries as well as the rape itself.

    Secondly, there's fairly good evidence about violent sexual assault that resistance often increases the level of violence and is unlikely to avoid rape itself. If a woman can find a way to get away from the attacker then that's an unqualified good thing. If she can't get away, she's the only one who can make the judgement whether it's safer or better for her to fight or to freeze. There's now some good evidence that, in the commonest date and acquaintance rape circumstances, many men will stop what they're doing if the woman can get him, somehow or other, to look at her face. (Very much doubt this approach would have been much benefit for the woman who's been targeted by a repeat, convicted offender though.)

    I'll see if I've got any links to this stuff - I know I haven't saved them except as references within articles or posts.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    match: the fact or appearance of corresponding.

    IMHO the internet site is (mis)leading its users, depending how you look at it, into thinking or believing that Match.com's selections correspond to a person very similar to or exactly as they desired. Match.com is no different than a store that sells you something you believe you can trust in but eventually proves faulty. Since they are dealing with real people then I think it would behoove Match.com to at least add a disclaimer for obvious reasons. If I can sue a bar for selling me booze then how would this be any different? Precedents have been set, so I think it's worth a try. I think she has a chance to win in court but perhaps an out-of-court settlement is in the offing.
    I did my time on dating sites. was on 6 at one time for a while. I have NEVER seen one that DIDN'T use disclaimers and safety tips to users. Statements suggesting to users that they should do due diligence and confirm what they can about the other user and never to give out their home addresses, and never to meet them alone without checking references. Women, especially, are always encouraged to meet up with someone only with a chaperone. These are often listed in the TOS that you agree to when you sign up. Also that the website assumes no responsibility for what takes place between users outside of the website itself. And cannot verify claims of any user in their profiles. She most likely agreed to these TOS and therefore cannot hold Match.com liable for what happened. This is a common sense situation. Her suit makes no more sense than it would to sue TSF if you decided to meet up with a fellow forum member and they punched you in the face when you did. I have met plenty of people that I knew from the internet, but I always took precautions and always assumed my safety was my own responsibility. No website has ever given me any impression that they would guarantee my safety if I chose to meet someone offline.

    If I were judge, I would throw her case out and tell her, "lesson learned i hope". But as our society caters to those who are stupid and want to blame everyone else for their bad choices, she probably will get some sort of reparation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    So buyer beware and since the man who beat her up now is dead she is trying to get whatever she can from anyone she can without taking in her own responsibility to insure her own safety.
    Since when have women been able to "insure" their own safety? Apart from never going out and never staying home.
    Having a handgun is a way to be safe if you are threatened. She said she was affraid of the guy so why not carry a handgun if she felt that way? She also might have had other friends that could have "talked " to him for her.
    What intelligent human being would meet up with a guy who scared them? She could have insured her safety by not meeting up with someone who scared her in the first place. No one can guarantee their own safety but htey can take steps to improve their odds of staying safe. Taking unnecessary risks is just stupid and can get you killed. Going on a date with a stranger, regardless of where you meet them, is dangerous. Going on a date with someone you know can be dangerous but danger is less likely. Life is a risk. But wisdom can help you avoid unnecessary risks.

    You wouldn't sue a property owner if you walked across a pond that appeared to be frozen but fell through the ice.... well I guess some people would but most people would simply take no risk and avoid walking on the ice, especially if they weren't sure of how thick it was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Adelady- Mace? Pepper Spray?
    All right for the street / train groper, grabber, 'persistent' talker - someone, somewhere, you can run from.

    The big problem with the date turned stalker is "Can I get away?" and "What happens next?" Having read a few of these stories I'm starting to think that the old-fashioned whistle has a lot going for it. Screaming or calling for help can mean that a lot of people won't come to see what they can do. People who are alerted or annoyed by loud, sustained, repeated use of a whistle will already be fired up to do something to stop it. Much more likely to react in a useful way when they see what's really going on. Most importantly, the kind of attacker who likes to hear that the victim is distressed will be a bit put off, hopefully with ringing ears - at least enough to slacken off or reconsider continuing the attack, this time.
    I truly wish we could go back to the day when a blood-curdling screech was only meant for the real thing. A transition took place about 30 to 40 years ago where kids began thinking it was okay to scream bloody murder at play — and their parents let them. I began hearing it all over the place, and have still not gotten accustomed to it. The day a stranger is dragging a little 7-yo into a car, and screaming bloody murder doesn't illicit any response, is too late for that little one. Where parents thought it was okay for little ones to scream like this at play is beyond me. Neighbors should have been calling the parents and telling them to teach their children its proper — and ONLY — use.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    This is from match.com's TOS at Terms of Use

    Your Interactions with Other Members.

    7.a. YOU ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER MEMBERS. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MATCH.COM CURRENTLY DOES NOT CONDUCT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ITS MEMBERS. MATCH.COM ALSO DOES NOT INQUIRE INTO THE BACKGROUNDS OF ALL OF ITS MEMBERS OR ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THE STATEMENTS OF ITS MEMBERS. MATCH.COM MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES AS TO THE CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OR THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH ANY CURRENT OR FUTURE MEMBERS. MATCH.COM RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT ANY CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK OR OTHER SCREENINGS (SUCH AS SEX OFFENDER REGISTER SEARCHES), AT ANY TIME AND USING AVAILABLE PUBLIC RECORDS.
    b. IN NO EVENT SHALL MATCH.COM BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, WHETHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, GENERAL, SPECIAL, COMPENSATORY, CONSEQUENTIAL, AND/OR INCIDENTAL, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF YOU OR ANYONE ELSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF THE SERVICE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, BODILY INJURY, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND/OR ANY OTHER DAMAGES RESULTING FROM COMMUNICATIONS OR MEETINGS WITH OTHER REGISTERED USERS OF THIS SERVICE OR PERSONS YOU MEET THROUGH THIS SERVICE. YOU AGREE TO TAKE REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS IN ALL INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SERVICE, PARTICULARLY IF YOU DECIDE TO MEET OFFLINE OR IN PERSON. IN ADDITION, YOU AGREE TO REVIEW MATCH.COM'S DATING SAFETY TIPS PRIOR TO USING THE SERVICE. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MATCH.COM MAKES NO GUARANTEES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING YOUR ULTIMATE COMPATIBILITY WITH INDIVIDUALS YOU MEET THROUGH THE SERVICE. YOU SHOULD NOT PROVIDE YOUR FINANCIAL INFORMATION (FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR CREDIT CARD OR BANK ACCOUNT INFORMATION) TO OTHER MEMBERS.
    She agreed to these terms when she signed up. She has no case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    She agreed to these terms when she signed up. She has no case.
    She's simply arguing that the service should include a simple check, based on credit card information, of known sex offence convictions. She's not asking for money. She's not asking for a psychiatric screening process. Just routine database checks.

    If they don't want to do this, then the terms should include an explicit advice for clients to do this for themselves - because the service hasn't done it and they don't know whether the people you've been "matched" with have any history of sexual or other violence.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    She's simply arguing that the service should include a simple check, based on credit card information, of known sex offence convictions. She's not asking for money. She's not asking for a psychiatric screening process. Just routine database checks.
    Two problems...
    The articles I've read say she is suing for $10mil.
    Other articles say he had no priors before this event. I believe it said, "No prior convictions for violent crime." None that I've read clarify whether he was a registered sex offender or not...

    Does anyone have any information on these two details?

    Considering her medical expenses, I wouldn't be bothered by the idea she'd ask for financial compensation. I doubt she can get that... But I can see it as reasonable for her to ask.
    I'm sure even the company would be agreeable to basic screening out of sex offenders.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    There are just so many jobs now that you can't send people for without a CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) check, you'd think the least a dating site could do the same or a similar equivelant depending on the country. I mean it's not hard to do, there are enough companies out there already that provide this service, so they could just add on this small extra fee to their service costs, I mean really what price people's safety?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MATCH.COM CURRENTLY DOES NOT CONDUCT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ITS MEMBERS. MATCH.COM ALSO DOES NOT INQUIRE INTO THE BACKGROUNDS OF ALL OF ITS MEMBERS OR ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THE STATEMENTS OF ITS MEMBERS.
    What they are saying is that becoming a member could get you killed, what they are implying is that it is your fault if that happens. There is something inherently wrong with open callousness, casually admitting that death is a possibility for a member. Too bad, shouldn't have signed up.

    Match,
    is absolutely the wrong word here. You cannot match people unless you've checked them out thoroughly. I not even sure if even extensive background checks can provide a positively ideal match, in fact it may be impossible for humans to do so. Unfortunately members are deceived by the title, expecting Match.com to deliver the perfect match.

    YOU AGREE TO TAKE REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS IN ALL INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SERVICE, PARTICULARLY IF YOU DECIDE TO MEET OFFLINE OR IN PERSON.
    Not sure why dating tips follow this particular disclaimer. IOW it's ok to simply meet online, this being Match.com's service, and once that is accomplished then the service provider has done its job. Define reasonable precautions....I can see a lawyer asking this.

    YOU AGREE TO REVIEW MATCH.COM'S DATING SAFETY TIPS PRIOR TO USING THE SERVICE.
    As I said, why is this in there? Are they are taking responsibility for harm committed, with this statement?


    I think this woman has a good chance to win.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    This is from match.com's TOS at Terms of Use

    Your Interactions with Other Members.

    7.a. YOU ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER MEMBERS. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MATCH.COM CURRENTLY DOES NOT CONDUCT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ITS MEMBERS. MATCH.COM ALSO DOES NOT INQUIRE INTO THE BACKGROUNDS OF ALL OF ITS MEMBERS OR ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THE STATEMENTS OF ITS MEMBERS. MATCH.COM MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES AS TO THE CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OR THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH ANY CURRENT OR FUTURE MEMBERS. MATCH.COM RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT ANY CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK OR OTHER SCREENINGS (SUCH AS SEX OFFENDER REGISTER SEARCHES), AT ANY TIME AND USING AVAILABLE PUBLIC RECORDS.
    b. IN NO EVENT SHALL MATCH.COM BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, WHETHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, GENERAL, SPECIAL, COMPENSATORY, CONSEQUENTIAL, AND/OR INCIDENTAL, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF YOU OR ANYONE ELSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF THE SERVICE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, BODILY INJURY, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND/OR ANY OTHER DAMAGES RESULTING FROM COMMUNICATIONS OR MEETINGS WITH OTHER REGISTERED USERS OF THIS SERVICE OR PERSONS YOU MEET THROUGH THIS SERVICE. YOU AGREE TO TAKE REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS IN ALL INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SERVICE, PARTICULARLY IF YOU DECIDE TO MEET OFFLINE OR IN PERSON. IN ADDITION, YOU AGREE TO REVIEW MATCH.COM'S DATING SAFETY TIPS PRIOR TO USING THE SERVICE. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MATCH.COM MAKES NO GUARANTEES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING YOUR ULTIMATE COMPATIBILITY WITH INDIVIDUALS YOU MEET THROUGH THE SERVICE. YOU SHOULD NOT PROVIDE YOUR FINANCIAL INFORMATION (FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR CREDIT CARD OR BANK ACCOUNT INFORMATION) TO OTHER MEMBERS.
    She agreed to these terms when she signed up. She has no case.
    Just thought I'd check eHarmony. It's a very extensive document and there's no way I'm going to read that whole thing to find a buried disclaimer. But be my guest if your interested. As zinjanthropos pointed out disclaimers don't make a service immune to being sued and most of these sites will pay to avoid bad publicity.



    eHarmony Terms of Service - Online Dating Site
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MATCH.COM CURRENTLY DOES NOT CONDUCT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ITS MEMBERS. MATCH.COM ALSO DOES NOT INQUIRE INTO THE BACKGROUNDS OF ALL OF ITS MEMBERS OR ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THE STATEMENTS OF ITS MEMBERS.
    What they are saying is that becoming a member could get you killed, what they are implying is that it is your fault if that happens. There is something inherently wrong with open callousness, casually admitting that death is a possibility for a member. Too bad, shouldn't have signed up.

    Match,
    is absolutely the wrong word here. You cannot match people unless you've checked them out thoroughly. I not even sure if even extensive background checks can provide a positively ideal match, in fact it may be impossible for humans to do so. Unfortunately members are deceived by the title, expecting Match.com to deliver the perfect match.

    YOU AGREE TO TAKE REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS IN ALL INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SERVICE, PARTICULARLY IF YOU DECIDE TO MEET OFFLINE OR IN PERSON.
    Not sure why dating tips follow this particular disclaimer. IOW it's ok to simply meet online, this being Match.com's service, and once that is accomplished then the service provider has done its job. Define reasonable precautions....I can see a lawyer asking this.

    YOU AGREE TO REVIEW MATCH.COM'S DATING SAFETY TIPS PRIOR TO USING THE SERVICE.
    As I said, why is this in there? Are they are taking responsibility for harm committed, with this statement?


    I think this woman has a good chance to win.
    No, they are not taking responsibility, they are covering their ass in stating that you are agreeing to take steps to be responsible for yourself. "Match" is just a product name. A label. Not an implication of quality. "Monster" is a vitamin energy drink. Calling it "monster" does not imply that you will turn into Mr. Hyde when you drink it, or that you will evolve in any manner into something less than human. It is simply a product name. I can name my kid Einstein and he could grow up to be a moron. No one and nothing is required by law to live up to the original meanings of the names they carry. I could write a program called Sex Change 2.o. but that doesn't mean that using the program will result in gender reassignment as you use it. A proper name can be anything you like. It is not required to bind you into any type of agreements or obligations. Most people use creative names that appeal to the senses. I think only Microsoft names their products according to what they actually do.

    There are cars named after ancient forgotten gods and animals but they are certainly only cars and possess no special abilities inherently associated with the names they carry. The name of the company does not entitle her to any compensation. The TOS is a binding contract. She will be held to it and has no case.

    I am not meaning to say that she in anyway deserved what happened to her. Or that it was entirely her fault. But we all have to assume SOME degree of responsibility for the risks we choose to take in life. If you choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and get in an accident, your family cannot sue the motorcycle company because you got hurt and/or died. You accepted the risks of riding it in general, you also accepted the risks of riding it without a helmet. It is your fault as far as that goes. Now if you got killed because some asshole cut you off or plowed into you, then THAT person is at fault for their poor driving skills. That does not mean that you would not bear the small responsibility of not having worn a helmet.

    If she wins her case, then they set the precedent that I can sue my former employer for the abuse I suffered in my first marriage, after all I met my first husband at work, as he was an employee at the same company, and they did not forbid him from flirting with me or asking me out on a date. So they would be responsible for all that right? How about high schools? they host proms and dances. Sometimes young girls get date raped on prom night. Should the schools be sued for creating the atmosphere that puts young inexperienced people in situations where they don't know how to handle themselves, especially knowing they are at an age where their hormones cloud their judgement and affect their behavior?

    In this case, the person who is at the most fault for what happened is the man who attacked her. Apparently he is dead now. His death does not automatically pass responsibility for his crime onto Match.com. Criminal guilt does not get passed on to other people when the real guilty party dies. Otherwise we would be putting widows of dead criminals in prison, or their children, or their employers.

    If she wins her case, all hell will break loose. But considering frivolous law suits are a major issue in our country and many judges are doing what they can to prevent them, I seriously doubt she will win. She has a burden of proof or at least proving more likely than not, that they could have prevented the crime or that they assumed some liability for it. And the TOS completely absolves them of any responsibility. I won't discuss whether it is ethical or not for Match to assume no liability in their TOS. In this case it doesn't matter. They did it and if she didn't like the Terms, she should not have agreed to it. This is why you should never agree to TOS on any website without actually reading the TOS. I did that once and lost copyright claim to all that I posted on their site. The TOS stated that anything I posted online through their site became property of the website owner and I relinquished my right to claim to any and all copyrights of the content I published. That means they could make money off my creations and I wouldn't even get credit. I never read the TOS until a few weeks after signing up. Needless to say, I quietly deleted all that I had posted and cancelled my account. But it was only after someone else had raised hell on their profile pointing this detail out. As far as I know the website no longer exists. but I am sure the owners regularly made backups of their databases and can go and sift through all the user created content and take for themselves whatever they want and make money off of it now. Deleting my content from my active profile surely didn't delete it from their server back ups. Same goes for this forum. You can edit all day long on your posts, but they retain the original posts and can see all your edits. I don't think the owner here would ever maliciously use our posts and claim them as his own but do any of us have any guarantee that he or any future owner won't?

    Risk, its something we all have to assume responsibility for when we choose to take it.
    arKane likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Ehamony's TOS- took me less than 10 seconds to find it in the TOS.

    7. Limitation of Liability.

    Incidental Damages and Aggregate Liability. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL EHARMONY BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INDIRECT DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SERVICES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OR CORRUPTION OF DATA OR PROGRAMS, SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS AND PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE SERVICES, EVEN IF EHARMONY KNOWS OR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL EHARMONY'S AGGREGATE LIABILITY, IN ANY FORM OF ACTION WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR THE USE OF THE SERVICES OR THE SITE, EXCEED THE PRICE PAID BY YOU FOR YOUR ACCOUNT, OR, IF YOU HAVE NOT PAID EHARMONY FOR THE USE OF ANY SERVICES, THE AMOUNT OF US$25.00 OR ITS EQUIVALENT.

    No Liability for non-eHarmony Actions. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL EHARMONY BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, WHETHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, GENERAL, SPECIAL, COMPENSATORY, CONSEQUENTIAL, AND/OR INCIDENTAL, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF YOU OR ANYONE ELSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF THE SERVICES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, BODILY INJURY, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND/OR ANY OTHER DAMAGES RESULTING FROM COMMUNICATIONS OR MEETINGS WITH OTHER REGISTERED USERS OF THE SERVICES. THIS INCLUDES ANY CLAIMS, LOSSES OR DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE CONDUCT OF USERS WHO HAVE REGISTERED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES OR WHO ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD OR HARM YOU.

    Information Verification. eHarmony and its contractors may use various ways of verifying information that users have provided. However, none of those ways are perfect, and you agree that eHarmony and its contractors will have no liability to you arising from any incorrectly verified information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Risk, its something we all have to assume responsibility for when we choose to take it.
    Yes, a date has an element of risk in it. So does providing a dating service. Do does a disclaimer.

    I'm just taking the side of the plaintiff for argument's sake. I do think people have to take responsibility for their actions and it includes dating services.

    Match is more than a product name here. It's what they do. It's implied. Can Match.com argue successfully that their name doesn't mean they will find you a match? I don't think so, and that is one argument a defence lawyer should not even bring up in this case.

    Sure, the man in question obviously didn't tell all in his application. I doubt if writing 'I have a penchant for rape and attempted murder" on an application form would have got him this date. No defence lawyer is going to argue on the behalf of their client that all applicants tell the truth. The risk taken by Match.com was one where they know the possibility exists that no applicant tells the truth yet that does not affect their matching techniques. They match liars with people who tell the truth or other liars, they know this can happen and does, not an exact science. It's an open invitation to every creep that ever walked the Earth. Match.com is knowingly operating under false pretenses and this renders any disclaimer moot, at least that's what I'd throw in there as a prosecutor.
    arKane likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    A lot of times winning a law suit is not the primary goal, but making the sued party decide on a settlement as the cheapest way to go.
    zinjanthropos likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    A lot of times winning a law suit is not the primary goal, but making the sued party decide on a settlement as the cheapest way to go.
    I just can't see any good arguments for Match.com, they deal in a business that depends on the honesty of human beings they don't even know or check on. Other than everybody being responsible for their own actions, there isn't much. In fact they would be arguing against themselves if they brought it up. Match.com could win the case, but they will be exposed and that is not good for the bottom line, a win/loss situation. I'd still bet on an out-of-court settlement.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    A lot of times winning a law suit is not the primary goal, but making the sued party decide on a settlement as the cheapest way to go.
    I think this is more likely the case and probably the hope of the woman's attorney. I doubt he feels he really has a case. It's just the annoyance and the bad press that will likely cause Match.com to cave in and settle out of court. This is how people "win" cases. They don't actually win, they just get the other side to forfeit. Its a perversion of the legal system. If it were my company, I would counter sue the lady for failing to follow through on the TOS. Sue her for breach of contract. But that would be bad PR for them so they won't. I don't care about PR. I wouldn't let her rape me just because someone else raped her.

    I have a strong dislike for people who presume that their victim status entitles them to the right to victimize others. I wish there was an agency that promoted this idea the way NAACP or ACLU promotes their concepts of equality and justice for all. Call it the Anti-Victimization by Victims League or something lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    A lot of times winning a law suit is not the primary goal, but making the sued party decide on a settlement as the cheapest way to go.
    I just can't see any good arguments for Match.com, they deal in a business that depends on the honesty of human beings they don't even know or check on. Other than everybody being responsible for their own actions, there isn't much. In fact they would be arguing against themselves if they brought it up. Match.com could win the case, but they will be exposed and that is not good for the bottom line, a win/loss situation. I'd still bet on an out-of-court settlement.
    And considering how high a percentage of our population prefers the victim/entitlement attitude over personal responsibility, you may have a point. Legally, Match.com is safe. But public scrutiny, the public being a lot of people who want to blame everyone but the guilty party for wrong doings, will likely cause them to settle and the woman will get what she wants without the precedent being set. So I still don't thing she will win her case, but that doesn't mean she won't "win".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    I think a better option is get the strongest pepper spray you can get. You won't be afraid to use it and you won't have any death to deal with.
    That would be another option I'd agree with. Anything for defending yourself if you know that your being harrassed.
    arKane likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore Phlogistician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    What they are saying is that becoming a member could get you killed, what they are implying is that it is your fault if that happens. There is something inherently wrong with open callousness, casually admitting that death is a possibility for a member.
    #

    Using a sidewalk could get you killed, yet there isn't even a disclaimer on the sidewalk. Some things come with inherent risk and you are naive if you fail to recognise that.
    arKane and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Hate to tell you this, but there's a significant group that we can't ignore that find overcoming struggle or fighting back by someone who is physically weaker than they are to be the impetus for further violence. So fighting back with one of these people can make things worse rather than better. If struggle has a good chance of getting you into a position to run - and you're not wearing high heels - then go for it.
    So you're saying "lay back and enjoy it?" I mean, seriously, of course the person you are fighting will respond to your counter offensive. But you should still fight back!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Hate to tell you this, but there's a significant group that we can't ignore that find overcoming struggle or fighting back by someone who is physically weaker than they are to be the impetus for further violence. So fighting back with one of these people can make things worse rather than better. If struggle has a good chance of getting you into a position to run - and you're not wearing high heels - then go for it.
    So you're saying "lay back and enjoy it?" I mean, seriously, of course the person you are fighting will respond to your counter offensive. But you should still fight back!
    I don't think this is a case where one size fits all. In some cases fighting the attacker has paid off in others it's gotten the woman killed or seriously injured. I'm not a woman, but I can relate to the idea of being raped and I'd fight until I couldn't anymore.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    So you're saying "lay back and enjoy it?" I mean, seriously, of course the person you are fighting will respond to your counter offensive. But you should still fight back!
    And risk being killed??!?

    Like far too many women, I've had to deal with physical assault from a man much stronger than I was. Unless you're there and able to help out I strongly suggest you keep those particular views to yourself. The only person who can tell you what's possible in any situation, rape or otherwise, is the person who had to deal with it. Men telling women how to "avoid" being raped in the first place and how to behave if they are assaulted is not at all helpful.

    The easiest solution for women is to not be in the same place as a rapist. Seeing as they don't have signs or symbols to identify themselves, it would be better all round for men to decide not to rape people. This is a good start. Crime Prevention Ottawa - "Don't be that Guy"

    For years we’ve been telling young women that it’s up to them to avoid sexual assault. The “Don’t be THAT guy” poster campaign breaks the mold by speaking directly to young men. The images are intentionally graphic to emphasize the bottom line, which is that sex without consent is sexual assault. And being drunk is no excuse for committing a violent crime.
    arKane likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Legally, Match.com is safe. But public scrutiny, the public being a lot of people who want to blame everyone but the guilty party for wrong doings, will likely cause them to settle and the woman will get what she wants without the precedent being set. So I still don't thing she will win her case, but that doesn't mean she won't "win".
    Well I don't want to back a loser. However it was fun to try and argue for her. Fact is she never had a chance and as you will see in the quoted article below, there is a fine line, at least in California in 2003. I wonder if Match.com followed through with what's said in the last line and whether any hope of an out-of-court cash settlement will actually transpire.

    Match.com’s Terms of Use has the user agree to read the site’s online dating safety tips. It also contains a waiver that explicitly states the site is not responsible for the interactions of its members. But is this enough to evade liability?

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Matchmaker.com was immune from liability due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This particular section broadly grants immunity to websites that host user-based content. If a website comes within the act’s definition of an “interactive computer service”, then the site is not held accountable for the act of its users. But if the website is an “information content provider” within the meaning of the statute, meaning that the website itself creates or develops the content on the site, then Section 230’s immunity does not apply.
    According to the court, Matchmaker.com qualified as an “interactive computer service” and was therefore immune from any liability stemming from the acts of its members. The plaintiff tried to argue that the dating site genuinely created its own content pointing to the lengthy questionnaires each member is mandated to fill out. The court did not agree, stating, “no profile has any content until a user actively creates it.”It follows that Match.com would also be considered an “interactive computer service” under Section 230. Courts have broadly interpreted the Act’s definition of “interactive computer service” because Congress has made clear its intent behind the statute’s enactment: avoiding a chilling effect on free speech. If every website was subject to liability based on the content of its users (in many cases are in the millions), then extensive screening measures would have to be put in place which would unduly restrict speech.Despite the plaintiff's long-shot chance in any attempt to hold Match.com liable for her sexual assault, she still emerges victorious. She has brought public attention to the dangers of online dating and a multi-million dollar company has bowed to her demand to implement screening procedures for registered sex offenders.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    And risk being killed??!?
    So your argument is that there is no risk to being passive and just letting it happen? Anything you do carries risks. When you are being assaulted by a violent criminal, the risk of death is certainly foremost among them.
    The easiest solution for women is to not be in the same place as a rapist. Seeing as they don't have signs or symbols to identify themselves, it would be better all round for men to decide not to rape people. This is a good start. Crime Prevention Ottawa - "Don't be that Guy"
    Great idea! Why hasn't anyone thought of that before? Clearly all these rapists, thiefs, and murderers simply aren't aware that what they are doing is wrong. If only there were some posters. No, wait. Not just posters. Posters with graphic images. Then all the criminals would stop being criminals. Problem solved!

    Obviously I'm being sarcastic. I can't believe anyone actually thinks that putting up posters will prevent rape. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that rape is wrong. Except, possibly, this guy:
    d53d382b9cda73570996fd19bc67b4a6.jpg

    Britain: Court frees rapist, he 'didn't know' it was wrong
    18-year-old Adil Rashid has been spared a prison sentence for raping a child because "he did not know having sex with a 13-year-old was against the law" as reported by The Daily Mail of London, England on Jan. 25, 2013.

    The court heard that Rashid attended a fundamentalist-style Islamic school where he was taught
    "women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground."
    Judge Michael Stokes granted Rashid a suspended sentence, stating:
    "Although chronologically 18, it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters."
    I can't believe that idiot judge bought that bullshit argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I can't believe anyone actually thinks that putting up posters will prevent rape.
    So you don't think it's important to educate people about what rape actually is and isn't? Apparently people think men can get around the lack of consent issue, women saying No, by the simple expedient of getting them so drunk they can't say anything at all. And that it's OK to do that.

    "A recent study out of the United Kingdom involving 18 to 25-year-old males revealed that 48 per cent of the males didn’t consider it rape if a woman is too drunk to know what was going on."
    Four Canadian areas devised the poster campaign around the idea that drunkenness is not consent. Rape reports declined by 10% in six months in one area, no real details about two of them, increased reporting in another. The Unexpected Twists and Turns: Success: Don't Be That Guy Campaign

    I realise that the campaign was focused on alcohol - but the message was about consent. It's highly likely that the novel idea of "consent" may establish itself enough to influence sexual behaviour generally, not just associated with alcohol. Eventually we might get to the point where such campaigns can focus on the concept, novel or otherwise, of enthusiastic consent rather than the feeble basis of 'she didn't say no'.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I think clear definitions for what a rapist is are needed at this point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Definition of rapist?

    Anyone who persists with sexual activity despite no consent by the other party.

    There are various legal interpretations in specific jurisdictions. The main one that most people are familiar with is that the age at which people are considered capable of granting consent vary quite a bit, anything from 12 years old onwards. There are still plenty of places in the world that maintain the fiction that a man cannot rape his wife. There are also plenty where rape is quite strictly defined to only those incidents that involve violence other than the violation of rape itself. There are also places where the only rape legally defined is vaginal intercourse - so there's no possibility of a man succeeding in reporting a rape nor of a conviction when objects or other body parts are involved regardless of the age or sex of the victim.

    But if you want a working definition regardless of location or specific links to particular legal penalties, the one I gave is about as good as you're likely to get.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I can't believe anyone actually thinks that putting up posters will prevent rape.
    So you don't think it's important to educate people about what rape actually is and isn't? Apparently people think men can get around the lack of consent issue, women saying No, by the simple expedient of getting them so drunk they can't say anything at all. And that it's OK to do that.

    "A recent study out of the United Kingdom involving 18 to 25-year-old males revealed that 48 per cent of the males didn’t consider it rape if a woman is too drunk to know what was going on."
    Four Canadian areas devised the poster campaign around the idea that drunkenness is not consent. Rape reports declined by 10% in six months in one area, no real details about two of them, increased reporting in another. The Unexpected Twists and Turns: Success: Don't Be That Guy Campaign

    I realize that the campaign was focused on alcohol - but the message was about consent. It's highly likely that the novel idea of "consent" may establish itself enough to influence sexual behavior generally, not just associated with alcohol. Eventually we might get to the point where such campaigns can focus on the concept, novel or otherwise, of enthusiastic consent rather than the feeble basis of 'she didn't say no'.
    Having been a victim of rape and assault myself maybe my opinion will hold some merit here. Unless a man straps a woman to a gurney and gives her a whiskey enema, does she not play some role and assume some responsibility in the process of her getting drunk? I find it very distasteful to absolve people of their responsibility to themselves. A woman who cares about whether or not she will be in any condition to keep herself safe will not allow herself to become so inebriated that she can be taken advantage of. This does not mean that a woman who is drunk deserves to be raped. But I see too often girls going to parties getting plastered, and horny, and the next day being embarrassed at what a slut they became under the influence and in order to save face they claim they were gang raped. This doesn't mean that any drunk woman is willing and fare game to be raped. But quite often a drunk woman becomes horny and does not say "no". Does this make the guys jackasses for acting on their impulses? Sure. But its possible that they were so plastered their ability to judge responsible and ethical against irresponsible and potentially regrettable behavior was also impaired and they were not able to perceive any sexual resistance from the girl who was pulling her clothes off and hanging on their jockstrap. This not is the case all the time. The circumstances of rape vary from one case to another. But in most cases, once it is decided consciously and soberly by the rapist that they are going to have sex with you with or without your consent, you are as good as raped and there is not much you can do about it unless armed.

    Your best bet is to scream as loud as you can for help. Make sure there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that you are not a willing participant in the activity. The "lay and take it" maneuver would be an utter fail. If you are on the side of the road getting raped but being ever so quiet and compliant, and I walk up on you, I'm going to assume you are on a trashy date and acting out some weird fetish. and I will walk away assuming I just invaded your privacy. But if you are screaming and fighting and biting and kicking, I will know for damned certain that you are being raped and If I can find a weapon the rapist will die swiftly, if not I will call the police. but you WILL be helped.

    Laying there and complying with demands sends the message of willingness to the rapist. Then if you get the chance to face him in court he will rape you there again and win. Because he will say," well she didn't resist or say no, so I thought she was ok with it." Then when you tell the court you cooperated for whatever reason, they will conclude that you did not clearly show resistance and that the guy had no clear indication from you that you weren't willing and you will lose your case and he will walk. So in laying there, you let him rape you twice.

    The best defense against rape is to use common sense and not put yourself in vulnerable situations. This goes for any type of safety issues. An intelligent person would be partially to blame for getting mauled by a bear if they willfully and knowingly walk into a bears den. Any person would deserve blame if they got bit by a rattle snake that they decided to dance with and kiss. Any unarmed person would deserve blame for being beaten down by TSA officers if they went into an airport terminal and screamed the word "Bomb!".

    People simply need to stop being stupid, take responsibility for their own personal safety, use critical thinking to consider possible outcomes of planned events and take precautions to prevent the negative possible outcomes. None of this absolves the criminals of their crime, but their responsibility for their behavior does not absolve people of the responsibility to avoid making themselves easy prey.

    Fighting for all you are worth also sends a clear message to the guy that you do not want sex. And in some cases women send mixed signals to guys and they genuinely do not know if she is into it or not. Some women actually playfully say no hoping to get into a playful tussle that gets him to pin her. Some women actually like being pinned down and stuff like that. Unless there has been some spontaneity killing conversation between a guy and girl about what they like or don't like, this can be very confusing to a guy. What most guys do consistently understand to mean no is fighting viciously to stop them from proceeding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Definition of rapist?

    Anyone who persists with sexual activity despite no consent by the other party.

    There are various legal interpretations in specific jurisdictions. The main one that most people are familiar with is that the age at which people are considered capable of granting consent vary quite a bit, anything from 12 years old onwards. There are still plenty of places in the world that maintain the fiction that a man cannot rape his wife. There are also plenty where rape is quite strictly defined to only those incidents that involve violence other than the violation of rape itself. There are also places where the only rape legally defined is vaginal intercourse - so there's no possibility of a man succeeding in reporting a rape nor of a conviction when objects or other body parts are involved regardless of the age or sex of the victim.

    But if you want a working definition regardless of location or specific links to particular legal penalties, the one I gave is about as good as you're likely to get.
    Now Consent needs to be defined. Because I am sure that most spouses do not stop and ask for permission before engaging in sexual activity with their own spouse. In my opinion doing so kills the mood.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    And in some cases women send mixed signals to guys and they genuinely do not know if she is into it or not.
    For starters, there's the issue of the way women are taught to behave. Not to disagree, not to make a fuss, not to be rude, not to set boundaries on other people's behaviour. I've picked this quote from this blog - it may not be the best example of what's there - but it's the only paragraph I could find where the language is suitable for this site. This is one angry young lady. It's worth reading the whole thing so long as you're not too worried by a lot of pottymouth. Another post about rape | Fugitivus

    For anybody who has ever watched the gendered social interactions of women — watched a woman get browbeaten into accepting attention she doesn’t want, watched a woman get interrupted while speaking, watched a woman deny she is upset at being insulted in public, watched a woman get grabbed because of what she was wearing, watched a woman stop arguing — and said and done nothing, you never have the right to ever ask, “Why didn’t she fight back?”
    As for "mixed signals", there's a fair bit of research showing that men and women alike are perfectly capable of picking up both verbal and non-verbal communication signals unless they have social problems generally. And no-one should ever forget that it's entirely possible for women to miss verbal and non-verbal signals about interactions with other people and find themselves in difficult situations, including being raped.

    Not missing the signals, - see longer comment at #66
    Missing the signals, - “He might be on the spectrum.” But what about me?
    Mixed signals, - Shakesville: Question of the Day

    Good quote from this last one.

    ...we don’t burden them with the same responsibility to not take advantage of a situation that we burden women with preventing in the first place. Her mixed signals, not his misinterpretation of them. That soft bigotry of low expectations strikes me as an insult to the men who would never take advantage of a vulnerable woman, as well as the women who are unlucky to find themselves in the presence of a man who would.
    Last edited by adelady; January 31st, 2013 at 09:54 PM.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I agree that poor behavior should not be tolerated- from either side.

    However, I'm confused as to how this pertains. I'm sure most everyone posting here would agree that some chauvinist is not to be tolerated... But how does that translate to allowing rape?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Consent? Pretty easy to work out if the other person is ripping your clothes off before you've finished speaking. That's enthusiasm.

    With long-term partners it's pretty easy. There are some things you both know are always off-limits along with a whole heap of things that are either taken for granted or were settled by agreement as being well understood signals. The hard part for long-term partners? Those things that are only occasionally acceptable for one of the two and must always be asked and agreed - and refusal accepted when it occurs - before starting down whatever road is involved.

    Which tells us a lot about people who are not long-term partners.

    They have to be a lot more specific about what, when, where, how things may or may not be done by either of them.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    And in some cases women send mixed signals to guys and they genuinely do not know if she is into it or not.
    For starters, there's the issue of the way women are taught to behave. Not to disagree, not to make a fuss, not to be rude, not to set boundaries on other people's behaviour. I've picked this quote from this blog - it may not be the best example of what's there - but it's the only paragraph I could find where the language is suitable for this site. This is one angry young lady. It's worth reading the whole thing so long as you're not too worried by a lot of pottymouth. Another post about rape | Fugitivus

    For anybody who has ever watched the gendered social interactions of women — watched a woman get browbeaten into accepting attention she doesn’t want, watched a woman get interrupted while speaking, watched a woman deny she is upset at being insulted in public, watched a woman get grabbed because of what she was wearing, watched a woman stop arguing — and said and done nothing, you never have the right to ever ask, “Why didn’t she fight back?”
    As for "mixed signals", there's a fair bit of research showing that men and women alike are perfectly capable of picking up both verbal and non-verbal communication signals unless they have social problems generally. And no-one should ever forget that it's entirely possible for women to miss verbal and non-verbal signals about interactions with other people and find themselves in difficult situations, including being raped.

    Not missing the signals, - (can't find the rotten thing - I'll keep looking.)
    Missing the signals, - “He might be on the spectrum.” But what about me?
    Mixed signals, - Shakesville: Question of the Day

    Good quote from this last one.

    ...we don’t burden them with the same responsibility to not take advantage of a situation that we burden women with preventing in the first place. Her mixed signals, not his misinterpretation of them. That soft bigotry of low expectations strikes me as an insult to the men who would never take advantage of a vulnerable woman, as well as the women who are unlucky to find themselves in the presence of a man who would.
    I don't know what life is like in Australia for women, but I grew up being told to be assertive. Never let anyone, male or female, pressure you into what you don't want to do. Speak up. Stand up for yourself. I grew up being raised by a feminist. She told me never to take life laying down. Never to let life just happen to me. And I never ran across any social norm, other than in religious settings, that contradicted her teachings. There were public service announcements on mainstream tv as well as public television, afterschool specials to teach, especially young girls, how to stand up for themselves and be assertive. I have never been taught by anyone that in order to be socially acceptable that I had to be ladilike. I grew up watching tv shows with women like the characters in Roseanne, Murphy Brown, and Designing women. I grew up being told to be strong. Be willing to kill if necessary and never think for a moment that anyone owes you respect or protection because I possess a vagina. I also grew up being told to be fair and take responsibility for myself. Not to put myself in danger unless necessary. And to avoid blaming others for what I could have REASONABLY been able to prevent.

    I realize you are grew up in a different time and place than I did. But at least in the last 30 years things have been different than what you are describing, at least in the USA anyway. I grew up a child of the feminist movement and as a result, being lady like is a joke. You can see how women in America tend to act, especially our celebrities. There is no lady like behavior there. No old fashioned classiness. No weaklings that will lay there and take it. Women in America are capable of being vicious and dangerous. And the anti-male sentiment that permeates our society demanding that men be made second class as a reparation for past inequalities is as vile as was the second class status of women from yesteryear.

    I have never once said a woman is to blame for her own rape, or that the one who rapes her is absolved of blame. I have only said that we all owe ourselves a bit of respect in the form of doing all that we can to keep ourselves safe and making our intentions and desires undeniably clear. this goes for men and women and children alike.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I can just as easily make a point about women browbeating, manipulating and coercing men.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I don't know what life is like in Australia for women, but I grew up being told to be assertive. Never let anyone, male or female, pressure you into what you don't want to do. Speak up. Stand up for yourself. I grew up being raised by a feminist.
    Well, that's how we raised our daughters. My generation of baby-boomers, however, were raised to be "good wives and mothers" - which was dogwhistle code for never argue with a man. Certainly, never do a job which 'belonged' to men or expect, heaven forbid, to get the same pay if you were so brazen as to do such a thing. (And I mean real baby-boomers, born soon after the war, not the johnny come lately baby-boomers who were born when I was in high school.)

    There are still plenty of women being raised to keep the heads down, to not raise their eyes or their voices, to keep the peace, unfortunately. (Read up on the Quiverful movement if you're feeling a bit passive or unmotivated. Your blood will boil.)

    Rape and gang-rape were, in fact, quite common when I was in my teens. Football clubs and surf clubs were well known for it. It was treated largely as a 'boys will be boys' thing unless someone was seriously injured or killed. And rape in marriage wasn't a real 'thing' until the law was finally passed here in 1976 - when I was almost 30.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post

    So you don't think it's important to educate people about what rape actually is and isn't?
    No. I'm pretty sure everyone knows what rape is.
    Apparently people think men can get around the lack of consent issue, women saying No, by the simple expedient of getting them so drunk they can't say anything at all. And that it's OK to do that.
    Unless someone "slipped her a mickey" nobody got her drunk, she got herself drunk. Obviously being drunk doesn't give someone license to force sex upon you. But neither does it allow one to retroactively retract consent.
    "A recent study out of the United Kingdom involving 18 to 25-year-old males revealed that 48 per cent of the males didn’t consider it rape if a woman is too drunk to know what was going on."
    That is a very hypothetical question with little bearing on the real world. I mean, sure, if a woman is passed out and some guy comes up and begins having sex with her, we have a pretty clear case of rape due to the woman being too drunk to know what was going on. But in the real world, everyone is drunk. Perhaps the male was too drunk to adequately assess whether the woman in question was oriented as to time, place, and person. Again, while drunkeness does not excuse rape, it might behoove a person who wishes to avoid being taken advantage of due to extreme inebriation to simply not drink themselves into a stupor!
    Last edited by madanthonywayne; January 31st, 2013 at 07:44 PM.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Duplicate post, not sure how to delete.
    Last edited by madanthonywayne; January 31st, 2013 at 07:42 PM. Reason: duplicate post
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    it might behoove a person who wishes to avoid being taken advantage of due to extreme inebriation to simply not drink themselves into a stupor!
    Or why if a woman is considered "too drunk" then why is it that the man who is just as inebriated is not "too drunk?"
    Seems a bit of a double standard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I don't know what life is like in Australia for women, but I grew up being told to be assertive. Never let anyone, male or female, pressure you into what you don't want to do. Speak up. Stand up for yourself. I grew up being raised by a feminist.
    Well, that's how we raised our daughters. My generation of baby-boomers, however, were raised to be "good wives and mothers" - which was dogwhistle code for never argue with a man. Certainly, never do a job which 'belonged' to men or expect, heaven forbid, to get the same pay if you were so brazen as to do such a thing. (And I mean real baby-boomers, born soon after the war, not the johnny come lately baby-boomers who were born when I was in high school.)

    There are still plenty of women being raised to keep the heads down, to not raise their eyes or their voices, to keep the peace, unfortunately. (Read up on the Quiverful movement if you're feeling a bit passive or unmotivated. Your blood will boil.)

    Rape and gang-rape were, in fact, quite common when I was in my teens. Football clubs and surf clubs were well known for it. It was treated largely as a 'boys will be boys' thing unless someone was seriously injured or killed. And rape in marriage wasn't a real 'thing' until the law was finally passed here in 1976 - when I was almost 30.
    ok so that is the difference in our perspectives. You are speaking from past experiences, not current trends. I just turned 37 and was raised by a single female coal miner. My mom was one of only a handful of women who worked 3 miles underground. She drove a shuttle car and was know to be one of 3 hell raising women that would not hesitate for a moment at hogtying a man and stripping him naked while taking pictures of him to post on the company bulletin board if he had the audacity to make sexist remarks to them. I remember seeing the pictures as a kid and how my mom giggled a witchly laugh at the mayhem she and her girlfriends caused. They still laugh about it on Facebook to this day.

    We just have to remember when remembering the past, to also remember how far we have come since then. Surely in some societies, people still behave the way they did 60 years ago but it isn't a popular trend and it would be my guess that it is popular among the religious fundamentalists only. Regardless of their religion. Modern thinkers rarely find reason in oppression and pretty much the only justification for oppression in any society is found in illogical religious doctrine.

    We, as science minded people, do not want to incorporate oppression into our lives and certainly not gender specific oppression. Telling a woman to be quiet and take it, seems to me to be an echo of that gender specific oppression from the past. After all, back then rape was always considered the woman's fault and if she ever claimed to have been rape she would have brought embarrassment and shame on her family. It was better to cooperate quietly with a rapist and suffer an hour or two of humiliation rather than stand up, speak up, and suffer a lifetime of ostracism and public ridicule and blame.

    In most modern societies, this simply is not the case any more. To lay there and take it, throws her and other women back thirty years and obliterates the rights and dignity that our mothers and grandmothers fought so diligently to secure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I can just as easily make a point about women browbeating, manipulating and coercing men.
    Sounds like the inspiration for a poem I wrote:



    Control by "Seagypsy"

    Let him think he is in control
    Even though that's not his role

    I'll bat my eyes and give a pout
    Then he'll be mine without a doubt

    I will make him do my bidding
    and to me he will be submitting

    He'll believe he's master in the end
    and this is how we control men.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    I will make him do my bidding
    and to me he will be submitting

    But with my money that I earn
    your the one who must be kidding

    Women want the things in life
    that men with money can buy

    They do as they are asked and cause no problems
    or out the door and in with another.
    seagypsy likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Unless someone "slipped her a mickey" nobody got her drunk, she got herself drunk. Obviously being drunk doesn't give someone license to force sex upon you. But neither does it allow one to retroactively retract consent.
    The most common date rape drug is alcohol. Experienced rapists know how to pick the more vulnerable targets - either naive drinkers, women who are known for drinking to intoxication, or those who choose drinks which easily disguise the taste of an unasked for additional shot of spirits - and ensure that the potential victim gets drunk. They also host or attend parties where they know alcohol is liberally supplied and just wait for their chance with any woman who is intoxicated. And we know these men choose to be rapists because plenty of other men will take care of intoxicated women. And you can't retroactively withdraw consent that was never volunteered in the first place. It's not possible.

    If a rapist's only claim to consent is that an intoxicated woman didn't say no, or couldn't speak coherently to say anything, or she was so affected by alcohol that she made advances no-one would expect her to make when sober, then that consent was not freely and consciously given. Most decent men will refuse such advances from women - and wonder how on earth they're going to survive the embarrassment of trying to raise the subject when they're both sober. Much the same as finding a blanket to cover someone, male or female, who does an impromptu drunken striptease .... and then telling them about it the next day.

    As for saying No.

    This item comes with a warning
    . If you've ever been the victim of sexual assault or if you're put off by violent and/or obscene language, there are some quotations from a few men here that might be distressing. Don't go to the link if you'd rather avoid this.

    Mythcommunication: It’s Not That They Don’t Understand, They Just Don’t Like The Answer «

    The quotes in that blog post are taken from this paper, Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal So the warning applies to this link as well.

    The approach is quite interesting. Instead of focusing entirely on sexual discussions, they analyse the ways we talk about all kinds of invitations, acceptances and refusals. It turns out that nobody ever directly says 'no' without qualifying it in some way unless they don't care about being seen as rude. And that people don't even have to complete what they start to say to explain or delay or justify an implicit refusal before the other party tries to persuade or convince them otherwise. In a split second, the person making the offer has instantly comprehended that a refusal is on the way. As soon as you start trying to convince someone, you're already acknowledging that you are trying to circumvent or override the refusal that was coming your way.

    We all know, without any nonsense about gender or vague or confused communication, that a hesitation or a lot of umming and aahing signifies that someone is refusing your invitation to a meal or a party or a visit. We also know the same thing when the invitation is to intimacy or sex - there's no need to say 'no' for the other party to comprehend quite clearly that you don't want what they're offering. The only problem is finding the words to soften the blow of refusal. The big issue is what happens with acceptances. No hesitation in speech, quite often the speech of a person accepting an invitation overlaps the other's speaking. No negative framing of the response. If you're not hearing acceptance, promptly - the only alternative is refusal.

    Our argument here does not rely upon the idea that there are gender differences in the expression or understanding of refusals. Rather than attempting to define gender differences in talk, or to characterize the interactional styles of men and women, we explore the ways in which young women themselves talk about sexual refusals. Drawing on the conversation analytic literature, and on our own data, we claim that both men and women have a sophisticated ability to convey and to comprehend refusals, including refusals which do not include the word
    ‘no’, and we suggest that male claims not to have ‘understood’ refusals which conform to culturally normative patterns can only be heard as self-interested justifications for coercive behaviour.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    You are speaking from past experiences, not current trends.
    Looks like I read news items and other things you don't see. One of my biggest issues is that the fights I thought we were well on the way to winning in the 70s seem to need fighting all over again. You can't know how much I truly wish it wasn't a current trend.

    A Rape a Minute, a Thousand Corpses a Year | Mother Jones
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Unless someone "slipped her a mickey" nobody got her drunk, she got herself drunk. Obviously being drunk doesn't give someone license to force sex upon you. But neither does it allow one to retroactively retract consent.
    The most common date rape drug is alcohol. Experienced rapists know how to pick the more vulnerable targets - either naive drinkers, women who are known for drinking to intoxication, or those who choose drinks which easily disguise the taste of an unasked for additional shot of spirits - and ensure that the potential victim gets drunk. They also host or attend parties where they know alcohol is liberally supplied and just wait for their chance with any woman who is intoxicated. And we know these men choose to be rapists because plenty of other men will take care of intoxicated women. And you can't retroactively withdraw consent that was never volunteered in the first place. It's not possible.

    If a rapist's only claim to consent is that an intoxicated woman didn't say no, or couldn't speak coherently to say anything, or she was so affected by alcohol that she made advances no-one would expect her to make when sober, then that consent was not freely and consciously given. Most decent men will refuse such advances from women - and wonder how on earth they're going to survive the embarrassment of trying to raise the subject when they're both sober. Much the same as finding a blanket to cover someone, male or female, who does an impromptu drunken striptease .... and then telling them about it the next day.

    As for saying No.

    This item comes with a warning
    . If you've ever been the victim of sexual assault or if you're put off by violent and/or obscene language, there are some quotations from a few men here that might be distressing. Don't go to the link if you'd rather avoid this.

    Mythcommunication: It’s Not That They Don’t Understand, They Just Don’t Like The Answer «

    The quotes in that blog post are taken from this paper, Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal So the warning applies to this link as well.

    The approach is quite interesting. Instead of focusing entirely on sexual discussions, they analyse the ways we talk about all kinds of invitations, acceptances and refusals. It turns out that nobody ever directly says 'no' without qualifying it in some way unless they don't care about being seen as rude. And that people don't even have to complete what they start to say to explain or delay or justify an implicit refusal before the other party tries to persuade or convince them otherwise. In a split second, the person making the offer has instantly comprehended that a refusal is on the way. As soon as you start trying to convince someone, you're already acknowledging that you are trying to circumvent or override the refusal that was coming your way.

    We all know, without any nonsense about gender or vague or confused communication, that a hesitation or a lot of umming and aahing signifies that someone is refusing your invitation to a meal or a party or a visit. We also know the same thing when the invitation is to intimacy or sex - there's no need to say 'no' for the other party to comprehend quite clearly that you don't want what they're offering. The only problem is finding the words to soften the blow of refusal. The big issue is what happens with acceptances. No hesitation in speech, quite often the speech of a person accepting an invitation overlaps the other's speaking. No negative framing of the response. If you're not hearing acceptance, promptly - the only alternative is refusal.

    Our argument here does not rely upon the idea that there are gender differences in the expression or understanding of refusals. Rather than attempting to define gender differences in talk, or to characterize the interactional styles of men and women, we explore the ways in which young women themselves talk about sexual refusals. Drawing on the conversation analytic literature, and on our own data, we claim that both men and women have a sophisticated ability to convey and to comprehend refusals, including refusals which do not include the word
    ‘no’, and we suggest that male claims not to have ‘understood’ refusals which conform to culturally normative patterns can only be heard as self-interested justifications for coercive behaviour.
    So basically they prey on stupid women. Women who are too stupid to realize that drinking heavily in party atmosphere will make them vulnerable. This is where personal responsibility kicks in. They need to be responsible enough to not be willfully stupid. While I don't intend to defend the rapist, absolving the victim of any responsibility to her own self to remain coherent and not allow herself to be tricked into drinking too much makes about as much sense as blaming a casino for the losses of a poker player.

    If a man gets drunk and a woman who is also drunk is throwing herself on him and he has sex with her, the next day they both regret it, do they both get to press rape charges?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    You are speaking from past experiences, not current trends.
    Looks like I read news items and other things you don't see. One of my biggest issues is that the fights I thought we were well on the way to winning in the 70s seem to need fighting all over again. You can't know how much I truly wish it wasn't a current trend.

    A Rape a Minute, a Thousand Corpses a Year | Mother Jones
    is a rape a minute really more than it used to be. Considering how few women would be inclined report rape back in the 50's and 60's, i doubt you can get an accurate comparison between todays statistics and the statistics of 30-50 years ago.

    In oppressive societies, of which the USA used to be against women, women don't speak up. For instance Pakistan. No woman dare speaks out against her husband or she may end up with acid on her face, if not killed. And women almost never file for divorce even though they are legally entitled to it according to what is written in Pakistan law.

    And they will swear up and down that AIDS is not an issue in their country because they have so few reported cases of it. When the reality is that no one gets tested for it, because a positive test means you will likely be ran out of town and have your entire family shamed if not killed. Statistics are only as accurate as the people are honest in reporting. And when cultures are oppressive, dishonesty is the norm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    If a man gets drunk and a woman who is also drunk is throwing herself on him and he has sex with her, the next day they both regret it, do they both get to press rape charges?
    Might bring them together when they realize how much they have in common.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    She wasn't just raped, she was also almost beaten to death. But what I can't understand is it seems very unlikely anyone could reasonably think they could do this and get away with it. When you sign up for a dating service, you have to give up a lot of information. Even if you lie a lot your IP address is recorded and can be traced. Also, any communications would be recorded. You would have to be very knowledgeable to cover all your tracks. That would strike me as being a lot of trouble and risk to go to just to find a women to rape and beat up.

    They did say this guy didn't have a history of violence didn't they? Something is just not making any sense to me. Nobody wants sex that badly to completely lose it, when the chance they'll get caught is very high.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    She wasn't just raped, she was also almost beaten to death. But what I can't understand is it seems very unlikely anyone could reasonably think they could do this and get away with it. When you sign up for a dating service, you have to give up a lot of information. Even if you lie a lot your IP address is recorded and can be traced. Also, any communications would be recorded. You would have to be very knowledgeable to cover all your tracks. That would strike me as being a lot of trouble and risk to go to just to find a women to rape and beat up.

    They did say this guy didn't have a history of violence didn't they? Something is just not making any sense to me. Nobody wants sex that badly to completely lose it, when the chance they'll get caught is very high.
    He had no priors to the lady in questions attack. But had two more after that I think ended with the murder of the other women. I'd need to google up the articles and I have enough tabs open at the moment... so I'll let others bother- But pretty sure he killed two women after this reported incident and then committed suicide in jail. It does seem as though something totally snapped- but that's just appearances... We may later learn that he had many victims but never got caught before...
    Although your points about his stupidity levels may play into that. Maybe he got desperate and couldn't control the urge. Or local cops cracked down on his areas craigslist or something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    If a rapist's only claim to consent is that an intoxicated woman didn't say no, or couldn't speak coherently to say anything, or she was so affected by alcohol that she made advances no-one would expect her to make when sober, then that consent was not freely and consciously given. Most decent men will refuse such advances from women - and wonder how on earth they're going to survive the embarrassment of trying to raise the subject when they're both sober. Much the same as finding a blanket to cover someone, male or female, who does an impromptu drunken striptease .... and then telling them about it the next day.
    Again, you speak as though we are dealing with a bunch of sober but predatory males in a room full of "naive female drinkers" who are all falling down drunk. that is not the reality. We are talking about parties. Parties which people (both male & female) go to with the intention of getting drunk. Thus, the drunken female whose judgement is so impaired that she's doing a striptease, is doing a striptease for a male who is likewise impaired. So no one is likely to be covering anyone with a blanket or refusing the advances of someone who might regret what they are doing the next day because everyone is drunk. Really, at the risk of being accused of "blaming the victim", the best thing for everyone is simply to avoid getting falling down drunk. Is that really so much to ask?
    arKane and seagypsy like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    She wasn't just raped, she was also almost beaten to death. But what I can't understand is it seems very unlikely anyone could reasonably think they could do this and get away with it. When you sign up for a dating service, you have to give up a lot of information. Even if you lie a lot your IP address is recorded and can be traced. Also, any communications would be recorded. You would have to be very knowledgeable to cover all your tracks. That would strike me as being a lot of trouble and risk to go to just to find a women to rape and beat up.

    They did say this guy didn't have a history of violence didn't they? Something is just not making any sense to me. Nobody wants sex that badly to completely lose it, when the chance they'll get caught is very high.
    I have seen conflicting details in the story. indicative of the piss poor standards of journalism these days. I wonder if he had some dormant or previously unnoticed mental disorder that simply got triggered. Apparently the kid we work with has some very weird psychosis triggers as a result of the plethora of mental illnesses he suffers from. He goes completely psychotic, violent and destructive, when he has too many sodium nitrates. So he has to be restricted in his access to hotdogs and other processed meats. He recently found a hidden stash of such items in the fridge and gorged himself on them. The next day he was very psychotic and the school almost called to the police to have him committed. He was violent, throwing things and growling at his grandmother when he got home. The screaming went on for hours. once all the sodium nitrates passed out of his system he went back to normal and didn't remember anything he had done.

    I'm not saying this is the case with this guy. but it shouldn't be ruled out. No one knows they have a trigger until it is activated. I have triggers, but the results of the triggers are not so dramatic. But people are not always open about the inner turmoils they are dealing with and it could be that he had been teetering on the edge of sanity for quite a while and her rejection was just the final straw that sent him over. When he snapped back to normal he realized what he had done and couldn't deal with the guilt of it. But then without more details all any of us can do is speculate, and my experience tells me that will only result in us arguing over possible facts but none confirmed. Not very productive in my opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    If a rapist's only claim to consent is that an intoxicated woman didn't say no, or couldn't speak coherently to say anything, or she was so affected by alcohol that she made advances no-one would expect her to make when sober, then that consent was not freely and consciously given. Most decent men will refuse such advances from women - and wonder how on earth they're going to survive the embarrassment of trying to raise the subject when they're both sober. Much the same as finding a blanket to cover someone, male or female, who does an impromptu drunken striptease .... and then telling them about it the next day.
    Again, you speak as though we are dealing with a bunch of sober but predatory males in a room full of "naive female drinkers" who are all falling down drunk. that is not the reality. We are talking about parties. Parties which people (both male & female) go to with the intention of getting drunk. Thus, the drunken female whose judgement is so impaired that she's doing a striptease, is doing a striptease for a male who is likewise impaired. So no one is likely to be covering anyone with a blanket or refusing the advances of someone who might regret what they are doing the next day because everyone is drunk. Really, at the risk of being accused of "blaming the victim", the best thing for everyone is simply to avoid getting falling down drunk. Is that really so much to ask?
    You are absolutely right. Choosing to poison your mind with something that you KNOW will inhibit your ability to think clearly is a conscious choice. When one drinks they consciously choose to accept the risks that they will behave badly and make poor decisions as a result.
    Imagine if the President of the United States gets drunk and posts pictures of himself naked on a disney world discussion forum, or nerds help us, this forum. Do we forgive him because "he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing?" Hell no! As a responsible adult, regardless of social standing, he knows better than to get so drunk that he makes poor decisions. He will be held responsible for choosing to dress his pecker up in mickey mouse ears while singing its a small world after all and posting the video on a public site. he would be impeached, imprisoned, and ruined to the point he would likely consider execution an act of mercy on the part of the American citizens.

    We also don't let drunk drivers get away with driving drunk simply because they were too drunk to realize they were unable to drive. Being drunk is not a free pass to make bad decisions and blame someone else for it. This should apply to women who were horny and apparently willing while drunk but regretted it the next day and claimed rape because she was too drunk to be making decisions like that.
    arKane likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    They did say this guy didn't have a history of violence didn't they?
    On the contrary. Her argument was that she herself was able to find out online about his previous convictions for sexual violence after the event. That's why she argued that an organisation like Match could do these things more easily because they have the credit card details available to run such a check on - which ordinary clients of the service don't have. She wasn't asking for them to do detailed profiling, just the really obvious records of convictions for sexual offences.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    You are absolutely right. Choosing to poison your mind with something that you KNOW will inhibit your ability to think clearly is a conscious choice. When one drinks they consciously choose to accept the risks that they will behave badly and make poor decisions as a result.
    So - is this an argument that women must refuse any and all alcohol when they go out? Or they must organise friends as chaperones/ bodyguards in case they become intoxicated? Perhaps every group of women who go out for dinner or clubbing need to have a designated non-drinker responsible for their protection rather than the usual designated driver arrangement. This approach won't help women who just want to go out for a meal on their own and have a few drinks as well.

    Policing women's behaviour (don't drink, don't flirt, don't 'lead men on') and dress (don't wear high heels in case you have to run away, don't wear a ponytail because an attacker can pull you over from behind, don't wear short skirts because of "reasons") is looking at the problem from the wrong end of the telescope.

    Men aren't slavering uncontrollable beasts - even rapists control themselves in selecting when, where, who to target. The idea that "men", as a group, lose all vestiges of self control when they see an attractive woman in skimpy clothing is just nonsense. Otherwise beaches, pools, running tracks and gyms would never attract women - they'd be too afraid of the hordes of drooling men.

    The generally accepted numbers are that 1 in 6 women have been raped during their lifetime and that 1 in 33 men are rapists. So if you know 100 women, then you know at least a dozen rape victims. If you know 100 men, then you know at least a couple of rapists. These numbers are pretty rubbery because it's not easy to get men to admit to bad sexual behaviour, although it's becoming easier for women to admit to being victims/survivors - even though there's no way most of them would pursue prosecution. The most recent research now concentrates on asking men questions that avoid using words like rape or assault - when you do that you get a much clearer picture, but this approach is quite recent so there's not many studies yet that have been done using these strategies.

    Concentrate on the potential perpetrators. There are far fewer of them than there are of potential victims. In particular, take the same approach to rape as we're now taking in Australia with domestic violence. White Ribbon - Hey Mate

    I don't recall seeing the same thing in a PSA supporting men in talking down other blokes who tell rape jokes or make light of rape as a problem. But that's the way to go - deprive rapists of the 'cover' provided by other men's silence on the issue. When people tell or laugh at rape jokes, they have no way of knowing how many people in the group take that as tolerance of, or even approval or agreement with, their predatory sexual attitudes and behaviours. This program seems to have had worthwhile success. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...t=john_foubert It's a bit depressing that the most effective part of the program was a DVD of a man describing being raped. But if that's the only way to hit the empathy button, then that's the tool to use.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    So - is this an argument that women must refuse any and all alcohol when they go out? Or they must organise friends as chaperones/ bodyguards in case they become intoxicated?
    How did it become, "any and all?"
    I wish that you could see that what you're saying was said does not line up with what was said, at all.

    Having personal responsibility is not about one extreme or the other. It's about moderation and knowing your limits. It's about caution, not over-protectiveness. It's not about a total lack of protection, either.
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Men aren't slavering uncontrollable beasts - even rapists control themselves in selecting when, where, who to target. The idea that "men", as a group, lose all vestiges of self control when they see an attractive woman in skimpy clothing is just nonsense. Otherwise beaches, pools, running tracks and gyms would never attract women - they'd be too afraid of the hordes of drooling men.
    True.

    But there must be a male psychology I'm not familiar with. Hanging out with the guys- and I was in the Army, no one ever told "rape jokes."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    You are absolutely right. Choosing to poison your mind with something that you KNOW will inhibit your ability to think clearly is a conscious choice. When one drinks they consciously choose to accept the risks that they will behave badly and make poor decisions as a result.
    So - is this an argument that women must refuse any and all alcohol when they go out? Or they must organise friends as chaperones/ bodyguards in case they become intoxicated? Perhaps every group of women who go out for dinner or clubbing need to have a designated non-drinker responsible for their protection rather than the usual designated driver arrangement. This approach won't help women who just want to go out for a meal on their own and have a few drinks as well.
    I think I will leave the discussion at this point. With all due respect you are stretching our comments to mean way more than what we are actually saying. There is nothing wrong with having a drink or two. The alcohol companies even urge their own customers to drink responsibly, meaning don't go overboard and drink yourself stupid. I go out alone sometimes and have a drink. But I know I am driving myself home and only have that one drink and stay out long enough without driving that the drink has left my system before I need to drive home. After the one drink I stick to non alcoholic beverages. That's what we mean by being responsible for one's self. But like I said. I am leaving this discussion now since you seem determined to give exaggerated meanings to anything any of us says that doesn't support the evil men poor victimized women theory you seem to be promoting.

    keep in mind, I've been raped. Not once. Not twice. But several times. And assaulted many times. I have even been held hostage in Pakistan and had my life threatened and the lives of my children threatened. I know how it feels and I know how it feels to be told you weren't raped when you were. I know how it feels to be ignored when you try to get help. That does not mean that I ignore my responsibility to myself, to prevent getting into a situation where I may get raped again.
    Last edited by seagypsy; February 1st, 2013 at 01:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    They did say this guy didn't have a history of violence didn't they?
    On the contrary. Her argument was that she herself was able to find out online about his previous convictions for sexual violence after the event. That's why she argued that an organization like Matcheck on - which ordinary clients of the service don't have. She wasn't asking for them to do detailed profiling, just the really obvious records of convictions for sexual offenses.
    I would think all felony offenders would be considered a bad risk not just sexual offenders. If I wanted to use a dating service I'd feel cheated if they hooked me up with criminal female maybe a major drug user. You could be fooled until you are emotionally committed and then things get dicey after that. Who are you going to blame besides yourself.

    Most of us could easily do our own background searches, before we reach that emotionally committed point. It's not that hard to do with a computer and an Internet connection. But I'm betting most of us wouldn't even think to do that.

    So if you don't do that, that was your choice and problem almost the same as if you got falling down drunk and someone took advantage of you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    I would think all felony offenders would be considered a bad risk not just sexual offenders.
    For sake of the topic, I think this needs clarifying:
    1.) The woman is suing for Ten Million dollars in damages. Considering the extensive surgeries, medical bills and work time lost, the end net amount she would receive would be significantly less than any ten million and likely would need to last her the rest of her life.
    A different woman had sued for screening processes after a different person assaulted her. She dropped the lawsuit after match.com provided proof of screening. That was a different lawsuit involving different people.
    2.)Wade Mitchell Ridley had No Priors violent offenses/ violent felonies before his recent spree. Ridley assaulted and attempted to murder Beckman, the lady of this topics lawsuit. He went on to murder another lady in Phoenix, Arizona and attack yet another that managed to survive after that. He was arrested and charged for the Beckman case shortly after and was in prison, still wanted for the murder of the lady from Phoenix.
    Ridley ended his own life in prison.

    So, one thing is that this topics lawsuit is looking for no monetary damages but instead, a screening process. That was a different lawsuit that was dropped after Match.com provided evidence that they were using a screening process.
    The other is that if Ridley had no priors, the screening process would not have filtered him out in any case.
    Woman sues Match.com for $10 million after brutal attack - Technology on NBCNews.com
    Man imprisoned for stabbing Las Vegas woman dies - News - ReviewJournal.com
    Wade Mitchell Ridley, Scorned by Match.com Girlfriend, Arrested in Vegas for Attempted Murder (There's More) - Crimesider - CBS News
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    If I wanted to use a dating service I'd feel cheated if they hooked me up with criminal female maybe a major drug user. You could be fooled until you are emotionally committed and then things get dicey after that. Who are you going to blame besides yourself.
    You run this risk no matter how you meet and date someone, but I hear you about a company providing a Service; when a service is being provided, there are certain expectations for paying for that service.
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Most of us could easily do our own background searches, before we reach that emotionally committed point. It's not that hard to do with a computer and an Internet connection. But I'm betting most of us wouldn't even think to do that.
    S.G. did it on me... extensively, apparently.
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    So if you don't do that, that was your choice and problem almost the same as if you got falling down drunk and someone took advantage of you.
    Which is why I, for one, don't get plastered at the female rodeo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Hanging out with the guys- and I was in the Army, no one ever told "rape jokes."
    Lucky you. They were a frequent feature of my many pleasant hours confined to a desk surrounded by several dozen men and only a couple of women, sometimes none. I have a vague women's-magazine-psychology level feeling that this approach to jokes about sex was - in the 70s and 80s - a way of dealing with cultural prudishness about really dealing with actual consensual sex in general conversation. Haven't done any real thinking or work on it, but if I ever get around to it I might bear it in mind.

    Having personal responsibility is not about one extreme or the other. It's about moderation and knowing your limits. It's about caution, not over-protectiveness. It's not about a total lack of protection, either.
    It's also, I think, an offshoot of the "just world fallacy". In its worst effects, it turns into victim blaming and it makes jury selection for rape trials difficult. Basically, prosecutors find that a jury with a majority of middle-aged men is much more receptive to the idea that the victim is really a victim. With a majority of women, especially younger women, there seems to be a mental defence mechanism that the particular victim could have "avoided" the rape when they're really dealing with a rapist who would have raped any woman who happened, or whom he manipulated by one means or another, to be in that situation.

    Generally speaking though, it just means that we all like to think that we control a lot more of our own lives than we really do - and that people who find themselves in bad situations or as victims of crimes could have, and therefore should have, acted in some way to achieve other outcomes.

    Pretty good overview in the theory section of the wiki entry. Just-world hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Lerner hypothesized that the belief in a just world is crucially important for people to maintain for their own well-being. However, people are confronted daily with evidence that the world is not just: people suffer without apparent cause. Lerner explained that people use strategies to eliminate threats to their belief in a just world. These strategies can be rational or irrational. Rational strategies include accepting the reality of injustice, trying to prevent injustice or provide restitution, and accepting one's own limitations. Non-rational strategies include denial or withdrawal, and reinterpretation of the event.
    There are a few modes of reinterpretation that could make an event fit the belief in a just world. One can reinterpret the outcome, the cause, and/or the character of the victim. In the case of observing the injustice of the suffering of innocent others, one major way to rearrange the cognition of an event is to interpret the victim of suffering as deserving of that suffering. Specifically, observers can blame victims for their suffering on the basis of their behaviors and/or their characteristics. This would result in observers both derogating victims and blaming victims for their own suffering.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    So if you don't do that, that was your choice and problem almost the same as if you got falling down drunk and someone took advantage of you.
    Which is why I, for one, don't get plastered at the female rodeo.
    "Female rodeo" That doesn't sound like an event that will score you any points for showing up drunk? However, If she's been keeping up with you maybe she wouldn't hold it against you to much. However I wouldn't count on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    (snip)
    With a majority of women, especially younger women, there seems to be a mental defence mechanism that the particular victim could have "avoided" the rape when they're really dealing with a rapist who would have raped any woman who happened, or whom he manipulated by one means or another, to be in that situation. (snip)
    This is the only part I want to address because it seems to be implying that I am pushing a viewpoint that I simply am not pushing. At no point have I said that a woman deserves to be raped if she drinks or parties. I have never once said that a rapist is not to blame for the act of rape that he or she inflicts on their victim. (yes women often take advantage of drunk men but they almost never get accused of rape, something about our society tells men they are never supposed to admit to being victimized by a woman). A rapist is absolutely to blame for the rape he/she inflicts. This is a case about a woman blaming an innocent third party for what a rapist did. There are only two people responsible for what happens between those two people. and that is the two people involved. Sometimes one is more to blame than the other. But they both carry some degree of blame. and while I believe that a woman absolutely does have a responsibility to herself to not put herself at risk. I have never once said that the rapist is not to blame. the rapist is responsible for the actions he/she chooses to take, just as the victim is responsible for the actions they choose.

    Absolutely the rapist is the one committing a crime. it is not a crime to get drunk and make a fool of yourself. not a crime against society anyway. but getting so drunk that you act like a complete ass and embarrass yourself is a crime against your own self.

    imagine if a guy goes and shows pics of his exgf naked all over the internet. She would be humiliated even if she willfully posed for the pics and gave them to him. in that situation he victimized her. but what if she goes out, gets drunk and strips down naked and takes pictures of herself uploading them instantly to facebook. is she not her own victim? self victimization is a real thing. people just dont generally sue themselves over it or press charges against themselves. though sometimes they kill themselves over it.

    you can argue that women should be allowed to get as drunk as they want at a club. you are absolutely right, and as a result of doing so, they are not forfeiting their right to not be raped. but any sane individual knows that getting shit faced drunk puts you at risk for harm. Not just rape, but physical injury like falling down stairs. I know a guy who got so drunk he broke his leg just by running. he was obese and because he was wobbly he didn't plant his feet correctly and the his weight came down on his shin in an abnormal way and snapped it like a twig. when sober he walked properly and never broke anything. drunk was something different.

    we all face real risks every day. Some avoidable and some not. obviously every time i get in a car i run the risk of being killed in a car accident. should I stay home forever. No. but why not? because the odds of me possibly being killed on the highway are not high enough to suffer the almost certain negative consequences of never leaving my home, such as depression, starvation, serious illness, etc. but the risks of negative consequences of heavy and i want to stress HEAVY drinking in mixed company are very high and there is almost no negative consequences associated with restrictive or conservative alcohol use.

    Honestly, would you not advise your own daughter to avoid getting herself severely drunk in mix company. Wouldn't you advise your own daughter to avoid situations where she may be unreasonably vulnerable to attack? or would you just let your daughter go off to Aruba with no good advice and then act all shocked and dismayed when you find out she was last seen shit faced drunk leaving a bar with three guys never to be seen again. and then blame the world because you didn't have the decency as a parent to teach your child about the dangers of the world, specifically regarding sexual predators and their predatory practices in regards to environments full of drunken females.

    If you still insist that I am blaming a victim then you are completely incapable of seeing reason on this topic. Saying people need to take responsibility for maintaining their safety is not a cop out or coping mechanism for dealing with rape. it is reality. We live in an unjust world. that is absolutely right. justice is some weird concept that has been concocted by humans. something derived from revenge. people do not instinctively do what is right. we do what we are conditioned to believe is right. but we are still animals and the one thing that can reduce us to base instincts in record time is alcohol, When we are drunk we are no longer human, we are animals acting on instinct. Cognitive abilities fly right out the window and we know this. but we choose to drink ourselves stupid anyway.

    A rapist is to blame for rape. a victim is to blame IF they knowingly put themselves in a situation that would make them easy prey. a predator will always go after easy prey. Don't be easy prey. it may not stop the rapist from committing rape, but it will prevent him/her from raping you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I.Q. Test- Isolate the line that does not follow:

    Don't drink and drive.

    Don't operate heavy machinery when medicated.

    Don't try to clear a jammed blade with the motor still connected to power.

    Don't stick your hand in a dark hole.

    No lifegaurd on duty: Swim at your own risk.

    Drink, party, act like a fool, nothing that happens during that time bears any responsibility on your part.

    Never badger a badger.

    Don't run with scissors.

    Do not tease the dog.

    Don't put metal cookware in the microwave.

    Do not kiss a rattlesnake.

    Do not leave your vehicle to observe the bears (Or other wildlife.)

    Do Not Touch.
    madanthonywayne likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    At no point have I said that a woman deserves to be raped if she drinks or parties. I have never once said that a rapist is not to blame for the act of rape that he or she inflicts on their victim.
    The sentence of mine you quote here is about prosecutors' observations and experiences with people they might or night not empanel as jurors. It wasn't my view. Nor was it about any particular person, certainly not you.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    At no point have I said that a woman deserves to be raped if she drinks or parties. I have never once said that a rapist is not to blame for the act of rape that he or she inflicts on their victim.
    The sentence of mine you quote here is about prosecutors' observations and experiences with people they might or night not empanel as jurors. It wasn't my view. Nor was it about any particular person, certainly not you.
    For ease of reference I quoted you again:

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady
    It's also, I think, an offshoot of the "just world fallacy". In its worst effects, it turns into victim blaming and it makes jury selection for rape trials difficult. Basically, prosecutors find that a jury with a majority of middle-aged men is much more receptive to the idea that the victim is really a victim. With a majority of women, especially younger women, there seems to be a mental defence mechanism that the particular victim could have "avoided" the rape when they're really dealing with a rapist who would have raped any woman who happened, or whom he manipulated by one means or another, to be in that situation.

    Generally speaking though, it just means that we all like to think that we control a lot more of our own lives than we really do - and that people who find themselves in bad situations or as victims of crimes could have, and therefore should have, acted in some way to achieve other outcomes.
    You didn't say, "Prosecutors think that With a majority of women, especially younger women, there seems to be a mental defence mechanism that the particular victim could have "avoided" the rape when they're really dealing with a rapist who would have raped any woman who happened, or whom he manipulated by one means or another, to be in that situation." You only gave prosecutors credit for noticing that middle age men are more compliant with their perspective of the situation. You also worded your post in a way to imply that anyone who says a person bears some responsibility for their personal safety doesn't believe that victims are victims. That is something else no one on this thread has said or implied. We have all very explicitly said that a victim is a victim even if she was stupid person for putting themselves in danger in the first place. And we have stated that she cannot blame innocent third parties because she thinks they could have or should have prevented what she easily could have and should have prevented herself. If she isn't responsible for protecting herself, why should she hold match.com responsible for it? Match.com is not remotely responsible for what happened to her. The reality is, the fbi could have done a background check on him, found nothing, and he still would have done what he did. Background checks cannot predict the first time someone does something wrong. You can't predict that someone will behave in a way they never have before. And the lack of prediction does not equal prevention. My oldest son pulled a knife on me once. He had never done anything like that before and hasn't done it since. But i could never have predicted it. Should I sue the hospital that delivered him for not telling me my son may go batshit crazy one day and pull a knife on me? Shit happens sometimes. Its a reality we all have to accept. There doesn't have to be blame for every horrible thing that ever happens without explanation.

    You didn't say that prosecutors think such and such but that you disagreed with them. Why would you parrot what anyone says if you don't agree with it? If you disagree with what they said, then you would explicitly state that you disagree with them. You presented the ideas as if they were your own and at no point expressed any disagreement with them.

    In any case, since you want to say it wasn't you. Fine. The prosecutor is not qualified to determine what motivates young women to use their brains and be honest in expressing their views about being responsible for personal safety. His assumption of their motivations is as qualified as my assumption that the men kiss political correct butt because they don't want to be falsely accused of backing a rapist or blaming the victim, as I and the other people of this thread have been.

    So if your only refutation to what I posted is that, it wasn't you and you didn't mean it, does that mean you understand what we are saying now and you realize you are being too one-sided and tunnel visioned on this issue? Keep in mind that you should feel no shame if you are having a change of perspective. If that is the case just say so, no one would see that as a sign of weakness. It is more honorable to admit not knowing something, being confused, or having a change of heart than to maintain a position just to be stubborn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Maybe if I'd stuck a "whereas" and different punctuation at the beginning of the sentence referring to women jurors all this disagreement could have been side-stepped.

    It's also, I think, an offshoot of the "just world fallacy". In its worst effects, it turns into victim blaming and it makes jury selection for rape trials difficult. Basically, prosecutors find that a jury with a majority of middle-aged men is much more receptive to the idea that the victim is really a victim. Whereas with a majority of women, especially younger women, there seems to be a mental defence mechanism that the particular victim could have "avoided" the rape when they're really dealing with a rapist who would have raped any woman who happened, or whom he manipulated by one means or another, to be in that situation.
    As for me disagreeing with the prosecutors and others with those views, that's a whole other area of research with different issues coming to the fore in different places and legal systems (and I suspect that there may be changes over time). Within the USA, there are not just gender and age differences among jurors and trial outcomes but also race apparently plays a part in some areas. Some of the research / review papers I've read indicate that simply changing the words describing the offences is making some (not much) impact - like changing the title of the charge from rape to sexual assault. If you want to read up on the topic, there are dozens of papers but I've not kept links to the more recent ones, heaven alone knows why.

    In the end, it doesn't matter whether anyone here does or doesn't blame the victim because there are always plenty of volunteers for that activity in the community at large. If you want my view on the matter I certainly don't think I'm one-sided or tunnel visioned. The best way to describe my attitudes would be that I'm disappointed and discouraged and a bit depressed about all this stuff. (And I feel a bit guilty, too. If more women like me in my generation had been more realistic, or known more, about the full extent of violence against women we might have been more determined to push harder and sooner on some of this stuff. We all knew plenty of women who'd left abusive marriages, including our own, but the statistics on rape were not even mentioned IIRC. Once the hotlines and the DV refuges and shelters were established, a lot of energy went into just keeping them going rather than looking for more problems to manage.)

    Generally speaking, I'd say that the price of being trusting, or irresponsible, or foolish, shouldn't be assault or rape or murder. After all, most rapes are not simply a violation of the body, they're a violation of trust - a boyfriend or husband or workmate or partner or neighbour or relative or friend is much more likely to be the assailant in raping a woman than a stranger in the street.

    When it comes to a date, otherwise known as prospective boyfriend or lover or simply a friend, it's all too easy for a woman to behave "normally" in trusting them rather than treating all occasions and events as a time and place to keep her keys in her fist and her mace ready to spray at any moment. Let's face it, any woman who's poised to defend herself all the time would be regarded as paranoid by most people she's talking or drinking with. And many such women have been attacked by friends who allay such nervousness by offering to drive or walk them home, then turn into rapists when the woman opens her door. So whether you stay on the alert for possible predators or behave as though you were as free as a man to socialise and drink in the way you want to, you can't win, really. After all, the lifetime risk of rape for all women (it's higher in some groups) ranges from 1 in 4 to 1 in 6, so it's hardly a rare event. The language of shock and outrage is just so hard to maintain when it's all day every day. A Rape a Minute, a Thousand Corpses a Year | Mother Jones

    But there's always hope. One Billion Rising: 'It's like a feminist tsunami' | Society | The Guardian

    Unfortunately, despite the smile those dancing women can raise, most of us just hope is that it's not our turn, this time.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Within the USA, there are not just gender and age differences among jurors and trial outcomes but also race apparently plays a part in some areas.
    Not just the U.S.A. Another nation that has struggled with similar problems heavily is Australia.
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Generally speaking, I'd say that the price of being trusting, or irresponsible, or foolish, shouldn't be assault or rape or murder.
    This is like that word changing point you made above.
    Instead of "price" try "risk" or "consequence." Otherwise, the price of glancing at a newly received text message on your cell phone shouldn't be getting mangled in a car wreck.
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    After all, most rapes are not simply a violation of the body, they're a violation of trust - a boyfriend or husband or workmate or partner or neighbour or relative or friend is much more likely to be the assailant in raping a woman than a stranger in the street.
    Very true and I think this is where the crux of your efforts in the discussion are focused. Rather, others have pointed out instances where a woman has no guilt. As an example;
    -A woman worked a bit late and as she's done on many occasions, walked a bit later than normal through the empty parking garage to her car when she's targeted and attacked by a sexual predator. Did she take an unnecessary risk? No, she's a victim of rape in that case.
    -A woman is dating a man that turns out to believe that a woman is supposed to 'give him some' whenever he wants it. Is she the victim? Yes, but a bit less than the woman in the parking garage. She may be afraid of further damages or financial troubles if she leaves the relationship- yet, she does bear some responsibility for getting herself into the mess in the first place.
    -A woman goes to a wild party and uses drugs and alcohol til she's blitzed- I'm sorry, but my sympathy levels plummet at this point. I don't feel sorry for the guy that teases a lion. I don't feel sorry for the guy that jumps in front of a truck, either. I'm quite fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    When it comes to a date, otherwise known as prospective boyfriend or lover or simply a friend, it's all too easy for a woman to behave "normally" in trusting them rather than treating all occasions and events as a time and place to keep her keys in her fist and her mace ready to spray at any moment.
    Exactly true. As a man, I have to take odd considerations into account often. At S.G.'s college the other day, at about 9pm, I needed to head out to the car in the parking lot. As I did so, I ended up walking behind a young girl who was also on her way out. She was about ten feet in front of me and not a single other person was around in a large parking lot.
    I adjusted my stride to show my shadow extending past her own so that she could see at a glance where I was moving toward and walked at an angle causing the shadow to constantly show an increasing distance between us as I moved in a slightly different direction. I also scuffled my feet on occasion ( I hate that) or "coughed" to make occasional noises that also indicated my position so she could tell where I was in relation to her.
    Why did I have to do all that nonsense?! Similarly, if I see a stranded motorist, I make sure I walk toward them with my cell phone lit up and held far outward and instead of saying normal greetings, I say loudly, "Do you need a phone to call someone?!" It can easily be loaned through a window which is most of the way up, you see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady
    " there seems to be a mental defence mechanism"
    This is the unqualified statement that is the bane of your argument. It is an opinion stating as if it were fact as an assessment of the psychological profile of a woman who believes in self responsibility. It is unjustified, insulting and just plain ignores the reality that existing is not without risks. And some risks we can avoid while others we cannot. Your remarks, whether inspired by some pompous prosecuting attorney or not, are degrading to women in general, especially those who do their best to prepare their children, male or female, about the dangers of the world and teach them to not become darwin award recipients. If a beautiful young vixen is seducing a 79 year old millionaire, would you not warn the old man that she is likely just after his money, hoping she can strip him of his wealth before he dies or possibly get him to write his children out of his will and leave it all to her. I think you would. But then maybe you would just leave him in his happy delusions that a 20 year old hottie actually finds him sexually appealing and a heart throb in spite of his absorbent underpants and oxygen canister that he has to tote around. But if he is warned of the danger he is in and he chooses to ignore the warning, or even admit that the warning has solid merit but wants to still have a hottie to drive around on his electric scooter, then does he not bear some responsibility if he willfully gives her access to his wealth in order to keep her by his side til he dies? of course he is somewhat to blame for putting himself in that high risk position. But that does not mean that the gold digging chick isn't responsible for her gold digging activities. she is still a bitch that needs to have her ass kicked. But that does not change the fact that the old man willfully put himself at risk because he wanted to believe the fantasy that the girl loved him.

    Too many people walk around with the "it will never happen to me" attitude and when they discover it most certainly can and will happen to them, they deny their own delusion by blaming anyone else that they can. Usually, they blame the criminal, and that is fine, but when that isn't sufficient they want to blame others. I think deep down inside they know they did something stupid, they know they should have known better than to put themselves at risk, but rather than accept that, they look for confirmation of there absolute victimness by looking to blame others and then claiming more victimization by anyone that reminds them of what they already know, that they should have known better. (keep in mind, in this reference I am referring to the people who get themselves shit faced drunk at a party, or go and meet someone off the internet without doing their homework or making sure to meet up in a way that reduces risks. I am not referring to the woman who got stuck at work and could not avoid having to walk in an empty parking garage to her car.)

    Our society is pretty well informed on how hiv is transmitted. They are also pretty well informed on how prevalent the disease is. So if a person goes around sleeping with every tom, dick, and jane that comes along without using protection or asking that their partners provide proof of clear health, are they not responsible for the their own infection with the virus if at some point they do discover they are carrying it? They did something stupid and something bad happened to then as a result. Did they get infected bysomeone who knew their own status? Maybe. Maybe not. If they were, then that person also holds some blame, but if they didn't, then all the blame falls on the one that doesn't take their own safety into consideration when making decisions.

    Rape, sexual assault if it makes you feel better, isn't some magical form of harm that is impervious to prevention or causation. You can reduce your risks of lung cancer by not smoking. Does not smoking guarantee that you will never get lung cancer. No but it will certainly reduce the odds of it. And a person who never allows themselves to get shit faced drunk will never be raped while shit faced drunk. They may be raped if a rapist climbs into their bedroom window and rapes them, but as you pointed out, most rapes are done at the hands of people women at least know.

    We are an opportunistic species. We need to make sure we do not provide opportunities to be exploited.
    Last edited by seagypsy; February 2nd, 2013 at 07:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    1.
    Exactly true. As a man, I have to take odd considerations into account often. At S.G.'s college the other day, at about 9pm, I needed to head out to the car in the parking lot. As I did so, I ended up walking behind a young girl who was also on her way out. She was about ten feet in front of me and not a single other person was around in a large parking lot.
    I adjusted my stride to show my shadow extending past her own so that she could see at a glance where I was moving toward and walked at an angle causing the shadow to constantly show an increasing distance between us as I moved in a slightly different direction. I also scuffled my feet on occasion ( I hate that) or "coughed" to make occasional noises that also indicated my position so she could tell where I was in relation to her.
    Why did I have to do all that nonsense?!
    Aha! A man who 'gets' the idea of Schrodinger's rapist without having it explained a million different times a thousand different ways.
    Guest Blogger Starling: Schrödinger Heh, heh. Just noticed the title itself includes a reference to using mace.

    And a note for people reading this item for the first time,
    It is not telling all women to be afraid of all men.

    It is not suggesting that all men are rapists. (The ratio of rapists to victims in society at large is somewhere between 5 up to 10 to 1, so only one in 30 to one in 60 men are rapists, even if a whole lot more behave badly, stupidly or threateningly in other ways.)

    It is telling men that a woman has no way of knowing whether any given man is one of those neither-common-nor-rare men. It is no help at all for you to know that you're a nice bloke who'd never hurt anyone. In neverfly's example, if he chose to walk up behind her without warning in an empty street or parking garage, how's she likely to react? Given that you now know that there's a 1 in 6 chance of her already having been raped, even if nothing else, being thoughtless about how you approach in this scenario can trigger a shock, an 'over-reaction', or even a full-blown panic attack. Or you might get maced.

    2. As for that race issue. I wasn't thinking so much of indigenous people - I only saw a couple of references to the effect of them being perpetrators or victims - a couple of items referred to very, very different attitudes in US black communities compared to white groups. I'd need to dig a bit deeper to see if there is other material to flesh out what I've picked up so far. (Whether it's the same in Britain for starters.)

    3. Those different rape scenarios you proposed? I think we're approaching the issue from two different perspectives.

    Yours looks to me more like that of an insurance company. Your car was stolen when you left it open with the keys in the ignition? Too bad - your policy says you have to take reasonable steps to maintain security, you don't get full value for the loss or damage. Your TV was stolen when you left the front door unlocked? No payout, or reduced payout, because of non-compliance with policy terms and conditions. The police on the other hand will still treat these events as crimes. They give lots of advice that people should reduce their risks of theft by taking reasonable steps, but they still treat all thefts as thefts. Because stuff got stolen. Same thing for assaults and rapes. The fact that people got themselves into a position where they became the victims of a crime against their person rather than their property doesn't alter the fact that a crime was committed.

    Because we know one thing for certain. Just as a thief will try the next house or the next car if they can't steal anything where they happen to be right now, a rapist will pick on someone else if the woman they're currently targeting isn't getting drunk enough (or into whatever other vulnerable state - in their car, home alone, any other option) for their control. (Much as a bloke spoiling for a fight will move to another group of people if the people he's currently trying to stir up aren't responding the way he's looking for.)

    My approach is more like the police approach. You can feel weary or disheartened or com.plete.ly fed up that people come to you reporting theft or physical assault or a sexual assault and it's "deja vu all over again" when you see what led up to it. But the person responsible for the crime is the person who performed the illegal act, not the person who was careless or thoughtless or oblivious to the danger they were in. They're still a victim. After all, you can bet everything you've ever owned that there were other unlocked cars, other unlocked doors, other drunk/ at home / walking alone women at that time - these people just happened to be the ones who suffered from a criminal act this time.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    1.
    Exactly true. As a man, I have to take odd considerations into account often. At S.G.'s college the other day, at about 9pm, I needed to head out to the car in the parking lot. As I did so, I ended up walking behind a young girl who was also on her way out. She was about ten feet in front of me and not a single other person was around in a large parking lot.
    I adjusted my stride to show my shadow extending past her own so that she could see at a glance where I was moving toward and walked at an angle causing the shadow to constantly show an increasing distance between us as I moved in a slightly different direction. I also scuffled my feet on occasion ( I hate that) or "coughed" to make occasional noises that also indicated my position so she could tell where I was in relation to her.
    Why did I have to do all that nonsense?!
    Aha! A man who 'gets' the idea of Schrodinger's rapist without having it explained a million different times a thousand different ways.
    Guest Blogger Starling: Schrödinger Heh, heh. Just noticed the title itself includes a reference to using mace.

    And a note for people reading this item for the first time,
    It is not telling all women to be afraid of all men.

    It is not suggesting that all men are rapists. (The ratio of rapists to victims in society at large is somewhere between 5 up to 10 to 1, so only one in 30 to one in 60 men are rapists, even if a whole lot more behave badly, stupidly or threateningly in other ways.)

    It is telling men that a woman has no way of knowing whether any given man is one of those neither-common-nor-rare men. It is no help at all for you to know that you're a nice bloke who'd never hurt anyone. In neverfly's example, if he chose to walk up behind her without warning in an empty street or parking garage, how's she likely to react? Given that you now know that there's a 1 in 6 chance of her already having been raped, even if nothing else, being thoughtless about how you approach in this scenario can trigger a shock, an 'over-reaction', or even a full-blown panic attack. Or you might get maced.

    2. As for that race issue. I wasn't thinking so much of indigenous people - I only saw a couple of references to the effect of them being perpetrators or victims - a couple of items referred to very, very different attitudes in US black communities compared to white groups. I'd need to dig a bit deeper to see if there is other material to flesh out what I've picked up so far. (Whether it's the same in Britain for starters.)

    3. Those different rape scenarios you proposed? I think we're approaching the issue from two different perspectives.

    Yours looks to me more like that of an insurance company. Your car was stolen when you left it open with the keys in the ignition? Too bad - your policy says you have to take reasonable steps to maintain security, you don't get full value for the loss or damage. Your TV was stolen when you left the front door unlocked? No payout, or reduced payout, because of non-compliance with policy terms and conditions. The police on the other hand will still treat these events as crimes. They give lots of advice that people should reduce their risks of theft by taking reasonable steps, but they still treat all thefts as thefts. Because stuff got stolen. Same thing for assaults and rapes. The fact that people got themselves into a position where they became the victims of a crime against their person rather than their property doesn't alter the fact that a crime was committed.

    Because we know one thing for certain. Just as a thief will try the next house or the next car if they can't steal anything where they happen to be right now, a rapist will pick on someone else if the woman they're currently targeting isn't getting drunk enough (or into whatever other vulnerable state - in their car, home alone, any other option) for their control. (Much as a bloke spoiling for a fight will move to another group of people if the people he's currently trying to stir up aren't responding the way he's looking for.)

    My approach is more like the police approach. You can feel weary or disheartened or com.plete.ly fed up that people come to you reporting theft or physical assault or a sexual assault and it's "deja vu all over again" when you see what led up to it. But the person responsible for the crime is the person who performed the illegal act, not the person who was careless or thoughtless or oblivious to the danger they were in. They're still a victim. After all, you can bet everything you've ever owned that there were other unlocked cars, other unlocked doors, other drunk/ at home / walking alone women at that time - these people just happened to be the ones who suffered from a criminal act this time.
    I agree with what you are saying here. regardless of how stupid a person is or how it may be their fault that they put themselves at risk, putting yourself at risk is never an excuse for someone to purposefully commit a crime against you.

    But in this case, of the woman suing match.com. Match. com did not commit a crime against this woman. The man who attacked her did. She has no case, legally or ethically, to hold match.com responsible for what that guy chose to do. The only person who could have prevented her from being raped by that guy was for her to not have met him in unsafe circumstances. The guy who attacked her is the criminal. He is the one that committed a crime. Not match.com. Not the victim. That means the guy who attacked her is the only person deserving of punishment. Any conceivable punishment the woman could possibly deserve by the farthest stretches of imagination for being willfully naive has already been suffered by her. She should not be wishing to victimize a company that could not have done anything to protect her that she could not have done herself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I have no idea what the courts should do about this particular case. I have a totally unsupported prejudice that they should pay up - but more as penance for keeping a violent man on their books and allowing him to continue using their site to contact other women, and attack a woman after attacking another woman. One woman stabbed 10 times and alive, the other woman dead. That level of corporate indifference deserves a substantial whack with a clue by four - this is probably not the best vehicle for delivering it. But if nothing else is available it could be used.

    Any conceivable punishment the woman could possibly deserve by the farthest stretches of imagination for being willfully naive has already been suffered by her.
    Naive. Who says? She met him, saw him a few times, used her judgement that he was not a suitable prospect and terminated the relationship. 8 days all up. Most of us in her position might say I gave him a chance, it didn't work out, that's over and done with. Then, four months later, he came to her house and tried to kill her. I realise most of the news reports talk about a 'date' ending in attempted murder, but that's not what happened.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I have no idea what the courts should do about this particular case. I have a totally unsupported prejudice that they should pay up - but more as penance for keeping a violent man on their books and allowing him to continue using their site to contact other women, and attack a woman after attacking another woman. One woman stabbed 10 times and alive, the other woman dead. That level of corporate indifference deserves a substantial whack with a clue by four - this is probably not the best vehicle for delivering it. But if nothing else is available it could be used.

    Any conceivable punishment the woman could possibly deserve by the farthest stretches of imagination for being willfully naive has already been suffered by her.
    Naive. Who says? She met him, saw him a few times, used her judgement that he was not a suitable prospect and terminated the relationship. 8 days all up. Most of us in her position might say I gave him a chance, it didn't work out, that's over and done with. Then, four months later, he came to her house and tried to kill her. I realise most of the news reports talk about a 'date' ending in attempted murder, but that's not what happened.
    Well you can't blame me for not knowing that the reports are misleading. I can only make assessments based on the information available to me.

    I am not arguing in this next statement, but where are you getting your information? I can barely find two articles that report the same details as one another. Can you link us to the details you are reading because you seem to be privy to information I have not been able to locate.

    I have only been able to glean a vague impression that match.com was not aware of what happened until after he was in jail. And that the guy had no prior record that could have been discovered by background check. If my impressions are right, then match.com cannot be held liable for "allowing" him to stay on the site if no one reported to them any reason to remove him from it. But If my impressions are wrong, and they were told when the first woman was attacked and before the subsequent women were attacked then they do bear some liability. If they had been notified and proper proof of the allegations against him were provided to match.com, his account should have been locked.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Reports. Misleading. Information. Confused. You're not the only one.

    Even the reports are internally inconsistent. I can't find one particularly outstanding example that left me a bit stunned . The first paragraph stated that she was attacked 8 days after meeting him. Two paragraphs on they say it was four months later. At least that's repeated in several other sources. Here's a few others.

    Woman sues Match.com for nearly $10 million after attack
    Woman sues Match.com for $10 million after surviving brutal stabbing by man she met on the dating site - NY Daily News
    Match.com News, Video and Gossip - Gawker

    One thing that concerns me in the MSN report, which I haven't seen anywhere else, is this bit about online harassment between the end of the "relationship" and the attack.

    Beckman signed up for an account in August 2010, according to the report, and was matched with 53-year-old Wade Mitchell Ridley. She met him on Sept. 26, 2010, but decided she didn't want to see him anymore 10 days later, after which Ridley allegedly sent her threatening messages, the report says.
    I've not seen anything from her or her lawyer nor from match about any policy or procedure they have for getting clients/members to report this kind of problem. This surely can't be the first time someone's started harassing another person after the failure of an initial contact. Are clients given advice about what to do if this starts happening? Do match. com even want to know that a client is harassing other clients?

    And the timeline is really hard to work out. The few reports that do mention the other woman being killed either state/infer that the murder had happened before these two ever met or that it was after she was injured and in hospital (for several months apparently) or that the other murder was discovered in some way after he was arrested for this attack. There's an implication in a couple that he was arrested straight away - but seeing how bad the rest of the reporting is I'd not put any weight on that plank until someone tested it for me first.

    While in police custody, Ridley admitted to killing 62-year-old Anne Simenson, an Arizona woman he’d also met on Match.com, in early 2011.


    That quote (from the NYDailyNews implies that the murder occurred after the attack on Ms Beckman. (Sep 2010 + 4 months gets me to Jan 2011.) But there was another report that the murdered woman was a former girlfriend ? Former because she was murdered or what? When? Yet another plank that won't bear any weight.

    It's actually a good exercise for a journalism class I reckon. When you first skim over them, it looks as though they're all just repeating the same old boilerplate from a newswire service, especially because they all use much the same set of photos and clips. But when you go back to the text looking for specifics, they've all got different things differently expressed or ignored or confused or omitted. Not one of them say this happened, then this, then the next thing, all the way to the last thing. Ye olde who, what, when, where, how, (why's a bit of an issue seeing as he's dead) of basic journalism seems to be completely absent - the MSN report is the only one I've found that even tries to give a reasonable account. And I don't even know how reliable they are, really.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Reports. Misleading. Information. Confused. You're not the only one.

    Even the reports are internally inconsistent. I can't find one particularly outstanding example that left me a bit stunned . The first paragraph stated that she was attacked 8 days after meeting him. Two paragraphs on they say it was four months later. At least that's repeated in several other sources. Here's a few others.

    Woman sues Match.com for nearly $10 million after attack
    Woman sues Match.com for $10 million after surviving brutal stabbing by man she met on the dating site - NY Daily News
    Match.com News, Video and Gossip - Gawker

    One thing that concerns me in the MSN report, which I haven't seen anywhere else, is this bit about online harassment between the end of the "relationship" and the attack.

    Beckman signed up for an account in August 2010, according to the report, and was matched with 53-year-old Wade Mitchell Ridley. She met him on Sept. 26, 2010, but decided she didn't want to see him anymore 10 days later, after which Ridley allegedly sent her threatening messages, the report says.
    I've not seen anything from her or her lawyer nor from match about any policy or procedure they have for getting clients/members to report this kind of problem. This surely can't be the first time someone's started harassing another person after the failure of an initial contact. Are clients given advice about what to do if this starts happening? Do match. com even want to know that a client is harassing other clients?

    And the timeline is really hard to work out. The few reports that do mention the other woman being killed either state/infer that the murder had happened before these two ever met or that it was after she was injured and in hospital (for several months apparently) or that the other murder was discovered in some way after he was arrested for this attack. There's an implication in a couple that he was arrested straight away - but seeing how bad the rest of the reporting is I'd not put any weight on that plank until someone tested it for me first.

    While in police custody, Ridley admitted to killing 62-year-old Anne Simenson, an Arizona woman he’d also met on Match.com, in early 2011.


    That quote (from the NYDailyNews implies that the murder occurred after the attack on Ms Beckman. (Sep 2010 + 4 months gets me to Jan 2011.) But there was another report that the murdered woman was a former girlfriend ? Former because she was murdered or what? When? Yet another plank that won't bear any weight.

    It's actually a good exercise for a journalism class I reckon. When you first skim over them, it looks as though they're all just repeating the same old boilerplate from a newswire service, especially because they all use much the same set of photos and clips. But when you go back to the text looking for specifics, they've all got different things differently expressed or ignored or confused or omitted. Not one of them say this happened, then this, then the next thing, all the way to the last thing. Ye olde who, what, when, where, how, (why's a bit of an issue seeing as he's dead) of basic journalism seems to be completely absent - the MSN report is the only one I've found that even tries to give a reasonable account. And I don't even know how reliable they are, really.
    And look at the animosity they can create between people discussing the situation because they confuse the facts. Sadly journalism seems to be a lost art since the internet took over. Since very little "news" is in print anymore, and it can be edited endlessly, the news editors seem to be becoming very lax in scrutinizing a story before its allowed to run. Remember the old days when News Papers would avoid libel charges by fact checking very heavily before printing an article. They didn't run the risk of having to print a retraction. They took their jobs way more serious. Today it seems most papers are filled with nothing better than the blogs of gossiping teens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    While in police custody, Ridley admitted to killing 62-year-old Anne Simenson, an Arizona woman he’d also met on Match.com, in early 2011.
    It gets better:
    Simenson reportedly had a tumultuous relationship with Ridley going back to 2002, with each serving the other with a restraining order.

    Ridley, who was previously considered a person of interest in Simenson's killing, was found driving her car when he was arrested in Las Vegas.
    From here:
    Wade Mitchell Ridley, Scorned by Match.com Girlfriend, Arrested in Vegas for Attempted Murder (There's More) - Crimesider - CBS News

    No mention of how they met- but it claims there were restraining orders against each other... and that they had met ten years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    No mention of how they met- but it claims there were restraining orders against each other... and that they had met ten years ago.
    Oh. Great.

    So now we know that the relationship was of longstanding - whether or not it also began with match.com.
    OK. One element of a timeline. Then from your link, we find .......

    Ridley, who was previously considered a person of interest in Simenson's killing, was found driving her car when he was arrested in Las Vegas.
    ..... but the Las Vegas arrest was for the attack on Beckman in January. So he couldn't possibly have been arrested immediately after that because Simenson was killed in February. Whaddayaknow. This subeditor work is pretty straightforward - except on the internet you have to check the work of fifteen+ different reporters instead of yelling at one reporter to go and check their facts. And their writing ......

    The same report includes this little gem ....
    According to the police report obtained by CBS affiliate KPHO, Ridley was upset that Beckman's mother was trying to end their brief, rocky relationship.
    ..... "trying to end" a 10 day 'relationship' ...... that had finished four months earlier. Riiiight. He might have said that, but a half decent reporter might have been able to get some reality in, even if only for contrast.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    We should get back to fighting over the tangents. Discussing the topic is a futile effort thanks to elusive facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    No mention of how they met- but it claims there were restraining orders against each other... and that they had met ten years ago.
    Oh. Great.

    So now we know that the relationship was of longstanding - whether or not it also began with match.com.
    OK. One element of a timeline. Then from your link, we find .......

    Ridley, who was previously considered a person of interest in Simenson's killing, was found driving her car when he was arrested in Las Vegas.
    ..... but the Las Vegas arrest was for the attack on Beckman in January. So he couldn't possibly have been arrested immediately after that because Simenson was killed in February. Whaddayaknow. This subeditor work is pretty straightforward - except on the internet you have to check the work of fifteen+ different reporters instead of yelling at one reporter to go and check their facts. And their writing ......

    The same report includes this little gem ....
    According to the police report obtained by CBS affiliate KPHO, Ridley was upset that Beckman's mother was trying to end their brief, rocky relationship.
    ..... "trying to end" a 10 day 'relationship' ...... that had finished four months earlier. Riiiight. He might have said that, but a half decent reporter might have been able to get some reality in, even if only for contrast.
    Journalists are so damned helpful these days in stirring shit up aren't they. remember how the reports were flying that the guy who shot up the school had aspergers syndrome but the reporters claimed they weren't trying to lead people to believe that aspergers had anything to do with his actions? I had tried to start a thread about it but it became a gun control debate and I ended up having to unsubscribe from my own thread since within the first 10 posts it was totally hijacked by gun rights debaters.

    Sorry been holding on to that gripe for a while.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Great Match WC 2011
    By Yash in forum In the News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 15th, 2012, 06:56 AM
  2. Is horoscope match really essential for love marriages?
    By rramkumar in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 25th, 2010, 05:36 PM
  3. safety match composition
    By kenmann in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 8th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  4. Suing employers who hire illegal immigrants
    By kojax in forum Politics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 4th, 2010, 04:00 AM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 5th, 2010, 06:36 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •