[QUOTE=thisispain;42463903]that's exactly what it does. they didnt find targets, they attacked whomever was vulnerable in order to satisfy a psychological craving for violence. the fact that some of them wore stockings is coincidental at best. no psychological profile was conducted to prove he was targeting victims based on stockings.[/QUOTE]
Who's to say that he didn't just pick women who didn't wear stockings because their happened to be no women around who had sockings on at the time? You can't predict the mind of someone who commits these kind of depraved acts.
[QUOTE]its not supported by any psychological profile.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any evidence to support this? I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people out there with strange sexual fetishes and a lot of the time they also tend to be very strange people.
[QUOTE=Zyler;42463911]Who's to say that he didn't just pick women who didn't wear stockings because their happened to be no women around who had sockings on at the time? You can't predict the mind of someone who commits these kind of depraved acts.[/QUOTE]
you say that we cannot predict their mind yet you have 0 problems with suggesting that women who have stockings were more likely to be assaulted by this person
i guess it could affect your chances of being raped in the way that almost any random thing could affect your chances of getting fucked over by a loony toon
[QUOTE=thisispain;42463888]basically you have very weak ground and you should just concede instead of trying to drive your point into the ground for another couple of pages
we have psychological insight into why people rape, sexual attraction is hardly a factor when it comes to violent rape by strangers. the perpetrators of such crimes are mental ill and simply seek out victims based on circumstance. there's very little these women could have done.[/QUOTE]
I have said multiple times that I don't think these victims bore any responsibility just by wearing what they did. I don't know how much I need to repeat that statement for it to sink in here.
All I have said is that what they wore could have easily been a factor in the crimes (and the evidence seems to indicate that it was a factor).
Again, just because I'm saying it was a factor and the evidence I've cited indicates it was more than likely a factor it doesn't mean I'm saying there was something these victims "could have done".
[QUOTE=Zyler;42463911]
Do you have any evidence to support this? I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people out there with strange sexual fetishes and a lot of the time they also tend to be very strange people.[/QUOTE]
burden of proof isnt on me
sexual fetish isnt conducive to rape btw.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42463913]you say that we cannot predict their mind yet you have 0 problems with suggesting that women who have stockings were more likely to be assaulted by this person[/QUOTE]
The only evidence we have one way or the other is the fact that this particular character targeted women with stockings. So I'm assuming from that fact that he did indeed target women with stockings.
The whole thing is incidental, it was just used as an example to show that many factors come into play and you can't possibly predict them all.
[QUOTE]burden of proof isnt on me[/QUOTE]
The burden of proof is on everybody, I'm just trying to prove my arguments with observations and facts.
[QUOTE]sexual fetish isnt conducive to rape btw.[/QUOTE]
It's about as close as you're ever going to get.
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42463804]Because you don't have anything to counter what I have presented?
Unless you are denying that there were several serial rapists/murderers who seemed to be fixated with stockings.[/QUOTE]
A handful of serial criminals is a drop in the ocean compared to the hundreds of thousands of cases.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42463903]that's exactly what it does. they didnt find targets, they attacked whomever was vulnerable in order to satisfy a psychological craving for violence. the fact that some of them wore stockings is coincidental at best. no psychological profile was conducted to prove he was targeting victims based on stockings.
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
its not supported by any psychological profile.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how many similar rapists/murderers there were before the boston strangler; from what I read on the subject (briefly) the police placed too much emphasis on his psychological profile which made them ignore him as a suspect.
There were also some rapists that brought along their own items of clothing to dress up their victims in (from what I read).
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42463933]A handful of serial criminals is a drop in the ocean compared to the hundreds of thousands of cases.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zyler]I'd guess that most rapes that happen are the result of young men who look at a girl who they think is 'easy', who then proceed to solicit their attention with drinks until they are too off their face to resist or (espicially is they've had a few shots themselves) they grab them out back when they are about to leave and 'solicit' them that way.
The completely random violent murder rapes that occur are probably less common than the unfortunately semi-sanctioned activities that happen in and around bars late at night and early in the morning.[/QUOTE]
That is to say that your demeanour, choice of clothing and general 'openness' can have an effect in these types of cases.
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42463918]I have said multiple times that I don't think these victims bore any responsibility just by wearing what they did. I don't know how much I need to repeat that statement for it to sink in here.
All I have said is that what they wore could have easily been a factor in the crimes (and the evidence seems to indicate that it was a factor).
Again, just because I'm saying it was a factor and the evidence I've cited indicates it was more than likely a factor it doesn't mean I'm saying there was something these victims "could have done".[/QUOTE]
then i have no clue what you are arguing. clothing is a microscopic factor compared to age, location, the temperament of the victim.
if the idea is somehow that women should be told to wear clothing based on their likeliness of getting raped then it should be made VERY CLEAR how small of a factor it is and that there's 0 patterns in what clothing rape victims wear
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42463933]A handful of serial criminals is a drop in the ocean compared to the hundreds of thousands of cases.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't diminish it from being a factor, however large or small.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42442373]Because
1) precautions won't do diddly squat to affect the likelihood of it happening, because ultimately, whether or not the rape happens is up to... the rapist! not the victim! isn't that basic common logic?
2) when you start spreading the idea that it's up to the victim to take precautions, it's just gonna increase the already-existing victim blaming which is "but why didn't you take precautions?" "why did you do X?" "why did you do Y?"[/QUOTE]
don't tell kids to look both ways, that's victim blaming!
[QUOTE=Zyler;42463926]The only evidence we have one way or the other is the fact that this particular character targeted women with stockings. So I'm assuming from that fact that he did indeed target women with stockings.[/QUOTE]
except that he targeted women without stockings
i dont see how you can think this argument holds water. theres no proof that he indeed targeted women based on stockings. not even the wikipedia article suggests it.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42463951]except that he targeted women without stockings
i dont see how you can think this argument holds water. theres no proof that he indeed targeted women based on stockings. not even the wikipedia article suggests it.[/QUOTE]
He targeted women with stockings, that doesn't mean he didn't target women without stockings. He did target women with stockings the majority of the time, which seems to suggest that most of the time he targeted women with stockings.
Once again, this all a mute point for the argument that it's impossible to predict a completely random stranger's psychological profile and we should take any obvious precautions that become apparent whenever we are in any possibly dangerous situation.
Do you see how we're going in circles here?
[QUOTE=xxncxx;42463949]don't tell kids to look both ways, that's victim blaming![/QUOTE]
how is that in any way comparable
looking both ways doesn't do shit if someone's intentionally trying to run you over
[QUOTE=thisispain;42463944]then i have no clue what you are arguing. clothing is a microscopic factor compared to age, location, the temperament of the victim.
if the idea is somehow that women should be told to wear clothing based on their likeliness of getting raped then it should be made VERY CLEAR how small of a factor it is and that there's 0 patterns in what clothing rape victims wear[/QUOTE]
I'm arguing that this entire attitude that nothing at all relating to the victim can be called a factor is preposterous.
Especially trying to say that no rapist has ever been attracted to women wearing stockings or stiletto shoes.
I still don't agree that people should dress a certain way to avoid these kind of crimes depending where exactly they are; if someone wears something to stand out in a sexual way in an area of the world where people dress extremely modestly and aren't modernized then they're going to get stared at and most likely groped or possibly worse.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42463985]how is that in any way comparable
looking both ways doesn't do shit if someone's intentionally trying to run you over[/QUOTE]
If you were looking both ways you wouldn't have crossed the road while the screaming maniac was trying to run over pedestrians.
that's why i said it's idiotic to bring it up, because it's irrelevant. you CAN'T try and avoid how a serial killer will fuck you up because serial killers are fucked in the head
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42463985]how is that in any way comparable
looking both ways doesn't do shit if someone's intentionally trying to run you over[/QUOTE]
its comparable because taking precautions does have an effect whether you like it or not. are you seriously saying that just walking across the street when someone is going to try and intentionally run you over is a good idea? the fuck are you smoking? if someone looked both ways before crossing the street, they could probably notice someone coming right at them and get out of the way.
seriously, the only argument i see in here is that people shouldn't ever take precautions because its not their fault. no shit sherlock. its never the victims fault, but can the victim do something to deter an attacker and possibly save their own life, of course they can.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;42463949]don't tell kids to look both ways, that's victim blaming![/QUOTE]
That comparison makes absolutely no sense.
If you get run over, it's most likely an accident. But being raped is not an accident; it's a crime willfully commited by someone else.
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
(also, what mistermooth said)
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42463991]that's why i said it's idiotic to bring it up, because it's irrelevant. you CAN'T try and avoid how a serial killer will fuck you up because serial killers are fucked in the head[/QUOTE]
You can however, take any obvious precautions that seem relevant at the time and thereby reduce the potential risk of some potential person with some potential mindset doing some potential thing.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42463994]That comparison makes absolutely no sense.
If you get run over, it's most likely an accident. But being raped is not an accident; it's a crime willfully commited by someone else.
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
(also, what mistermooth said)[/QUOTE]
In any case, whether or not someone is trying to do something deliberately there should be things you can do to help mitigate the risks. It's entirely irrelevant in the case what some ones motive is, you just need to be as sure as you can that you're not in the wrong place at the wrong time when some potential shit is about to go down.
im not going in circles at all im just like whats the point of cautioning women about what clothes they wear when its barely possible to construe it as a factor
i mean if you really cant get stronger evidence than a murder from 40 years ago in which theres only coincidental proof and theres zero support from any psychological study...
i think we should teach women how to protect themselves, as we already do.
but that is a different thing entirely and largely irrelevant
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42463986]I'm arguing that this entire attitude that nothing at all relating to the victim can be called a factor is preposterous.[/QUOTE]
ok so you said that the stocking is a factor but then you arent willing to say that theres something the victims "could have done".
so whats the point here.
[QUOTE=Zyler;42463998]You can however, take any obvious precautions that seem relevant at the time and thereby reduce the potential risk of some potential person with some potential mindset doing some potential thing.[/QUOTE]
i might just stay in my house forever, since literally anything you do could be the trigger for some psychopath
[QUOTE=thisispain;42463999]im not going in circles at all im just like whats the point of cautioning women about what clothes they wear when its barely possible to construe it as a factor
i mean if you really cant get stronger evidence than a murder from 40 years ago in which theres only coincidental proof and theres zero support from any psychological study...
i think we should teach women how to protect themselves, as we already do.
but that is a different thing entirely and largely irrelevant
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
ok so you said that the stocking is a factor but then you arent willing to say that theres something the victims "could have done".
so whats the point here.[/QUOTE]
It's not about the clothing or anything directly related to that. It's about the fact that there's always something people can do to mitigate the risks of someone being hurt, what that thing is and how it relates is entirely dependant on the situation and it is also highly unpredictable a lot of the time, so we should just do whatever risk mitigation seems reasonable at the time and not take unnecessary risks.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42464010]i might just stay in my house forever, since literally anything you do could be the trigger for some psychopath[/QUOTE]
Yea pretty much, except you can't do that and you need to live your life, so you should just take whatever precautions seem reasonable at the time. Would you get in a random car with strangers who you've never meet just because they ask you to? No? Why not?
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42464010]i might just stay in my house forever, since literally anything you do could be the trigger for some psychopath[/QUOTE]
that's being a little extreme, don't you think? there's a massive difference between taking precautions and being a shut-in because you're afraid of the real world.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;42463992]its comparable because taking precautions does have an effect whether you like it or not. are you seriously saying that just walking across the street when someone is going to try and intentionally run you over is a good idea? the fuck are you smoking? if someone looked both ways before crossing the street, they could probably notice someone coming right at them and get out of the way.[/QUOTE]
lol looking both ways is common sense and it's to prevent accidents. I don't even understand what you're getting at. if someone wanted to intentionally run you down why would they care if you're trying to cross the street or not
this is a really shitty comparison to rape. you can't just look both ways to get out of the way of someone raping you
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42463994]That comparison makes absolutely no sense.
If you get run over, it's most likely an accident. But being raped is not an accident; it's a crime willfully committed by someone else.
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
(also, what mistermooth said)[/QUOTE]
What if you were to go into a 'bad neighbourhood' wearing expensive clothing?
[QUOTE=xxncxx;42464025]that's being a little extreme, don't you think?[/QUOTE]
and stupid too. it's stupid to even consider how to take 'precautions' against serial killers or psychopaths because you CAN'T take precautions against people who could have literally ANY trigger, no matter how silly, to do awful things. so why is it being brought up?
[QUOTE=thisispain;42463951]except that he targeted women without stockings
i dont see how you can think this argument holds water. theres no proof that he indeed targeted women based on stockings. not even the wikipedia article suggests it.[/QUOTE]
I read more on the case from this article (dated 1964) which suggests he took the stockings from their house: [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/64may/gardner.htm[/url]
Even so, there were other cases (even recent ones) where the rapist took the victims item of clothing as a souvenir (be it stockings, tights or stiletto shoes)
[QUOTE=Zyler;42464021]It's not about the clothing or anything directly related to that. It's about the fact that there's always something people can do to mitigate the risks of someone being hurt, what that thing is and how it relates is entirely dependant on the situation and it is also highly unpredictable a lot of the time, so we should just do whatever risk mitigation seems reasonable at the time and not take unnecessary risks.[/QUOTE]
ok so we'll let women decide on what they think of that
how about we forget about that and not waste time with flimsily constructed "risk mitigation" that is "entirely dependent on the situation"...
and instead deal with rape using tactics that are universal and apply to a wide-range of rapes
why are you people and thunder-f00t interested in this kind of red herring?
we know why people rape. its an expression of cultural and individual attitudes towards women. we shall not have the conversation be derailed by people interested in the subtleties that lie within a single murder-rapist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
