Sagamite:


Lol!

Can you show me the link? I have my suspicion of who it is and I think it would shock you if I am right.

I goofed.

spikedcylinder:
Now una dey argue on who get sense pass?
Remove Sagamite from that list abeg. The only places he has mouth are gay bashing thread because he is currently hiding in the bloody closet.

www.nairaland.com/523183/which-following-nairalanders-sharpest-minds

Hahaha. My mistake. The line in blue font was all my brain registered. I didn't take note of the ending where he jokingly accused you of being a "closet gay", automatically implying that you DEFEND them on the gay bashing threads (the complete opposite of my conclusion).

That's some serious goof right there.

Well, it happens.

Tozara:


I goofed.



www.nairaland.com/523183/which-following-nairalanders-sharpest-minds

Hahaha. My mistake. The line in blue font was all my brain registered. I didn't take note of the ending where he jokingly accused you of being a "closet gay", automatically implying that you DEFEND them on the gay bashing threads (the complete opposite of my conclusion).

That's some serious goof, right there.

Well, it happens.

Lol. It is actually a "she". We were always kidding around.

Okay, now I will go back and answer your questions.

Sagamite:




Lol. It is actually a "she". We were always kidding around.

Oh, Ok. A "she". Sorry for making such an heavy accussation on such a......... no, on no basis.

Who could have known the center (foundation) of the discussion (mansion) I was building is hollow.

Tozara:
Hi, the blazing Sagamite from Sagamu. Salutations!

I love your EGO. Your remarkable estimation of yourself that knows no bound! Reminds me of Nietzsche and his idea of the Übermensch! You have an unbelievable high thymos, no doubt!

I'd love to ask you a question, I hope you don't mind.

You've been a radical and vociferous advocate of rationality, reason, logic and objectivity. But I found out a while ago, through one of the links you gave on this thread, that you HATE gays.

I know we all have different characters, hence different likes and dislikes. Homosexuality is disgusting to me as well [I can't fathom it---it's just errr.... I don't know], but I believe in GAY RIGHTS. I mean, we do not have the right to criminalize something using our own emotions and preferences as a basis.

So, if I may ask, do you also support gay rights? If NOT, can you LOGICALLY and OBJECTIVELY demonstrate why it should be criminalized?

Yes, we are aligned in some things.

I don't hate homosexuals but homosexual acts disgust me and is not something I want to see.

In terms of "gay rights"? What do you term as gay rights?

There are aspects I agree with but majority I don't.

We have a right to criminalise things based on our emotions. That is why we criminalise unclothedness in public and incest, some other countries criminalise polygamy and even prostitution.

Furthermore, I believe it is an abnormality and deviance that needs a cure, not acceptance.

I don't give a damn what homosexuals do in their bedroom but if they keep it in there bedroom they would not have a problem with me. I support the criminalisation because:

1) I don't want it integrated into my life and society.

2) If it is done in the bedroom, no one can arrest and successfully prosecute the person in most cases.

3) I have seen how the homosexual movement has turned out in the UK as intimidators and oppressors.

Let me make it clear to you, there is a homosexual agenda ongoing. I was saying it fcking years ago, people are just waking up to it.

https://www.nairaland.com/818597/7-same-sex-nigerians-demonstrate-nigerian/8#9717780

They talk about "homosexuality tolerance". Fck that, mate. That is not what it is about, they are just hiding behind that tag.

It is about "homosexuality acceptance", even in the UK now, they are forcing people to be "homosexuality advocates".

I have been good, In fact very good...ask EfemenaXY.
And you ?

Sagamite:


Took wetin?

All stashed away in Panama & Mauritius. They aint getting shiiit!

Have been good, how are ya?

This is a very tricky one. But the simple facts remain that it is a complex world with complex people with complex needs.
However, if one would look at things from the farthest edge from complexity which is the base on which I have decided to build my own standpoint, you would agree that the issue of "harassment, consent, rape" and other nonsense like it is not a problem of the man that is sane, guarded in his speech, decisions and eventual actions. Non the less, not too many people have been afforded the privilege to be so guarded as abnormal realities abound where; when folks's hormones weep like a saxophone, they don't have a voluntary control over them (rape); folks are raised as one hell of a cokcy bastard they can't but yell obscenities at the sight of an endowed behind (harassment); folks have been so unprivileged to believe all human beings with the blossoming mammaries are hoes hence no need for consent...I am not surprised these abnormal realities made this bread and butter situation run into the encyclopedic level it is now - it is that complex. Anyway, if you're reading this and you feel you fall into any of these categories, you are not normal, and you should download John Grey's "5 love languages". It is one hell of a good starter pack on how to go normal, human and sane. To help revolutionise your baffoonery ideals on women and maybe add a little spice to your view on love and how to effortlessly show it and get it back.

Before Im being judged of being lopsided, I admonish the women also to try not to send too discreet signals, I know most fear the possible crucifixion of being tagged a bicth, but it will always hold that not many men are smart enough to decipher what you truly want.

Mynd44, I have been looking for topics like this.

Sagamite:


Yes, we are aligned in some things.

I don't hate homosexuals but homosexual acts disgust me and is not something I want to see.

In terms of "gay rights"? What do you term as gay rights?

There are aspects I agree with but majority I don't.

We have a right to criminalise things based on our emotions. That is why we criminalise unclothedness in public and incest, some other countries criminalise polygamy and even prostitution.

No, we don't! We criminalize things only based on their consequences for the society---whether the very act of indulging in them causes HARM to others, or interferes with the peace, tranquility, order, and progress of the state.

Furthermore, I believe it is an abnormality and deviance that needs a cure, not acceptance.

An abnormality? By what criterion/criteria do you make that judgement? A deviance? A deviance from what? Nature? I must tell you that humanity isn't accountable to nature, and isn't defined by her. CELIBACY, unlike homosexuality is an ACTUAL deviation from nature. But I don't see anyone demanding that it be criminalized.

I don't give a damn what homosexuals do in their bedroom but if they keep it in there bedroom they would not have a problem with me. I support the criminalisation because:

1) I don't want it integrated into my life and society.

In what way?

2) If it is done in the bedroom, no one can arrest and successfully prosecute the person in most cases.

Are heteresexuals arrested for kissing in public? Some men find indecently dressed women irritating and disgusting. I suppose the state should make such dressing illegal because some people don't like it, and seeing it in public MAKES THEIR BLOOD BOIL. Nice suggestion, right?

3) I have seen how the homosexual movement has turned out in the UK as intimidators and oppressors.

Well, those who try to impose their way of life on others are beasts and should be dealt with. It's the duty of the state to deal with EXTREMISTS of all kind.

Let me make it clear to you, there is a homosexual agenda ongoing. I was saying it fcking years ago, people are just waking up to it.

https://www.nairaland.com/818597/7-same-sex-nigerians-demonstrate-nigerian/8#9717780

They talk about "homosexuality tolerance". Fck that, mate. That is not what it is about, they are just hiding behind that tag.

It is about "homosexuality acceptance", even in the UK now, they are forcing people to be "homosexuality advocates".

Well, that is wrong. No one is allowed to demand for SPECIAL rights, and no one has the right to IMPOSE their preferences on others.

When the oppressed and persecuted fight against oppression and persecution, they must see to it that they do not become oppressors themselves.

FAIRNESS is the objective, not TERRORISM and DOMINANCE. Anything other than this must be fought and resisted.

armyofone:
I have been good, In fact very good...ask EfemenaXY.
And you ?

Am good, darling.

Sagamite:


Yes, we are aligned in some things.

I don't hate homosexuals but homosexual acts disgust me and is not something I want to see.

In terms of "gay rights"? What do you term as gay rights?

There are aspects I agree with but majority I don't.

We have a right to criminalise things based on our emotions. That is why we criminalise unclothedness in public and incest, some other countries criminalise polygamy and even prostitution.

Furthermore, I believe it is an abnormality and deviance that needs a cure, not acceptance.

I don't give a damn what homosexuals do in their bedroom but if they keep it in there bedroom they would not have a problem with me. I support the criminalisation because:

1) I don't want it integrated into my life and society.

2) If it is done in the bedroom, no one can arrest and successfully prosecute the person in most cases.

3) I have seen how the homosexual movement has turned out in the UK as intimidators and oppressors.

Let me make it clear to you, there is a homosexual agenda ongoing. I was saying it fcking years ago, people are just waking up to it.

https://www.nairaland.com/818597/7-same-sex-nigerians-demonstrate-nigerian/8#9717780

They talk about "homosexuality tolerance". Fck that, mate. That is not what it is about, they are just hiding behind that tag.

It is about "homosexuality acceptance", even in the UK now, they are forcing people to be "homosexuality advocates".

Holy macro. Sagadi baba. Much respect. havent seen you around. Hope u are well...

Tozara:
No, we don't! We criminalize things only based on their consequences for the society---whether the very act of indulging in them causes HARM to others, or interferes with the peace, tranquility, order, and progress of the state.

Okay. Lets test your argument.

Explain to me how the following harm you or interferes with your peace, tranquility, order, or the progress of the state.

1) A man leaves his how with his suitcase to go to work in his finest birthday suit daggling between his legs.

2) A man decides to go out and pay a woman for sex.

3) A man decides he is not satisfied with 1 woman and decides he wants to marry?

4) A man decides, "You know what? My sister is hot! Am gonna bang her and marry her".

5) A man is walking with his girlfriend on the beach and they are having a fun day out, giggling and so in love, so they decide to take their clothes of and "Get down on it! Get down on it! Feeling good baby"

Tozara:

An abnormality? By what criterion/criteria do you make that judgement? A deviance? A deviance from what? Nature? I must tell you that humanity isn't accountable to nature, and isn't defined by her. CELIBACY, unlike homosexuality is an ACTUAL deviation from nature. But I don't see anyone demanding that it be criminalized.

This is a very weak argument.

You cannot criminalise a non-action; especially when you don't even have a register to know the non-action is occurring and the action also requires the consensual agreement of a second party which is not necessarily available. Very weak argument.

Yes, a deviancy from natures use and intent.

Tozara:

In what way?

Are heteresexuals arrested for kissing in public? Some men find indecently dressed women irritating and disgusting. I suppose the state should make such dressing illegal because some people don't like it, and seeing it in public MAKES THEIR BLOOD BOIL. Nice suggestion, right?

Well, those who try to impose their way of life on others are beasts and should be dealt with. It's the duty of the state to deal with EXTREMISTS of all kind.

Well, that is wrong. No one is allowed to demand for SPECIAL rights, and no one has the right to IMPOSE their preferences on others.

When the oppressed and persecuted fight against oppression and persecution, they must see to it that they do not become oppressors themselves.

FAIRNESS is the objective, not TERRORISM and DOMINANCE. Anything other than this must be fought and resisted.

I shall come to the rest later after you answer those.

moonraker:



Holy macro. Sagadi baba. Much respect. havent seen you around. Hope u are well...

Hey, homie.

Just popped in yesterday, guest-starring on this thread.

Am good. How you dey?

Tozara:
How can anyone even ask this? It's a fact no one can contest. Rape is a major issue ALL OVER THE WORLD, because jungle bastards and baboons who were low-life, savage and primitive creatures in their previous lives keep reincarnating into the human sphere [an idiot who can't control his bestial impulses can't be called a human in the same sense as ME! That would be an insult of breathtaking proportions. That's definitely a creature of an inferior breed]. If you'll find them in prosperous societies of infidels like America, Britain, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway, what miracle on earth would stop them from existing in the "virtuous" Islamic hell holes? Wouldn't that be absurd?

Get with the program, bruh. Rape is a serious issue in Islamic countries as well!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Afghanistan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Pakistan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Egypt

https://womanstats./2013/01/16/the-high-rape-scale-in-saudi-arabia/

So much for decency!!! Are they telling us that masquerades in Burqa and agbada are more titillating than the sultry glamazons of West Africa?

In as much as I didn't want to comment on this thread, you practically forced me.
OH no no, Stop pulling out stats indiscriminately. While I do agree that rape is a problem all over the world, the prevalence greatly differs from one country to another.

Below is a graph of the prevalence rate from the same womanstats website.

While a rapist can never be excused, the fact is that a Muslim woman dressed in Niqab is less likely to be a victim of rape compared to a scantily clad woman in the same situation in Nigeria.
And a woman is more likely to be a victim of rape in Nigeria or USA compared to Saudi Arabia.

And every country has a Wikipedia page on rape.

Are rapists beasts? YES, but to come here and try to say nothing mitigates against rape is ingenuous at best.

Time2Smile:
In as much as I didn't want to comment on this thread, you practically forced me
OH no no, Stop pulling out stats indiscriminately. While I do agree that rape is a problem all over the world, the prevalence greatly differs from one country to another.

Below is a graph of the prevalence rate from the same womanstats website.

While a rapist can never be excused, the fact is that a Muslim woman dressed in Niqab is less likely to be a victim of rape compared to a scantily clad woman in the same situation in Nigeria.
And a woman is more likely to be a victim of rape in Nigeria or USA compared to Saudi Arabia.

And every country has a Wikipedia page on rape.

Are rapists beasts? YES, but to come here and try to say nothing mitigates against rape is ingenuous at best.

Errrr!

Can you explain to me what your point is?

That dressing modestly is why there is less chance of rape in Saudi Arabia?

Sagamite:


Hey, homie.

Just popped in yesterday, guest-starring on this thread.

Am good. How you dey?

I'm good bro. NL is in dire need of your services. You know, the name you call people on here who say rubbish.

"fuccccccccuuuuuktard" that is. lol

Tozara:

How are you?

I'm content! Thanks for asking.

raumdeuter:


I dey o. how's jennykadry
All the babes left me here. Even that amala guzzling ori eja called ifyalways go waka pass and do as if she no sabi me

Hohoho

Ori eja of life I think say u Don abandon me and nld. E ma binu

Oya come let's go and dance one corner

Time2Smile:
In as much as I didn't want to comment on this thread, you practically forced me
OH no no, Stop pulling out stats indiscriminately. While I do agree that rape is a problem all over the world, the prevalence greatly differs from one country to another.

I never said it doesn't.

Below is a graph of the prevalence rate from the same womanstats website.

While a rapist can never be excused, the fact is that a Muslim woman dressed in Niqab is less likely to be a victim of rape compared to a scantily clad woman in the same situation in Nigeria.

Don't be so sure! Especially when we know that rape is far more UNDERREPORTED in the Muslim world than in other parts of the world, due to fear of stigma (which is extremely greater) and the honor killing that usually accompanies some cases. Yet despite that fact, rape is still one of the most common crimes in Egypt.

I'm not here to compare statistics and debate which country has the highest prevalence of rape, since, like I said, it is largely underreported in the Middle East, for obvious reasons, (and in other places too, of course!), but to establish the fact that it is a SERIOUS problem EVERYWHERE.

Even if there's an extremely wide gap in the statistics, you have no proof that it is the Niqab that is responsible, since there would be many factors to be considered.

And a woman is more likely to be a victim of rape in Nigeria or USA compared to Saudi Arabia.

You don't know this.

And every country has a Wikipedia page on rape.

I don't think I was ignorant of this fact.

Are rapists beasts? YES, but to come here and try to say nothing mitigates against rape is ingenuous at best.

I still haven't seen any evidence that suggests that the crime would reduce if women stopped dressing the way they do.

AgentOfAllah:

I'm content! Thanks for asking.

That's a delight! Good morning, have a wonderful day---a beautiful friday.

Sagamite:


Okay. Lets test your argument.

Explain to me how the following harm you or interferes with your peace, tranquility, order, or the progress of the state.

1) A man leaves his how with his suitcase to go to work in his finest birthday suit daggling between his legs.

You mean with his John Thomas exposed?! Of course that would disturb public peace as it would cause unnecessary commotion and draw attention to him. The same way a woman displaying her pussy in the public space wouldn't be acceptable.

2) A man decides to go out and pay a woman for sex.

I have the right to do this if I want to. It's a transaction between two people----it's of no other person's concern, not even the government.

3) A man decides he is not satisfied with 1 woman and decides he wants to marry?

The government also has NO RIGHT to interfere with this.

4) A man decides, "You know what? My sister is hot! Am gonna bang her and marry her".

Incest is disgusting! What kind of a human being gets sexually attracted to his own sibling? I think what's responsible in most cases is that they've been living far apart for most of their childhood. But, as disgusting and strange as it is, no one has a right to make legislation against two consenting adults having sex. But in this case, it can only be permitted as long as it's for gratification, not for procreation. Inbreeding can be HARMFUL to another person - the CHILD - and deliberately orchestrating such wickedness is CRIMINAL.

5) A man is walking with his girlfriend on the beach and they are having a fun day out, giggling and so in love, so they decide to take their clothes of and "Get down on it! Get down on it! Feeling good baby"

Sex in public is unacceptable, for the same reason the man in your first question doesn't have the right to go out with his John Thomas dancing in front of him.

This is a very weak argument.

You cannot criminalise a non-action; especially when you don't even have a register to know the non-action is occurring and the action also requires the consensual agreement of a second party which is not necessarily available. Very weak argument.

I gave that response based on the DEVIANCE FROM NATURE argument. If that's the BASIS for criminalizing it, then everything that deviates from nature should be criminalized as well.

Yes, a deviancy from natures use and intent.

Is that WHY it should be criminalized?

I shall come to the rest later after you answer those.

Ok.

Sagamite:




Where are EfemenaXY, cococandy, bukatyne, NotyourB1tch, Ifyalways, armyofone etc. for me to turn them on.

They would need to move to Iceland by the time I finish with them.

Sagalulu

The one and only omonile for fvctards and cretins, oni Ikoyi of Sagamu and baba debe debe for the girls.

Sagamite:


Errrr!

Can you explain to me what your point is?

That dressing modestly is why there is less chance of rape in Saudi Arabia?

I think this point has been made in different iterations on this thread. In an ideal world, no woman will have to worry about rape. But, will live in a less than ideal world where evil minds on on the prow'. So what do we do? Continue shouting rape is bad, real men don't rape? We know that already.

The point is that there are certain things than can be done to reduce the incidence of rape. There is a role for society in term of education, non-tolerance, appropriate laws and implementation of the laws. And, dare I say, there are certain things women can do to reduce the likelihood of being a victim of rape. It is about not giving the rapist an opportunity to commit the crime. In the same vein, there are cultural norms that reduces the prevalence of rape. There is less incidence of rape in Saudi Arabia due to a combination of these factors.

The truth is criminals are more likely to commit a crime if they believe they are likely to get away with it. I don't subscribe to the notion of a rapist seeing a provocatively dressed woman and then losing his senses and then raping her. A more likely scenario is the provocative dress sexually aroused the rapist, and instead of controlling his desire like most men would, he devise a means to lure and isolate the woman to perpetrate the act.(Note here he finds a way to reduce the likelihood of getting caught, he doesn't just grab her on the street and start raping her there and then.) Another thing is that immodest dressing sends a wrong message to his warped mind that he is probably going to get away with it. The truth is that criminals profile their victims. And the profile of the victim of a rapist is not all women, they prefer to target certain types of women

Now, I am aware that this account for only some subsect of rapes and rapists. There are compulsive rapists which only get sexual gratification from forced sex, chiled molesters and peadophiles. No amount of modest dressing is likely to deter these sets of criminals. But, will modest dressing and common sense precautions reduce the incidence of certain type of rapes and reduce the chance of a woman being a victim of rape. YES it would and it does.

Sometimes the lines are blurred. Some girls enjoy being forced, while some are shy and need a little 'push'. To the guys, if you find yourself in a situation where the lady says no persistently, take a break and talk to her calmly. This would help ascertain if she really doesn't want to go on. To the ladies stop giving obscure responses and mixed signals, this confuses guys. I may be wrong, but if you really don't want to have anything to do with a guy, you probably shouldn't be alone with him in secluded places like your/his room, especially at odd hours.

Time2Smile:
In as much as I didn't want to comment on this thread, you practically forced me

You know what, maybe you shouldn't have commented. Now we know you're willing to defend misogyny, even at the expense of deploying misleading arguments from ignorance.

OH no no, Stop pulling out stats indiscriminately. While I do agree that rape is a problem all over the world, the prevalence greatly differs from one country to another.

Below is a graph of the prevalence rate from the same womanstats website.

You didn't bother to cite the link to the map you shared, so I do not know the original context in which that map features, but I'm 99% certain you've disentangled it from that. Context is everything!

While a rapist can never be excused, the fact is that a Muslim woman dressed in Niqab is less likely to be a victim of rape compared to a scantily clad woman in the same situation in Nigeria.
And a woman is more likely to be a victim of rape in Nigeria or USA compared to Saudi Arabia.

Note that in Saudi, any statistics on the prevalence of rape is definitely is an artefact of the repressive culture, and has got nothing to do with reality.
Where do we start from?
Is it the fact that no law recognises spousal rape as such in Saudi, or that rape victims are punished and shamed,[1] sometimes very harshly to discourage others from reporting?[2]

Please educate yourself, lest you're discredited by your own ignorance!

References:
1. https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/nea/136079.htm

2. https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/11/15/saudi-arabia-rape-victim-punished-speaking-out

Rape apologists and victim blamers are always and will forever be disgusting,

DISGUSTING!!!

Instead of you to put all this effort into stopping rape and making sure that no one rapes anyone one again, so that rape becomes a thing of the past.

You rather put effort into blaming a victim and policing her behaviour or outfit, instead of policing the behaviour of the potential rapist.

The only reason rapist think they will get away with it is because they know that there will always be that someone that will blame their victims.

Talking about rape as if it is a natural disaster that cannot be controlled, and not as if it is made man stupidity and wickedness .


The whole point of that dressing argument is to show that no matter what you wear, you can be raped, it is never the victims fault,
That is the whole point of that argument,

You dare not say that nonsense that there is something a woman can to do reduce getting raped,
The problem is the rapists, stop trying to blame the victims,

You can be old, we've heard of over 70 year olds getting raped, what did they wear?

We've heard of kids, little children, as little as some few months old getting raped, is it really the dressing?

we've heard of where a woman is covered head to toe and she still gets raped.

Why are we so fixated on trying to blame a victim? Why the desperation to blame a victim?

While at the same time maintaining a dismissive attitude towards the actual rapists?


Talking about clothes as if there is armour in the clothes, or the clothes are some kind of armour, do you know they can tell the woman to pull her clothes off herself?

Talking about there is something a woman can do to reduce her chances of getting raped but not saying shīt about what a man can do to reduce him acting on or even feeling the urge to rape and scarr his fellow human being,

Stop that bs.


a woman's dressing will not and never reduce her chances of being raped.

If that is so, Saudi Arabia should not have any record of rape of grown women at all, since the women there are always covered up.
How did their dressing modestly laws work out over there?




STOP RAPE APOLOGY AND VICTIM BLAMING.

ifyalways:

Sagalulu

The one and only omonile for fvctards and cretins, oni Ikoyi of Sagamu and baba debe debe for the girls.

See as babe dey dash me panegyrics!

Kai! O dun mo mi lara. (E dey sweet mi bodi).

Na me. Saga Saga! The one and only! Intelligence personified! The etymology of the word 'Sagacity'! Tosibe father!

moonraker:


I'm good bro. NL is in dire need of your services. You know, the name you call people on here who say rubbish.

"fuccccccccuuuuuktard" that is. lol

The forum needs to be closed down and disinfected. E don pass the level wey I go just dey call people fcktards as the infestation is critical.

closerange:


There is no such thing as consent by coersion not if a gun isn't held to your head......

If your boss wants to sleep with you a with your job at stake, you should sue him for sexual harassment, if you choose to sleep with him however, in order to keep your job, you have lost the right to complain... You gave your consent, you simply preferred your job to your dignity... That part isn't a fault on your boss, its a fault in your character....

I see the complication here
There are are two choices:
Refuse and lose your job
Agree and sleep with the boss.
Nobody is forcing the girl to pick one.

Oyindidi:
Oga at the top don show
Some men don't care if the lady say no, all they want is to satisfy their sexual urge.

The worst case of rape I've heard of is from a housewife. The husband will command her to go lie down and with tears in her eyes he'll do his thing. She told me last week that she felt like killing him that moment.

Ayam not understanding

Time2Smile:

I think this point has been made in different iterations on this thread. In an ideal world, no woman will have to worry about rape. But, will live in a less than ideal world where evil minds on on the prow'. So what do we do? Continue shouting rape is bad, real men don't rape? We know that already.

The point is that there are certain things than can be done to reduce the incidence of rape. There is a role for society in term of education, non-tolerance, appropriate laws and implementation of the laws. And, dare I say, there are certain things women can do to reduce the likelihood of being a victim of rape. It is about not giving the rapist an opportunity to commit the crime. In the same vein, there are cultural norms that reduces the prevalence of rape. There is less incidence of rape in Saudi Arabia due to a combination of these factors.

The truth is criminals are more likely to commit a crime if they believe they are likely to get away with it. I don't subscribe to the notion of a rapist seeing a provocatively dressed woman and then losing his senses and then raping her. A more likely scenario is the provocative dress sexually aroused the rapist, and instead of controlling his desire like most men would, he devise a means to lure and isolate the woman to perpetrate the act.(Note here he finds a way to reduce the likelihood of getting caught, he doesn't just grab her on the street and start raping her there and then.) Another thing is that immodest dressing sends a wrong message to his warped mind that he is probably going to get away with it. The truth is that criminals profile their victims. And the profile of the victim of a rapist is not all women, they prefer to target certain types of women

Now, I am aware that this account for only some subsect of rapes and rapists. There are compulsive rapists which only get sexual gratification from forced sex, chiled molesters and peadophiles. No amount of modest dressing is likely to deter these sets of criminals. But, will modest dressing and common sense precautions reduce the incidence of certain type of rapes and reduce the chance of a woman being a victim of rape. YES it would and it does.

You give very good points there but I challenged you because from your own evidence, how people dress is not necessary an indicator of rape levels.

If you know Latin America well, especially Brasil, the way the women dress there na die. Yet they have less rape on your graph than some Muslim countries like Egypt.

Women should have a right to dress in a way that pleases them.

To reduce rape, you need:

- Clear and highly punitive laws for such an offence.

- Strong policing capabilities (including investigations, cctv and management of victims)

- Strong enforcement (arresting and prosecuting)

- Low inhibitions of consensual sexual activities and behaviours (limiting sexual frustration, let people dress as they like)

- Good economy that provides opportunities for men (men with money have hope of fcking, those without don't. The more men are not economically active, the more they miss out and get sexually frustrated)

- Good supply of ashawos (reliable providers of last but professional resort)

Sagamite:


Hey, homie.

Just popped in yesterday, guest-starring on this thread.

Am good. How you dey?

AgentOfAllah:

You know what, maybe you shouldn't have commented. Now we know you're willing to defend misogyny, even at the expense of deploying misleading arguments from ignorance.


You didn't bother to cite the link to the map you shared, so I do not know the original context in which that map features, but I'm 99% certain you've disentangled it from that. Context is everything!


Note that in Saudi, any statistics on the prevalence of rape is definitely is an artefact of the repressive culture, and has got nothing to do with reality.
Where do we start from?
Is it the fact that no law recognises spousal rape as such in Saudi, or that rape victims are punished and shamed,[1] sometimes very harshly to discourage others from reporting?[2]

Please educate yourself, lest you're discredited by your own ignorance!

References:
1. https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/nea/136079.htm

2. https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/11/15/saudi-arabia-rape-victim-punished-speaking-out

I am not supposed to dignify you with a reply, so this is the last time I will respond to you. Do you have to descend to name calling and ascribing labels because you don't agree with my opinion? That's what is called BIGOTRY.

I am not one of those people you can attack with educate yourself line. I am highly educated and continue to educate myself. Like I said, this is the only response you will get from me. Any of your rants will be subsequently ignored. You have shown you are not cultured enough to hold a civilized conversation. I need to catch some sleep.