The Guardian cares about strip searches...when women are the victims

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow. Clearly hit a nerve (Loren even actually stooped so low as to give me neg rep).

To the math in regard to that particular cite, yes. I misinterpreted. To the POINT behind the math, no, that remains.

This error has been repeated on here multiple times in this context.

The reason to focus on women is because they are the more abused class by a factor that is actually most likely 90 to 10 when you factor in under-reporting, but even if it’s 70 to 10 or 50 to 10, it’s STiLL the reason why even the fucktards itt should be focused on the fact that unnecessary/illegal strip searches in the study effect EVERYONE THAT HAS SUFFERED THROUGH SEXUAL ABUSE and that number is overwhelmingly disproportionately larger for women, because—say it with me—women are overwhelmingly disproportionately the victims of sexual abuse.

Iow, men aren’t being ignored by the Guardian and your precious whiny little egos are as intact as your pathetic little impotent cocks.

Happy now? Unjustified strip searches trigger those who have been sexually abused. Women are the most sexually abused class by a factor so disproportionally large it’s beyond dispute, so it’s perfectly logical that a primary focus would be about women, so shut the fuck up you whiny little fucktards.

How’s that?

In other words, you're basically standing behind the utterly bogus numbers.

The 1 in 4 numbers the feminists claim is already exaggerated (they are counting as sexual assault any case where a woman has sex for some other benefit even though she doesn't desire it.) Taking it up to 90% is insanity.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why use gender as a proxy for sexual assault victim? Couldn't you simply be more sensitive for sexual assault victims, period?

 

[KeepTalking]

Wow. Clearly hit a nerve (Loren even actually stooped so low as to give me neg rep).

To the math in regard to that particular cite, yes. I misinterpreted. To the POINT behind the math, no, that remains.

The reason to focus on women is because they are the more abused class by a factor that is actually most likely 90 to 10 when you factor in under-reporting, but even if it’s 70 to 10 or 50 to 10, it’s STiLL the reason why even the fucktards itt should be focused on the fact that unnecessary/illegal strip searches in the study effect EVERYONE THAT HAS SUFFERED THROUGH SEXUAL ABUSE and that number is overwhelmingly disproportionately larger for women, because—say it with me—women are overwhelmingly disproportionately the victims of sexual abuse.

Iow, men aren’t being ignored by the Guardian and your precious whiny little egos are as intact as your pathetic little impotent cocks.

Happy now? Unjustified strip searches trigger those who have been sexually abused. Women are the most sexually abused class by a factor so disproportionally large it’s beyond dispute, so it’s perfectly logical that a primary focus would be about women, so shut the fuck up you whiny little fucktards.

How’s that?

Well, other than the condescension, it's great. I would have given you a positive rep for admitting to the error. For the record, as I have not weighed in on the substance of the thread previously, I do understand how strip searches can further traumatize those who have been sexually assaulted previously, and women are more likely to have been sexually assaulted. In addition, I feel that strip searches are done far too often, and often as a means of exerting power and authority over people, rather than any need to protect the public good.

 

[Toni]

Wow. Clearly hit a nerve (Loren even actually stooped so low as to give me neg rep).

To the math in regard to that particular cite, yes. I misinterpreted. To the POINT behind the math, no, that remains.

This error has been repeated on here multiple times in this context.

The reason to focus on women is because they are the more abused class by a factor that is actually most likely 90 to 10 when you factor in under-reporting, but even if it’s 70 to 10 or 50 to 10, it’s STiLL the reason why even the fucktards itt should be focused on the fact that unnecessary/illegal strip searches in the study effect EVERYONE THAT HAS SUFFERED THROUGH SEXUAL ABUSE and that number is overwhelmingly disproportionately larger for women, because—say it with me—women are overwhelmingly disproportionately the victims of sexual abuse.

Iow, men aren’t being ignored by the Guardian and your precious whiny little egos are as intact as your pathetic little impotent cocks.

Happy now? Unjustified strip searches trigger those who have been sexually abused. Women are the most sexually abused class by a factor so disproportionally large it’s beyond dispute, so it’s perfectly logical that a primary focus would be about women, so shut the fuck up you whiny little fucktards.

How’s that?

In other words, you're basically standing behind the utterly bogus numbers.

The 1 in 4 numbers the feminists claim is already exaggerated (they are counting as sexual assault any case where a woman has sex for some other benefit even though she doesn't desire it.) Taking it up to 90% is insanity.

The CDC tends to disagree with you, Loren:

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/sexual-violence/index.html

Whether strip searches trigger those who have already experienced sexual assault or not is only part of the issue. Strip searching children seems an awful lot like sexual assault from the child's perspective and indeed, teaches them to think that their bodies are not their own, that that they have no rights to their own body and that adults can make them take off their clothes whenever the adult wants. It could help set them up for future sexual assaults. This is not a good message to give to children.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why use gender as a proxy for sexual assault victim? Couldn't you simply be more sensitive for sexual assault victims, period?

You’d have to ask the Guardian editorial staff.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In other words..

In my words, I’m standing behind the fact that women are victimized more than men, so it’s no great pretend outrage from the usual asswipes that a newspaper article about illegal strip searches and their harmful effects would be written from a majority perspective.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why use gender as a proxy for sexual assault victim? Couldn't you simply be more sensitive for sexual assault victims, period?

You’d have to ask the Guardian editorial staff.

I am asking anyone who advocates that people should be treated differently based on gender because something they think should make people entitled to extra care correlates with gender. Proxy treatment and proxy thinking cones up on this forum often, and this question is never answered.

 

[laughing dog]

Why use gender as a proxy for sexual assault victim? Couldn't you simply be more sensitive for sexual assault victims, period?

You’d have to ask the Guardian editorial staff.

I am asking anyone who advocates that people should be treated differently based on gender because something they think should make people entitled to extra care correlates with gender. Proxy treatment and proxy thinking cones up on this forum often, and this question is never answered.

As far as I can tell, no one in this thread who advocates that one gender is entitled to extra care. Pointing out that one gender is more likely to be negatively effected is not the same as advocating for extra care.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why use gender as a proxy for sexual assault victim? Couldn't you simply be more sensitive for sexual assault victims, period?

You’d have to ask the Guardian editorial staff.

I am asking anyone who advocates that people should be treated differently based on gender

You must have very strong arms shoveling all that hay every time you post.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The CDC tends to disagree with you, Loren:

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/sexual-violence/index.html

Whether strip searches trigger those who have already experienced sexual assault or not is only part of the issue. Strip searching children seems an awful lot like sexual assault from the child's perspective and indeed, teaches them to think that their bodies are not their own, that that they have no rights to their own body and that adults can make them take off their clothes whenever the adult wants. It could help set them up for future sexual assaults. This is not a good message to give to children.

I do agree that strip searches are very problematic in the absence of clear indication of wrongdoing for the very reason you give. That's not a rebuttal, though.

 

[laughing dog]

The CDC tends to disagree with you, Loren:

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/sexual-violence/index.html

Whether strip searches trigger those who have already experienced sexual assault or not is only part of the issue. Strip searching children seems an awful lot like sexual assault from the child's perspective and indeed, teaches them to think that their bodies are not their own, that that they have no rights to their own body and that adults can make them take off their clothes whenever the adult wants. It could help set them up for future sexual assaults. This is not a good message to give to children.

I do agree that strip searches are very problematic in the absence of clear indication of wrongdoing for the very reason you give. That's not a rebuttal, though.

Neither is a handwaved claim that some statistic is bogus.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The CDC tends to disagree with you, Loren:

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/sexual-violence/index.html

Whether strip searches trigger those who have already experienced sexual assault or not is only part of the issue. Strip searching children seems an awful lot like sexual assault from the child's perspective and indeed, teaches them to think that their bodies are not their own, that that they have no rights to their own body and that adults can make them take off their clothes whenever the adult wants. It could help set them up for future sexual assaults. This is not a good message to give to children.

I do agree that strip searches are very problematic in the absence of clear indication of wrongdoing for the very reason you give. That's not a rebuttal, though.

Neither is a handwaved claim that some statistic is bogus.

You presented a reason (that I agree with) as to why strip searches of children are almost always a bad idea. That says nothing about how often someone is sexually assaulted.

 

[Toni]

Neither is a handwaved claim that some statistic is bogus.

You presented a reason (that I agree with) as to why strip searches of children are almost always a bad idea. That says nothing about how often someone is sexually assaulted.

I think this exchange is a little confusing. It’s my fault, completely. Let me try to clarify;

1. You and I (Toni) agree that strip searches are very problematic, especially for minors.

2. In a badly constructed post, I was saying that the CDC disagrees with you about the number of women who are sexually assaulted. I provided a pertinent link.

My bad for clumsily combining two points in a single post and not noticing sooner. My apologies to you and also to laughing dog.