Shocking: 38% of girls are sexually abused before the age of 18.

Unless that woman was like....super strong or knew techniques...or is an athelete. (:

But it is scientifically proven that men are stronger than women. Men have testosterone, and it gives them more strength and muscle. Thats why it takes women longer to build up muscle and abs. Trust me, I'm on a swim team. I'd know (:

=/ I know several people both male and female that have been sexually abused, tis not a fun prospect to say the least. ALSO anyone convicted of child molestation, because in essence that is what we are talking about here, there should be stronger punishments.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

You sir, to put it bluntly, are an idiot if you honestly think that all men are body-builders and that all women are weak and frail. You're just as sexist as you're trying to make me out to be. I have no doubt that women are victims of sex attacks more often than men, but I do doubt that there is as much of a difference as many women like to claim there is.

No, you're just a ♥♥♥♥ing coward. I'm not a bodybuilder and I haven't worked out in years. I can honestly say I can put down a girl/woman with one punch to the face. I'm not trying to be sexist, I just say it how it is. Women do not have the physical prowess of men and never will.

You're the idiot for trying to say that men weren't any different in this case. Get your stuff straight then come back.

^ Basically what I just said. (:

Originally Posted by Radek

No, you're just a ♥♥♥♥ing coward. I'm not a bodybuilder and I haven't worked out in years. I can honestly say I can put down a girl/woman with one punch to the face. I'm not trying to be sexist, I just say it how it is. Women do not have the physical prowess of men and never will.

It's hardly cowardice, it's physical weakness, and I'm sure there are a good few women who could put both of us to shame. You're basically trying to say that the strongest woman will never be as strong as the weakest man, which is, oh what's the word, sexist? Some women are practically on equal terms, and I've been with and know plenty of women stronger than I am.

Also, we're assuming here that the victims are getting raped by the opposite sex, which again, isn't always the case.

You're the idiot for trying to say that men "weren't at a disadvantage" in this case. Get your stuff straight then come back.

I advise you to look over this sentence again then get back to me. Because that's what YOU'RE saying.

Given your edit of course, all I said was that the trauma isn't any different. If a man gets raped, it can be just as traumatic as for women. If you don't believe that, what you effectively believe is that if a man gets raped, it's his own fault. Which is an image society needs to get rid of soon.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

It's hardly cowardice, it's physical weakness, and I'm sure there are a good few women who could put both of us to shame. You're basically trying to say that the strongest woman will never be as strong as the weakest man, which is, oh what's the word, sexist? Some women are practically on equal terms, and I've been with and know plenty of women stronger than I am.

I'm sure bodybuilder women who have muscles for tits can knock me out, but then again their entire body is in pain all the time from the lifestyle they live, so even then it's a toss-up.


Don't dig deeper into the pot. We're talking about men and women in general. Specifics and "what if" scenarios will get you nowhere.

Originally Posted by Radek

I'm sure bodybuilder women who have muscles for tits can knock me out, but then again their entire body is in pain all the time from the lifestyle they live, so even then it's a toss-up.

Don't dig deeper into the pot. We're talking about men and women in general. Specifics and "what if" scenarios will get you nowhere.

It's hardly specifics and what-ifs, I'm saying in general, I know a lot of women who could easily hold their own against a man who doesn't work out, which these days is a lot of men. Yes, in general if you pick a man and woman up off the street you will find that the female is weaker than the man, but not so much that he can break her with one blow, and he won't be so strong that he could hold off more than say, two at a time, if even one providing she knows what she's doing (which is not so specific that it's unlikely, given how many people, men and women, take self-defence classes or even work out slightly). Your own post was giving the impression that either the average woman is tiny and made of glass (a type of women who probably wouldn't attempt rape anyway due to being attractive or not being an idiot), OR that the average guy was pretty strong, rather than just average strength.

And again, we seem to be ignoring the scenario where someone is raped by a member of the same sex.

As I said, I have no doubt that the statistics are higher for women than they are for men, for a variety of reasons which it is unnecessary to discuss, but all I was saying is that Kelsey was saying so based on no statistics whatsoever and assuming that since life is clearly worse for women then it must be the case, and that people assume that the statistics are an accurate depiction of how few and how little men actually suffer as a result of sexual abuse, without thinking why the statistics are as low as they actually are. So to clarify - I'm not arguing that women are not victims of sexual attacks more than men, I'm simply arguing that I very much doubt the gap is as much as any statistics available would make out. Further, that it's folly to jump to the conclusion that women suffer more than men based on no statistics and providing no logical arguments anyway, because it could be a misconception.

Originally Posted by Radek

Women do have it worse off. This is not an assumption. There is no such thing as equalizing this fact.

This is probably true, even with the massive under-reporting of female-on-male or male-on-male rape male-on-female is almost certainly far more common.

One girl cannot stop one man from raping her, she is not physically able to do so. One man could stop up to four or five women physically trying to rape him, if he was between the ages of 18-34.

This is not true.

Most rape is not violent one-on-one, anyways, instead victims are drugged or attacked by a gang.

Secondly, I'm 19. I have little doubt that any woman out there capable of standing upright would be my equal in a fight. I'm not out of shape, but I'm not incredibly fit, either, and I've never been very strong.

Originally Posted by KelseyRain

Unless that woman was like....super strong or knew techniques...or is an athelete. (:

Or ever took a single self defence class, or ever went to a gym, or...

But it is scientifically proven that men are stronger than women. Men have testosterone, and it gives them more strength and muscle. Thats why it takes women longer to build up muscle and abs. Trust me, I'm on a swim team. I'd know (:

On average men are stronger than women.

This is not the same as saying "Any random man will be stronger than any random woman" or that "every man is stronger than every woman."

The difference is there, but it's not enough to actually be used to support the idea that women won't rape men.

Originally Posted by Radek

No, you're just a ♥♥♥♥ing coward. I'm not a bodybuilder and I haven't worked out in years. I can honestly say I can put down a girl/woman with one punch to the face. I'm not trying to be sexist, I just say it how it is. Women do not have the physical prowess of men and never will.

Then try meeting a woman who works out even once a week.

Because, seriously, you're coming off as massively sexist. :/.

I've yet to meet a woman I could take down with one punch. Indeed, I've yet to meet a woman that anyone but Charles Atlas could take down with a single punch.

You're the idiot for trying to say that men weren't any different in this case. Get your stuff straight then come back.

Where did he say that there is no difference?

A (relatively) minor average difference is not the insurmountable barrier that you make it out to be.

I don't think you need to be huge and strong to rape another person. Most rapists already know their victim and gain their trust. They plan how they are going to attack that person. The victim doesn't usually have a chance to fight back since it comes to them as a shock.

Rapists are not stupid enough to attack a women who would be strong.

Originally Posted by John

Most rape is not violent one-on-one, anyways, instead victims are drugged or attacked by a gang.

If I got drugged by a woman, sure, she could rape me to her heart's content, but a gang (of women) would get nowhere unless they were wielding weapons.

Secondly, I'm 19. I have little doubt that any woman out there capable of standing upright would be my equal in a fight. I'm not out of shape, but I'm not incredibly fit, either, and I've never been very strong.

It's a shame you are so ridiculously weak.

Or ever took a single self defence class, or ever went to a gym, or...

As a practitioner of martial arts from the age of 10 to 17, I can say you are correct. However, a single self-defense class will not suffice for anything.

This is not the same as saying "Any random man will be stronger than any random woman" or that "every man is stronger than every woman."

Let me fix this quote for you: a random man will most likely be stronger than a random woman.

Then try meeting a woman who works out even once a week.

Assumptions make an ass out of you, not me. I know plenty of women who work out more than once a week.

Because, seriously, you're coming off as massively sexist. :/.

I wish I could care. If I come off as sexist, then deal with it. I just say it how it is. And last time I checked, I was defending women's inability to defend themselves against men.

I've yet to meet a woman I could take down with one punch. Indeed, I've yet to meet a woman that anyone but Charles Atlas could take down with a single punch.

Again, it's a shame you are so ridiculously weak.

A (relatively) minor average difference is not the insurmountable barrier that you make it out to be.

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this.

Originally Posted by Radek

If I got drugged by a woman, sure, she could rape me to her heart's content, but a gang (of women) would get nowhere unless they were wielding weapons.

Are saying that an average man would overpower a gang of women?

However, a single self-defense class will not suffice for anything.

They would learn proper techniques for doing so. After the first time of being shown the proper technique for escaping a bear hug, it would be commited to memory.

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this.

It's a shame you are so ridiculously unintelligent. Two people can play that game. =/

Originally Posted by Ringo Starr

Are saying that an average man would overpower a gang of men?

If your reading skills were up to par, you would see that I put something there in parenthesis.

They would learn proper techniques for doing so. After the first time of being shown the proper technique for escaping a bear hug, it would be commited to memory.

Practice makes perfect. The likely hood of one-shotting the technique is highly unlikely.

It's a shame you are so ridiculously unintelligent. Two people can play that game. =/

No, I was hoping that he would elaborate further upon reading it. Apparently you can't play this game, 'tard =/

Originally Posted by Radek

It's a shame you are so ridiculously weak.

This pretty much sums up your argument - YOU might be able to take on any woman who comes up to you, but not every man is naturally strong, so to assume they are in any given scenario is folly. Not every man can knock a woman off their feet in a single punch, in fact I very much doubt the majority of men can, because women aren't made of glass or cardboard.

Assumptions make an ass out of you, not me. I know plenty of women who work out more than once a week.

The saying is that when you assume, you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me", and you're kind of assuming that every average bloke is as strong as you are, or that every woman really is as weak as a little girl is.

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this.

What he's saying is that you're making it out as if because of the general difference in strength, which isn't as huge as you might like to think, the only kind of man who gets sexually assaulted is one who is ridiculously weak, and that the average man is practically immune to sexual attacks, which both ignores that A) the difference in strength isn't as great as you might like to think, and B) that sexual attacks don't always come from the opposite sex.

Originally Posted by Radek

If your reading skills were up to par, you would see that I put something there in parenthesis.

That was a typo. Don't be an ass hat.

Practice makes perfect. The likely hood of one-shotting the technique is highly unlikely.

Yes, practive makes perfect. However, they still know how to do it.

No, I was hoping that he would elaborate further upon reading it. Apparently you can't play this game, 'tard =/

I was simply pointing out how childish you were acting.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

This pretty much sums up your argument - YOU might be able to take on any woman who comes up to you, but not every man is naturally strong, so to assume they are in any given scenario is folly. Not every man can knock a woman off their feet in a single punch, in fact I very much doubt the majority of men can, because women aren't made of glass or cardboard.

Maybe not, but I'm average myself. However, let me go further in-depth about the whole "one punch" thing. It's not just the raw physical strength, but the thought of "more coming where that came from" that would scare off most would-be attackers. And I'll be frank, I have no idea if one of my punches would knock a woman out, but from what I've experienced (no, I haven't fought any women before), it oughta do the trick most of the time. But let me tell you this: when I used to do martial arts, sometimes we were taught techniques on how to get out of people grabbing your wrist. 80% of the women I practiced with told me to not hold on so hard with what was my usual grip, saying it hurt too much.

The saying is that when you assume, you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me", and you're kind of assuming that every average bloke is as strong as you are, or that every woman really is as weak as a little girl is.

Touché.

What he's saying is that you're making it out as if because of the general difference in strength, which isn't as huge as you might like to think, the only kind of man who gets sexually assaulted is one who is ridiculously weak, and that the average man is practically immune to sexual attacks, which both ignores that A) the difference in strength isn't as great as you might like to think, and B) that sexual attacks don't always come from the opposite sex.

True, a man-rape-man situation would be far more different from what I've been arguing so far, but wasn't this a female rape thread?

Originally Posted by Radek

Maybe not, but I'm average myself. However, let me go further in-depth about the whole "one punch" thing. It's not just the raw physical strength, but the thought of "more coming where that came from" that would scare off most would-be attackers. And I'll be frank, I have no idea if one of my punches would knock a woman out, but from what I've experienced (no, I haven't fought any women before), it oughta do the trick most of the time.

I have been told that if I'm ever in a fight with a gang, to concentrate on only one of them, so that the rest will see that I'm a ruthless mother♥♥♥♥er, rather than trying to push them all off at once. Women are nasty creatures when they get violent though, so I'm not sure that would work if I HAD to hit one of their girlfriends (and I'm not one of these men who would hold back if a woman tried to hit me, I just wouldn't use more force than is necessary, so I wouldn't get morally offended if you'd had to do it before).

True, a man-rape-man situation would be far more different from what I've been arguing so far, but wasn't this a female rape thread?

The thread is more about female victims of rape, but I brought up the issue that once again, men are forgotten about. Women are given so many liberties and are seen in such a favourable light by the system even outside of the law because they're always seen to be vulnerable and suffering, whereas men are the ones now overshadowed and discriminated against (for example in rape cases, where unless a man has solid proof that the woman consented to intercourse, such as a video on his mobile phone, chances are that his life is ruined and people will assume he did it whether or not he's found guilty). Which is why I brought up the fact that men and boys can be and often are victims as well, rather than letting this thread become a "oh my, how hard a woman's life is when she has to deal with this sort of thing!" thread.

Originally Posted by John

This is probably true, even with the massive under-reporting of female-on-male or male-on-male rape male-on-female is almost certainly far more common.


This is not true.

Most rape is not violent one-on-one, anyways, instead victims are drugged or attacked by a gang.

Secondly, I'm 19. I have little doubt that any woman out there capable of standing upright would be my equal in a fight. I'm not out of shape, but I'm not incredibly fit, either, and I've never been very strong.


Or ever took a single self defence class, or ever went to a gym, or...


On average men are stronger than women.

This is not the same as saying "Any random man will be stronger than any random woman" or that "every man is stronger than every woman."

The difference is there, but it's not enough to actually be used to support the idea that women won't rape men.


Then try meeting a woman who works out even once a week.

Because, seriously, you're coming off as massively sexist. :/.

I've yet to meet a woman I could take down with one punch. Indeed, I've yet to meet a woman that anyone but Charles Atlas could take down with a single punch.


Where did he say that there is no difference?

A (relatively) minor average difference is not the insurmountable barrier that you make it out to be.

Isn't that what I JUST wrote? "Knew techiniques, strength, athlete" = Gym, Defense Classes

You're just putting words in my mouth. I don't even know what side your on......?

Originally Posted by KelseyRain

Isn't that what I JUST wrote? "Knew techiniques, strength, athlete" = Gym, Defense Classes

You're just putting words in my mouth. I don't even know what side your on......?

It's nice to think that maybe I'm on my own side. However, I'm probably on Zero's.


Anyways, you seemed to be saying that women were, on average, so much weaker than men that it was ridiculous to assume that pretty much any of them could rape a man.

The strength difference is not that large. It is there, but it's hardly difficult to overcome.

I see what you're saying, but that's not what I said. I said, it's scientifically proven that men (average men) are stronger than women (average women). I'm not saying any man is stronger than any woman. Hell, I could take down a bunch of guys (:

I'm only trying to make sure people don't forget that men can be victims as well. Many don't seem to realise that women don't have the monopoly on sex-related trauma.