- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Health
University of Colorado Advises Women to Vomit or Urinate to Stop Rapists
The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Department of Public Safety is advising female students to try some unusual defenses if a man tries to rape them, such as vomiting, urinating and claiming that they are menstruating.
According to IBTimes.com, the advisory was updated Monday evening, just hours after the Colorado State House of Representatives passed a package of gun control bills, by a vote of 34-31.
One of the bills would make it illegal for people to carry guns on the campuses of public universities. Another bill would require gun buyers to pay the cost of their state background checks.
However, the bills still have to pass the State Senate and be signed by the governor.
The new college advisory reads, "Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating," and, "Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone."
These methods for fighting off a rapist are part of Rape Aggression Defense Systems, a class offered by the school's public safety department.
Democratic State Rep. Joe Salazar said on Friday that female students should not have access to guns to protect themselves from being raped because they might shoot an innocent person.
“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles," Salazar said. "Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop around at somebody.”
Salazar eventually apologized for any offense he may have caused.
“I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention,” Salazar said. “We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make.
“If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.”
Source: IBTimes.com
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
So I suppose that Salazar
So I suppose that Salazar thinks that women who get raped wanted to be attacked. After all they would have urinated on the attacker or vomited on their favorite shoes if they were not in the mood to be raped. I suppose that those who urinated on an attacker and were still raped will have a body induced miscarriage too? Do they really elect the idiot? If so....how drunk were his fan club members?
None of those tactics seem to
None of those tactics seem to be keeping the state legislature from raping the good citizens of Colorado. It's about time the citizens asserted their rights and removed these parasitic legislators through recall.
Oh, and for the proverbial
Oh, and for the proverbial stupid argument: "They would take her gun from her and use it on her."
It often happens the other way around!
And for the record, have you ever tried to take a gun from someone? You would sooner catch a rattlesnake's tongue, in the dark, with chopsticks. Go ahead and try it. Keep in mind that in most places, such an act constitutes a forcible felony, and the person who's gun you're trying to take has the right to kill you if you try...
If you think you're so great with that argument, like so many others proffered by anti-gun liars, why not test your theory? If you think it's so easy, try it and see what happens! Self-solving problem; you'll be dead so we won't have to listen to your BS anymore.
"It often happens the other
"It often happens the other way around" I very much doubt you can factually back this up, just like you fail to back up ANYTHING you have ever said about law enforcement or the government.
Well....Lethality there is a
Well....Lethality there is a very simple method to test it. The next cop you see run up to him/her and take their gun. If it works you can report back to us. If it fails....you prove him wrong and also prove that Darwin made a good point.
It doesn't matter whether he
It doesn't matter whether he or she can back it up. There isn't an important, relevant, possible truth that he or she is asserting, that needs that back-up. The better the chances of an unarmed potential rape victims, confiscating the gun of an armed would-be rapist during a struggle, the WEAKER the case for arming anybody who could one day be raped. The WEAKER. Not the STRONGER. That's why I ignored the comment, until you bothered to reply.
Aaaaso. I'm surprised that I
Aaaaso. I'm surprised that I overlooked that, thank you for pointing it out.
camosoul77 - Feb 21 2013 -
camosoul77 - Feb 21 2013 - 11:11am "Oh, and for the proverbial stupid argument: "They would take her gun from her and use it on her....""
Building straw men? I didn't see that in the article or any response.
Hey, martial arts teaches to
Hey, martial arts teaches to use weapons of convenience. So, if attacked from behind, defecating on the man might work, too!! In fact, that might help police identify him, later!!!
Yes, weapons of convenience!
Yes, weapons of convenience! If you're carry a gun, it's very convenient! Duh! Like all those people you read about or see on the news who say "There as nothing I could do!" Well duh! You made it that way by failing to prepare! If you prepare instead, then you've got this convenient gun you've been carrying! Gosh! What a concept! MAKE it convenient and it'll be there when you need it! Fail to make it convenient, and you'll have to tell the reporter, the cops, and your shrink that "there was nothing you could do." Why not make a a much more useful tool much more convenient by carrying it with you?
A major part of why such events are traumatic, is because your mind knows damn well there is ALWAYS something you can do, and you failed to do it. Guilt. Failed to prepare. Its not always rape. Seeing another person harmed while you stand idly by allowing it to happen because you failed to prepare, it never leaves your conscience alone. This is where the guilt comes from, and liberal shrinks would rather keep you paying their huge bills forever than tell you the truth that can set you free.
Yeah, and sick people are
Yeah, and sick people are into that kinda of stuff... It always makes sense t let someone rape you in a way that might, maybe get them identified later... Who would ever want to prevent rape? Nah, let it happen then identify him later, that's a great idea... I'm sure women would love to get raped as long as the person can be identified later, because DNA evidence is a lousy way to identify people....
Salazar's point (however
Salazar's point (however indelicately phrased), and the point I think many here are missing is that women (and men) may be more likely to shoot someone they feel is threatening them before they do anything. Some of the commenters below sound like they would shoot someone for looking at them sideways on a dark night.
I understand you're just
I understand you're just restating the article, so please don't think I'm arguing or criticizing you personally, or putting words in your mouth.
I can't help but feel though, as if he's saying "These silly college women, they don't have the intelligence or whereabouts to correctly judge a situation and take the proper actions." The only advice they have given us to avoid getting raped is to avoid situations and people. AND NOW this guys like "Why are all these women so jumpy, I don't get it ?!?!?!"
I understand the concern, and I'm not sure women, or anyone except campus police should have guns... but I feel like the situation comes down to this: Would we rather have an innocent women get raped and maybe killed, or risk an innocent man getting injured? And I can't help but think there's a little bit of sexism going on here, implying the man is more important. How many gun related injuries happen a day? An average of 33? Correct me if I'm wrong. One pimp can sell one women to get raped 33 times in one day.
If the campus is concerned with women not identifying, and hitting targets accurately, there are things they could do. I really think they could make the program work with dedication. Police officers could train the women, and test them every semester. At the very least, I don't see why police officers can't train them in self defense, less than lethal force, and educate them.
It usually comes down to a man's word over a women's since there are rarely witnesses. Even WITH strong physical evidence, (and I mean STRONG), rapist are rarely arrested. How does the court know she doesn't "like it rough"? I know a lot of people argue rape culture doesn't exist, but that's kinda like denying global warming. You can think whatever you want, the problem isn't getting any better. We wouldn't want a handful of innocent men getting tazered, we wouldn't THEM to experience any pain... no, not like the pain all those raped women have felt...
theponytoes - Feb 22 2013 -
theponytoes - Feb 22 2013 - 5:07pm "We wouldn't want a handful of innocent men getting tazered, we wouldn't THEM to experience any pain... no, not like the pain all those raped women have felt..."
It SOUNDS like you are advocating tazering men who have done nothing because (other) men raped some women and all men should suffer. Why not tazer the rapists instead?
theponytoes - Feb 22 2013 -
theponytoes - Feb 22 2013 - 5:07pm "..."I can't help but feel though, as if he's saying "These silly college women, they don't have the intelligence or whereabouts to correctly judge a situation and take the proper actions."...Would we rather have an innocent women get raped and maybe killed, or risk an innocent man getting injured? ...Police officers could train the women..."
The whole thing does sound sexist, and his words do sound condescending (even though he may not have meant them to sound that way) but the issue is women carrying guns to prevent rape, not anyone carrying guns to prevent rape or any other violent crime.
I don't believe the question is between "an innocent women get raped and maybe killed, or risk an innocent man getting injured" (OR KILLED) for no reason, which is probably sexist, but that is the way this debate started. Women on campus carrying guns to prevent rape.
"And I can't help but think there's a little bit of sexism going on here, implying the man is more important."
It does seem that way, but the "more important" men we are talking about have done nothing yet, hence "innocent man getting injured". To me, the way you ask the question SEEMS to make the women more important, since or is OK for the "innocent man" to get shot ("injured") as long as the woman is not raped (which was probably not his intention).
Police could train men and women. Not all men can defend themselves as well as we would like to believe.
Why? How? Unless you're
Why? How? Unless you're demented or a criminal yourself, why would you shoot someone for no reason? why would you even think about it? I carry a gun everywhere, every day, this is absolutely absurd. I've even NOT shot people I did have a justified reason to shoot... Killing someone is something a civilized person doesn't want on their conscience, even if it is justified. Only a sick or evil person would have the problem you're describing.
You assume that everyone
You assume that everyone would be as cool and level headed as you believe you would be in a tense, scary situation. I would not shoot someone for no reason nor would I even think about it. Neither would many other people. But someone who's flight or flight response has been activated, and was not prepared for the psychological and physiological changes it causes might perceive someone to be a threat when they were not. That is how people who are not threats get shot for no reason.
@ gregandrene "I would not
@ gregandrene
"I would not shoot someone for no reason"
The topic isn't men shooting other men for no reason. It's (partly) women shooting men, for real reasons, that aren't *good enough* reasons for them to shoot them.
I cannot think of what it is that I have to do, or refrain from doing, to stay safe on the streets, from an armed woman who has made the transition from a general awareness that sometimes men rape women, to somehow being convinced that I am about to rape her, unless she kills me first.
John Allman - Feb 22 2013 -
John Allman - Feb 22 2013 - 7:30pm
"@ gregandrene "I would not shoot someone for no reason" The topic isn't men shooting other men for no reason. "
That's right, I was replying to cmausoul77's question to me in response to a comment of mine. ***** camosoul77 - Feb 21 2013 - 10:38am
Why? How? Unless you're demented or a criminal yourself, why would you shoot someone for no reason? *****
I express a general
I express a general disappointment in how low women have sunk in the last few decades, but I think something far more unpleasant motivates your words.
I';ll not strip a person of their safety just because of their genitals. If you don't know how to pick up chicks without making them fear for their safety, maybe your approach is wrong?
Don't worry. Women are pretty
Don't worry. Women are pretty disappointed in how low men have sunk in the last few millenniums. So, you know, we're all unhappy.
@ camosoul77 So, what is it
@ camosoul77
So, what is it that I have to do then, or refrain from doing, to stay safe on the streets, from an armed woman who has made the transition from a general awareness that sometimes men rape women, to somehow being convinced that I am about to rape her, unless she kills me first?
I have three adult daughters, and one adult son. I have to confess, I have never given any of them any advice, on avoiding rape, or avoiding being shot at by a jumpy, trigger-happy women who is more scared of being raped than of a earning herself a manslaughter conviction. I figured that the first skill they'd need, was the ability to read stranger's minds, and I didn't know how to do that myself.
I didn't understand you reference to stripping a person of their safety just because of their genitals.
Honestly, I'm just lost in
Honestly, I'm just lost in your logic, or aparent lack of it. A person who is that fearful is afraid of guns. And probably preaching against anyone having them due to the projection issue. She won't have one. It's like asking me where you can buy a car with a 4-cylinder electric engine. It's oxymoronic and doesn't exist. If you want to live in fear of the chupacabra, I guess you can. But, I really can't have a conversation with you about it becasue it's irrational and imaginary.
Fearful people shouldn't, and generally don't, have guns. They're too afraid of the gun to buy it or even touch it. I'm not worried that the Easter Bunny is going to rape me, becasue there is no Easter Bunny. I'm not trying to mock you, it's just that your supposition is absurd and I don't know what else to compare it to, but something equally absurd...
If anything, the fact that crazy people will always have access guns, whether they avail themselves of it or not, is just the reason why sane people should have their own.
Giving a polticial faction power over defining what is sane and what isn't, is a guaranteed failure.
"A person that fearful is
"A person that fearful is afraid of guns." Ah, I see we have ourselves a pre-degree psychiatrist here. Hmm, it's very ironic that you say this and yet you carry a gun despite being completely and IRRATIONALLY fearful off law enforcement. That's like saying that someone who is terrified and fearful of being robbed wont carry a gun. You seem to be under the impression that anyone who is paraniod, is also a coward and gun-hater...unless it is yourself.
It's really not that tense
It's really not that tense and scary, and doesn't ever happen the way you are imagining it. I've had several "gangstas" try to rob and intimidate me. But you're right to a certain degree. It's happened to me enough that it doesn't bother me so much. But, it also never bothered me that much the first time. Those guys are all bluster and ego. They deflate real fast when you stick some reality in their face. The one that dropped his gun didn't have any ammo... Most just figure whitey is scared of them, and I'm not. It's your choice to be afraid and be a victim. It's a choice I don't make. Not complicated.
camosoul77 - Feb 22 2013 -
camosoul77 - Feb 22 2013 - 9:45am "It's your choice to be afraid and be a victim. It's a choice I don't make. Not complicated."
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that.
Actually, yes, it is. It's
Actually, yes, it is. It's those who live in fear who make supposedly complicated excuses for not fighting their fear. I fear absolutely nothing. It's a choice. Fear is useless, I don't need it. I prefer understanding, knowledge, accomplishment, and sharing it with those who ask for it.
@ gregandrene "... women (and
@ gregandrene
"... women (and men) may be more likely to shoot someone they feel is threatening them before they do anything ... Some of the commenters below sound like they would shoot someone for looking at them sideways on a dark night."
I read those comments too. I concluded another posting here by saying,
"Some of the angry talk that comes out when rape is mentioned, ... is downright evil."
If a poor man was looking for
If a poor man was looking for a wealthy victim to rob and take his anger out on, do you think it would bother him if his victim wet his pants or threw up? It would more than likely fuel his rage to know how much power he's exerting over his victim. Rape isn't about sexual gratification. Rapist aren't looking for some romantic encounter. Men rape women for the same reason men rape men, to exerting their power & degrading their victim (10% of reported rapes in 2012 where against straight & gay men). Even if a rapist believed his victim might have an STD, he would just be more likely to mutilate or kill his victim in his rage.
If men care about protecting their Mothers, wives & daughters from rapists, they will begin by recognizing that rapist hate women. That friends or co-workers you know who constantly seem angry at the women all around him is probably the most dangerous person you could ever introduce to your family. Laughing with, agreeing and encouraging men to blame their problems in life on the women of the world is the same as promoting violence against women. Most men would never think of putting their own loved ones in danger, but by not confronting misogyny they do exactly that. Most men today teach their sons to respect their female friends as much as their male friends, and they teach their daughters self-awareness & self-respect, but they need to let their own friends know that they do not tolerate violent thoughts or acts against ANYONE.
::Slow clap:: Gem, you're a
::Slow clap::
Gem, you're a gem. I wish we were friends IRL.
What does this have to do
What does this have to do with poor men robbing wealthy victims? The tactics mentioned to possibly thwart rape are (or were) taught in women's self defense classes. Are they not effective at all?
"...It would more than likely fuel his rage to know how much power he's exerting over his victim.....Even if a rapist believed his victim might have an STD, he would just be more likely to mutilate or kill his victim in his rage."
Your opinion or statistics?
Widely documented reality.
Widely documented reality. Not knowing it is the weird thing. That's why Rape is a Forcible Felony and law permits deadly force in defending from it. I don't have any statistic on how breathing air keeps one from suffocating, either. But...
@ camosoul77 ********
@ camosoul77
********
gregandrene - Feb 21 2013 - 1:49pm ""...It would more than likely fuel his rage to know how much power he's exerting over his victim.....Even if a rapist believed his victim might have an STD, he would just be more likely to mutilate or kill his victim in his rage."
Your opinion or statistics?"
*******
camosoul77 - Feb 22 2013 - 9:47am "Widely documented reality. Not knowing it is the weird thing. That's why Rape is a Forcible Felony and law permits deadly force in defending from it. I don't have any statistic on how breathing air keeps one from suffocating, either. But..."
Widely documented where, on TV? I don't pretend to know what is going on in the mind of a rapist, as you seem to. Rape is a "forcible felony" because it is a crime of violence, not because "he would just be more likely to mutilate or kill his victim in his rage".
Actually, there are plenty of statistics "on how breathing air keeps one from suffocating". And not on TV, either.
suf·fo·cate (sf-kt) v. suf·fo·cat·ed, suf·fo·cat·ing, suf·fo·cates v.tr. 1. To kill or destroy by preventing access of air or oxygen. 2. To impair the respiration of; asphyxiate.
Or you could just pay attention in biology class.
"Or you could just pay
"Or you could just pay attention..."
My point exactly.
Wow. So offensive. Because
Wow. So offensive. Because women never get raped on their periods or while their drunk and vomiting. Peeing on him won't just anger him to hurt the women further, and it will be so comforting for her when she says "I have HIV!" And he says "me too" and continues...
And a man can't takes whistle away and throw it out of reach, and those blue boxes are set up ever 20 feet from each other. And no women has ever been raped in a safe zone like a church, school, or police office...
I'm not sure women should be allowed to carry guns (on campus) per say, but don't tell me I won't know who's innocent and not. When a man is grabbing me and saying violent sexiest things, I'll know he's guilty.
Rape is about domination, not
Rape is about domination, not pretty girls. If it gets a little messy, it only ups the ante and they want it more to prove they can handle it. It's sick. that's why the rationale of logical people doesn't help... you're combating something that doesn't make sense. Reason and facts won't help you. It's just like the larger gun control debate. Advocates of gun control or not sane or rational people. They advocate the idea that helplessness will create safety, and that has never, ever been true. Not even once.
camosoul77 - Feb 21 2013 -
camosoul77 - Feb 21 2013 - 11:22am "Rape is about domination, not pretty girls."
Very true.
"If it gets a little messy, it only ups the ante and they want it more to prove they can handle it."
Opinion or verifiable fact? That's like saying that if a woman dresses "slutty" she is "asking for it". Just as preposterous.
Again, widely documented
Again, widely documented fact. True in all circumstances, which is why rape is a forcible Felony and can be resisted with deadly force. I have no statistics on how breathing air keeps you from suffocating. It's such a widely validated concept that asking for proof is kinda silly... Takes very little effort to find out for yourself.
Pretty loose with the "widely
Pretty loose with the "widely verifiable facts" without providing any verifiable source. Sounds more like opinion, to me. Already covered the "forcible felony". And you already used the "air keeps you from suffocating" example.
Exactly! Some guys probably
Exactly! Some guys probably won't care at all and continue and they wouldn't be stupid enough to rape someone in a safe zone. Onlt the woman in the situation can determine whether or not she has to kill him, which he should be if he trying to rape her.
Allowed? I openly advocate
Allowed? I openly advocate carrying a gun anywhere you see fit. Screw the law. The law is trying to get you robbed, raped, and murdered. I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Even if I am prosecuted for it after protecting my life, at least I have my life! the law is designed to create a victim out of you and then use that as an excuse to make more laws and then more victims, until all of our rights are gone. Isn't it ironic that the same political party that wants you to kill your unborn babies has no concern at all for you being violated?
@camosoul77 Do you have a
@camosoul77
Do you have a concealed carry permit?
~ Cyn, the Cynfully Cynical
This isn't an either-or
This isn't an either-or issue. There are situations in which using a firearm is a sensible option. There are different situations in which other tactics would be far more sensible. Hammers and wrenches do different jobs. Firearms and psyops both have their uses.
I would not want a daughter of mine to be raped. Nor would I want a son of mine shot dead by a nervous woman who wrongly suspected him of intending to rape her. Or a daughter of mine plagued by an uneasy conscience, because she had begun to wonder if she hadn't overreacted, in killing another human being. Or a son murdered, and then accused of attempted rape posthumously, as a defence for his killer.
Some of the angry talk that comes out when rape is mentioned, or when comments made about the pros and cons of deploying, or even possessing, firearms, or in other contexts ... some of the angry talk here is downright evil.
"A nervous woman who wrongly
"A nervous woman who wrongly suspected him of intending to rape her." Suspecting a person might intend to rape her? this hypothetical woman has serious mental problems. Wouldn't the psychological checks proposed by the same political party be what you're looking for? It's impossible to predict what a person is thinking. This messed up hypothetical woman would show signs of being a lousy date way before she pulls out a gun for no reason. People probably whisper about her when she isn't looking... I do acknowledge that lots of women seem to be obsessed with the idea that all men want to rape them, or at least have sex with them, and these chicks are pretty obviously screwed up in the head. If your hypothetical son even has a conversation with this kind of woman, then he is a dumbass and you failed as a parent. the argument doesn't make sense... I recognize your point, but there are so many red flags that would go flying before it got that far. Nervous, twitchy, self-absorbed, accusing, etc... People like this are liberals anyway, and would never own a gun. They would prefer to get raped and continue their man-hating rants now armed with a real excuse... There are just so many reason it would never come to that.
@ camosoul77 It sounds as
@ camosoul77
It sounds as though you would like life to be simple. So simple, in fact, that no detective work at all would be needed, whenever a 911 call began, "I am a woman, who just shot a man who wanted to rape me. I think he's dead."
Looking around for somebody to blame, for making life less simple than that, you find a suitable scapegoat in a made-up demographic, of those with "serious mental problems", whom you imagine it might be just to deprive of the right of self-defence against rapists, and possible, by detecting these people in advance, using "psychological checks".
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, the argument begins. Therefore, what we need, in order to cut the death toll from shootings, isn't *gun* control. It's *people* control we need - i.e. using "psychological checks", to make life more simple, by depriving people with "serious mental problems" of their right to bear arms for self-defence reasons, thus eliminating the need for any detective work when a 911 caller says she's just sot dead a would-be rapist.
To want the government to avoid gun control, and to increase people control instead, is something of a double-edged sword though.
I would probably fail a "psychological check" designed to detect "serious mental problems". But my right to defend myself is no less than anybody else's, and my likelihood of needing to higher.
You, who think that my son's having a conversation with a woman who was "obviously screwed up in the head", would mean that he was a dumbass who deserved to be shot, and that I was a failed parent, seem confident of passing such a psychological test yourself. So, whatever the tests do, they don't seem to be filtering out people with so much anger that it makes them callous, vengeful and irrational. Yet I find your writing more frightening than any behaviour I have witnessed in a mental hospital.
Your example could be used by
Your example could be used by anyone, any time. But look how it went when that Hispanic guy shot that black kid that attacked him...
I'm sure I'd fail a psych test, too.
Your point is taken. Women are a vicious bunch and that can be seen in how they treat most men in other aspects already. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that they would kill for fun and use an excuse later. But, could I, or you, do the same thing? "He tried to kidnap me!"
My point is, thee things don't just go away. You'll have to prove your innocence. If someone really did try to kidnap you, or rape you, there's going to be some evidence. You're guilty until proven innocent. It's not a position anyone wants to be in unless they absolutely have to in order to stay alive.
Even the most malicious people think twice when presented with that reality.
If a woman prefers to be raped instead of carry the tool to prevent it, that's her choice. Most of this is a self solving problem... The Liberal Worldview, being a collection of mental defects, generally attracts these people and they subscribe to the notion that being raped is better than killing a rapist. They don't have guns anyway because it clashes with their political agenda. they project their mentally defunct self-image upon others, which is why they call out for gun control, and to have government kill everyone who disagrees with them. A woman who carries a gun has had to undergo a pretty serious and multi-level mental transformation from that. She's been forced to learn and mature, and it isn't an overnight process.
Your point is taken tho. An overwhelming majority of women already have babies with men they don't care about just to get the money. don't care about the kids, either. their power-tripping, and support from government in doing it, has reached a point that the only thing left for them to get off on is murdering innocent people and getting away with it. this present that opportunity, but it does come with a risk to themselves, which they have never faced in any other aspect of their lives. Being cowards who, up to this point, have used deception and false relationships to do the harm they do, I doubt the reality of what you're suggesting. Their selfishness and cowardice are what drive them to act the way they do, they wouldn't put their own lives on the line just for the thrill. They wouldn't take a chance on anything, ever. All they want is the guaranteed free ride for being born with a vagina.
@Camosoul You said, "Women
@Camosoul
You said, "Women are a vicious bunch and that can be seen in how they treat most men in other aspects already. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that they would kill for fun and use an excuse later."
You went on to say, "An overwhelming majority of women already have babies with men they don't care about just to get the money. don't care about the kids, either. their power-tripping, and support from government in doing it, has reached a point that the only thing left for them to get off on is murdering innocent people and getting away with it."
After reading your comments about cops, killing rapists, anyone who disagrees with you, women, etc, I was almost convinced I would never agree with you on anything.
Then you said, "I'm sure I'd fail a psych test, too."
Ya think?
Priceless, Savannah. Simply
Priceless, Savannah. Simply priceless.
~ Cyn, the Cynfully Cynical
You seem to assume that the
You seem to assume that the man and woman in question are in some sort of relationship. That they have had a chance to get to know each other. I have been under the impression that the conversation has been about women, say walking alone on campus (or anywhere else), feeling threatened by a man who has yet to say or do anything threatening. The woman just feels threatened.
Greg, please do not use logic
Greg, please do not use logic with camosoul. It will only confuse him.
~ Cyn, the Cynfully Cynical