If a victim of sexual assault is not believed by anyone, not even their closest of acquaintances, that does not speak well for the quality of company that is actually kept. Why anyone would choose to associate with individuals who will not believe them in a time of need, or who would maintain that association after learning of such details, is not understood. Are they truly? Or are they simply becoming more creative in the way they go about committing the victimization of others? The victim card has been played by many, it is not anything new. Drug addicts, pedophiles, career criminals, those who sought expensive college degrees in basket weaving and art history - the list of individuals who claim they are victims is quite extensive, all in an effort to blame someone or something else so that they simply do not have to accept personal responsibility for their own decisions and actions. Such is not being denied, as psychology is not a hard and fast science. If it were then psychologists would be able to readily and accurately identify individuals who went on to commit suicide beforehand. It is for this reason the notion of spontaneous suicides was created, to explain why supposedly trained experts failed to do their job. More related to the discussion actually at hand, when it was mentioned victims of sexual assault being unable to speak up because they would not be believed, which was mentioned in relation to the question of why said victims cannot even tell their own friends about what they experienced. Is it a matter of distrust amongst various individuals, despite how well established their association may be? Or can it more accurately be attributed to a matter of the psyche simply being unable to process the matter of something so horrible hitting so close to their own area of comfort that they choose to deny the claim, because they are unable to cope with the fact one of their supposed friends was hurt, meaning it could just as easily be them that was hurt? Such is not done. However judgement is withheld until all relevant details are possessed in order to form an accurate assessment of the matter for determining guilt or innocence. If one is claiming victimhood simply to benefit themselves when there was no true victimization, regardless of their gender, then said individual deserves neither sympathy nor mercy.
Political. Obviously. Ah, the melodies of the high school girl's taunting shaming tactics echo in the wind! This is quite the accusation and I would prefer it if you could stop calling me a rape-apologist and instead present actual arguments to refute my points. Yes, government has too much power and write useless laws - On this we agree. I never said that women lie about sexual assault, stop distorting my positions and instead address my actual arguments! Where did I claim this? Please, knock it off already! No. Ooooooooooooooh, please! Why can't it not be a woman in this example? #Feministtalkingpoints101#wordsalad#copypaste It has been considered not OK for neatly 1000 years, so no idea what you are talking about. What?
In general Liberals such as yourself use political correctness as de facto censorship to silence any and all debate that does not fit the liberal narrative, regardless of its truthfulness.
So you're suggesting taking the blue pill and drinking the cool aid and ignoring all the converging lines of evidence from disciplines as disparate as molecular biology to economics so as not to be single???
Take Molecular Biology- Geneticists have found that the diversity of the DNA in the mitochondria of different people (which men and women inherit from their mothers) is far greater than the diversity of the DNA in Y chromosomes (which men inherit from their fathers). This suggests that for tens of millennia men had greater variation in their reproductive success than women. Some men had many descendants others had none (leaving us with a small number of distinct Y-chromosomes), whereas a larger number of women had more evenly distributed number of descendants. (Leaving us with a larger number of distinct mitochondrial genomes). For example, one study examined the Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA of 450 Volunteers from 7 world regions and determined that 8,000 years ago 17 women reproduced for every one man. [22] The researchers in this study believe the reason only 1 man reproduced for every 17 women 8,000 years ago is that only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power. In other words, men with status reproduced, while men without status did not reproduce. [22] Francie Diep *March 17, 2015) 8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-man-6d41445ae73d#.vl6nbgfr9 Accessed 02/19/2017
Not in your realms of reality, to what? To stop asexual offender to carry on abusing other victims? By not reporting it you are supporting it. It's as good as allowing the next person to be assaulted. You are not a supporter of women's rights, not by a long shot!
Having a women's rights section is really a chance for folks like me to set these chicks straight. They need to be corrected from time to time.
