College women told to urinate or vomit to deter a rapist

But for the weakest and most vulnerable young ladies who have been deemed unworthy to possess firearms due to their age, vomiting and pissing might be the best weapon available.

Or that she's even able to pull it from her purse in time after being surprised and restrained.

Situational awareness, combat mindset. It is all part of carrying. If one is taken completely by surprise, there is very little one can do unless the attacker is incompetent. Thus, one should never be taken completely by surprise.

actually it's more like 74%



but let's examine.. who this 74% are when it comes to college individuals:

http://www.nyu.edu/shc/promotion/svstat.html

so of those say 8 out 10, there of them are merely people you've seen in one of your classes. Afterall they're not your friend, bf/x or even an acquaintance.

Now maybe peeing your pants may work, or even vomiting could also.. what would you guess is the effectiveness of those two techniques.. say vs. a .40 to the chest? I recall a women dying in India just recently from a vicious rape incident (and there's been an enormous surge of women going for weapons). Do you think she used any of these techniques.. if not do you think any would have been successful?

She can still sometimes pee or vomit as a last resort as recommended.

Here's another twist... There are actually fetishes that involve vomit and/or feces. It may turn the rapist on more.

According to Joe Salazar, it isn't because of their age. Per Democrat Rep. Salazar a woman may be so fearful of rape she might start shooting hysterically. That is why Rep Salazar says women should be disarmed on campus.

The thing that makes this political is the political agenda of the left to remove better means of resistance. This is along the lines of the discourse that says "the people are starving for lack of bread? Let them eat cake." It is an insensitive, unfeeling state that can't care for the consequence of its policies, and attempts to offer a silly substitute for freedom of choice.

actually it's more like 74%



but let's examine.. who this 74% are when it comes to college individuals:

http://www.nyu.edu/shc/promotion/svstat.html



so of those say 8 out 10, there of them are merely people you've seen in one of your classes. Afterall they're not your friend, bf/x or even an acquaintance.

Now maybe peeing your pants may work, or even vomiting could also.. what would you guess is the effectiveness of those two techniques.. say vs. a .40 to the chest? I recall a women dying in India just recently from a vicious rape incident (and there's been an enormous surge of women going for weapons). Do you think she used any of these techniques.. if not do you think any would have been successful?

She can still sometimes pee or vomit as a last resort as recommended.

Much like cops when they see old lady's delivering newspapers.

The thing that makes this political is the political agenda of the left to remove better means of resistance. This is along the lines of the discourse that says "the people are starving for lack of bread? Let them eat cake." It is an insensitive, unfeeling state that can't care for the consequence of its policies, and attempts to offer a silly substitute for freedom of choice.

What? Are you suggesting women should carry guns everywhere to prevent rape? Look, i'm actually VERY pro-gun, but this is the type of argument that drives me nuts. I'm starting to think you guys won't be happy until everyone is armed.

Assuming of course, that weapon is not more likely to be taken from the woman and used against her.....

Or that she's even able to pull it from her purse in time after being surprised and restrained.

The sexual
assault and assault analyses reveal clearer patterns of SP effects, perhaps because of the larger
sample sizes and more stable estimates that they afford. Most SP variables, both forceful and
non-forceful, are associated with lower risks of injury, many of them significantly so. The most
effective SP actions include “ran away/hid,” “called the police,” “attacked without weapon,”
“attacked with non-gun weapon,” and “threatened with non-gun weapon.” These SP actions
appear to reduce by half the risk of injury compared to nonresistance. Both forms of resistance
with a gun -“attack with a gun” and “threat with a gun”- are also associated with lower risk
compared to no SP, although the differences are not statistically significant. As with rape and
sexual assault incidents, only “screaming” is associated with a significantly higher risk compared
to nonresistance.
The results contradict scholars who have concluded that forceful resistance is often
dangerous because it provokes offender to inflict further injury, especially for female victims
(Bachman and Carmody 1994; Bachman et al. 2002; Marchbanks et al. 1990). These earlier
findings were probably an artifact of the failure to address SP-injury sequence, since these
scholars effectively treated injury preceding SP as if it could be a consequence of SP.

According to Joe Salazar, it isn't because of their age. Per Democrat Rep. Salazar a woman may be so fearful of rape she might start shooting hysterically. That is why Rep Salazar says women should be disarmed on campus.

What? Are you suggesting women should carry guns everywhere to prevent rape? Look, i'm actually VERY pro-gun, but this is the type of argument that drives me nuts. I'm starting to think you guys won't be happy until everyone is armed.

It is all part of the paranoia that guns nuts live in, cause everyone is out to get them! You all are gonna die of heart attacks with all that stress.