warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The vikings did a lot of "raping and pillaging", did they not?
I mean. how could you pillage and not rape?
I mean. how could you pillage and not rape?
The Zulu and Xhosa tribes have a very androcentric way of going about things, and the rape of a woman is simply "putting her in her place", "claiming her", and demonstrating one's masculinity and power.
The sex was consensual; moreover, the accuser lied about several facts in the courtroom.I'm not inclined to believe that...
He was being sarcastic.I'm sure it happend. But the statement earlier in the thread supposed rape was as common in Scandinavia a couple of hundred years ago as it seems to be in SA now, going as far as saying, without anything to back it up, that 1 in 4 Scandinavians were likely rapists at that time.
...Wait, I don't understand - clarify please?I wonder how many whites in South Africa do exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons, especially before the end of their rule. It certainly seems to describe all rapists in general to me.
And while the percentage of women who get raped in SA may indeed be somewhat higner than other countries, it is apparently not by all that much higher based on the other statistics presented in this thread.
Sad but so very true. This can be inplied also to big parts of Africa and third world countries.HannibalBarka said:one third of women traffiking comes from eastern Europe... in a country where women can be "sold", what kind of interest do you think a "rape" would trigger among people? nada.

The vikings did a lot of "raping and pillaging", did they not?
I mean. how could you pillage and not rape?
I am suggesting that whites raping blacks was likely quite commonplace when the whites were in control of the country. It certainly happened in the US with great frequency up until the 60s. Rape a black woman and nobody said a word. Rape a white woman and a word was rarely spoken. A black rape a white woman and it was a lynching whether it was true or not....Wait, I don't understand - clarify please?
And that is based on the reported cases of sexual assault and rape, which means it is actually much higher.They're night and day different. About 1/3 of women have been sexually assaulted, according to our fairly broad definition. This includes a bunch of things, more than just rape.
In South Africa, a third of women have been raped in the last year
South Africa has suffered an epidemic of rape since the country was transferred to black rule thirteen years ago, with mostly white women victims suffering at the hands of black rapists. Most white South African homes now contain fortified “rape rooms” wherein all the female inhabitants flee on the sounding of an electronic intruder alarm, and heavy armored doors clang shut. In theory, an alarm sounds at the local police station, but since the police are now mostly black and either corrupt or incompetent, they seldom arrive in time, if at all. These “rape rooms” are only partly effective, since the most common form of black crime in South Africa, after brutal carjackings which almost always include murder, is a home invasion of twenty or thirty armed Bantu who loot the home, drink all the liquor they can find and then burn the house to the ground.
On March 17th, 1992, the white people of South Africa voted their country out of existence and handed one of the most technically and socially advanced societies in the world over to primitive Marxist thugs. Whites have lived alongside the Africans creatures for three hundred years. They should have known better, and yet they allowed themselves to be brainwashed into committing national suicide. The white population of South Africa has dropped drastically, from almost five million in 1990 to a little over three million now. Any white with a foreign passport has fled the country, leaving only the Afrikaaners, “Africa’s White tribe,” who are native to the land and have no where to go. I suppose it still wouldn’t be too late for the Afrikaaners actually to fight for their homeland, but if things like this don’t motivate them to fight, what will?
Unfortunately, I don't have my book with me (The Apartheid Handbook by Roger Omond) to cite historical (1970s-80s) statistics to you, but I did find something citing a 1994 The Citizen article stating that white-on-white sexual violence amounted to 3% and white-on-black less than 1%. Black-on-black, however, amounted to nearly 93%.I wonder how many whites in South Africa do exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons, especially before the end of their rule. It certainly seems to describe all rapists in general to me.
No, that's the estimate for the actual number. The number of reported cases is vastly lower.And that is based on the reported cases of sexual assault and rape, which means it is actually much higher.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/258446.stmHmm. I don't see how you have reached that conclusion, and I just rescanned this thread looking for a reference to it...
In 1994? I would tend not to think so, and if it was, it would be far less prevalent than the unreported black-on-black crimes.@amadeus: I would assume white-on-black got reported at a much lower rate, though . . .
In 1994? It was, I believe, something like 12-15% white, 75-78% black, 7-8% coloured and 2-3% Indian.What was the ratio of black to whites at that time?
So what the hell is wrong in South Africa? All I see in this thread is peope saying it has nothing to do with race, well, fine, I agree, so why these awful numbers?
In 1994? It was, I believe, something like 12-15% white, 75-78% black, 7-8% coloured and 2-3% Indian.
that is incredibly depressing
Hmm. It would be nice to have at least a second independent source for a statistic like that, but there it is.
It sounds like it is being condoned by the authorities.So what the hell is wrong in South Africa? All I see in this thread is peope saying it has nothing to do with race, well, fine, I agree, so why these awful numbers?
Yes.So, 78% of the population committed 93% of the rapes, according to your original statistics?
12% committed 4%?
Well, about a million have left between 1995-2005, many settling in Britain, Australia (I hear Australia, especially Western Australia, is popular with many white South Africans leaving) and New Zealand. Most of those leaving too are between the ages of 20 and 40 -- the most economically active population.It would also seem that if it was really that bad that whites would be fleeling SA by the boatload, so it sppears to be isolated to specific areas.