The University of Colorado tells women to use bodily fluids to hold off rapists

http://www.ibtimes.com/colorado-college-...trol-bills

The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Department of Public Safety has updated an online statement advising female students to consider a variety of unusual actions if they are attacked, including vomiting, urinating and claiming that they are menstruating.
Colorado College Advises Vomiting Or Urinating To Stop Rapists After Lawmakers Pass Gun Control Bills

The advisory was updated Monday evening, just hours after the Colorado state House of Representatives passed a package of gun control bills that includes one that would make it illegal for people with concealed weapons permits to carry guns on the campuses of public universities. The bills still have to go to the state Senate and governor.

Some of the pieces of advice which were updated Monday evening on the university's public safety website are ones that many would find familiar, from running away without looking back to "yelling, hitting or biting" your attacker.

But the following two suggestions are a little stranger and are already causing quite the outcry on social media: "Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating," and "Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone."

These less-conventional methods for fighting off a would-be rapist are apparently part of Rape Aggression Defense Systems, a class that the school's public safety department promotes as a means for female students to boost their self-defense skills.

But the fact that the site providing the pointers was updated at 6:30 p.m. Monday suggests that the move may have been motivated by the Colorado House's passage on Monday of HB 1226, which would ban all people -- including concealed-weapons permit holders -- from carrying guns on the campuses of the state's public universities.

The House passed the bill on Monday by a vote of 34-31, but not before it became the center of a major controversy when Democratic state Rep. Joe Salazar made comments during Friday's debate arguing that students should not have access to guns to protect themselves from being raped.

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles," Salazar said, according to KDVR News. "Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop -- pop around at somebody.”

The comments drew the ire of a number of conservative pundits, as well as several Republican Colorado lawmakers who were offended by the insinuation that would-be rape victims should rely on rape whistles and safe zones rather than arm themselves against potential attackers.

Salazar eventually apologized for any offense he may have caused, but he did not back down from his premise that guns are not needed to protect women from attacks on the campuses of Colorado's public universities.

“I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention,” Salazar said, according to KDVR News. “We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.”

Meanwhile, the Democratic-led Colorado House of Representatives passed the final two gun measures brought to a vote Monday, the Denver Post reported.

After previously passing measures limiting gun magazines to 15 rounds and requiring universal background checks on private firearms purchases, the House approved two more bills: the ban on concealed weapons on public college campuses and a bill requiring gun buyers to pay the cost of their state background checks.

The bills will now go to the state Senate, which is also controlled by Democrats.

The entire text of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Public Safety Department's advisory is posted below:

"Updated message from February 18, 2013 at 6:30pm from the Department of Public Safety:

The ten points of information below were used in a context supplemented with additional information during the in-class training covered in the Rape Aggression Defense (RAD) class. The R.A.D. class is offered free of charge as a public service to women who are part of the greater UCCS community.

Rape Aggression Defense Systems (RAD Systems) is a hands-on, women only self defense and risk reduction education program designed to teach women realistic ways to defend and protect oneself from sexual and abductive assaults. RAD is an international organization of certified law enforcement instructors.

For more information regarding the RAD class, classes scheduled for the spring semester, or any other crime prevention programs, please visit the following pages:

http://www.uccs.edu/pusafety/police/prev...-2013.html

http://www.uccs.edu/pusafety/police/prev...gram-.html

http://www.coloradoconnection.com/m/news...SLUUaWvN8F

What To Do If You Are Attacked

These tips are designed to help you protect yourself on campus, in town, at your home, or while you travel. These are preventative tips and are designed to instruct you in crime prevention tactics.

1. Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.

2. Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.

3. Kick off your shoes if you have time and can't run in them.

4. Don't take time to look back; just get away.

5. If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.

6. Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.

7. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.

8. Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!

9. Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.

10. Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate."

I was sure this was satire until people actually started quoting it more.

Seems pretty reasonable to me. If you were being raped, lets face it, you wouldn't be above lying that you have a disease, or saying or doing anything that would make the attacker lose interest.
It's both wiser and safer than fighting back.
I don't see how you would think it is satire o.o

"Passive resistance" is better than shooting them in the face? How so?

"Passive resistance" is better than shooting them in the face? How so?

Because not every woman has a concealed weapon even if it were legal not every woman would have a concealed weapon. And what's to stop my ex shooting me in the face then exclaim I attempted to rape her? We take her word for it?

Because not every woman has a concealed weapon even if it were legal not every woman would have a concealed weapon. And what's to stop my ex shooting me in the face then exclaim I attempted to rape her? We take her word for it?

That's why you carry a gun too!

In seriousness though, obviously there are exceptions, but statistics show that much more often, it is men doing the shooting, not the other way around. In terms of MASS shootings, I don't know that there are any women on that list period. They are more likely to use discretion with weapons, and for the ones that don't...why couldn't they obtain the weapon and kill you anyway? Whether or not something is illegal means nothing to someone who is intent on breaking the law.

"Passive resistance" is better than shooting them in the face? How so?

Rape or near rape is traumatizing enough. How do you think shooting someone in the face will affect a person? shooting someone should be a last resort

What if the rapist has some sort of fetish for points 6 and 7?
Why are taser guns never named on this matter?

Rape or near rape is traumatizing enough. How do you think shooting someone in the face will affect a person? shooting someone should be a last resort

Shooting someone is more traumatizing than being forcibly impregnated by some huge smelly drug addict? wat

What if the rapist has some sort of fetish for points 6 and 7?
Why are taser guns never named on this matter?

Tasers would work in most instances, too. Not all, but most.

Shooting someone is more traumatizing than being forcibly impregnated by some huge smelly drug addict? wat.

This isn't fiction, this is real life. How would killing a person affect you?
And I didn't say that it was MORE traumatizing than being raped. Both of these things would likely affect you for life, and hence why accepting it and submitting to the rape and "shooting them in the face" as you so eloquently put it are both extreme reactions. So yes I think that passive resistance is the safest way to go, both physically and mentally.

That's why you carry a gun too!

In seriousness though, obviously there are exceptions, but statistics show that much more often, it is men doing the shooting, not the other way around. In terms of MASS shootings, I don't know that there are any women on that list period.

Wife kills husband 22,000,000 results

For gods sake a wife ran over her husband for voting for Obama. Not to say women are worse/prone to doing such. This isn't meant to be sexist however, your suggestion comes with massive repercussions of people getting away with murder essentially.

This isn't fiction, this is real life. How would killing a person affect you?
And I didn't say that it was MORE traumatizing than being raped. Both of these things would likely affect you for life, and hence why accepting it and submitting to the rape and "shooting them in the face" as you so eloquently put it are both extreme reactions. So yes I think that passive resistance is the safest way to go, both physically and mentally.

I see.

Yes, this is real life. And in real life, people get raped. And you are basically saying, you would rather get raped than shoot some scumbag who doesn't deserve to live anyway.

Wife kills husband 22,000,000 results

For gods sake a wife ran over her husband for voting for Obama. Not to say women are worse/prone to doing such. This isn't meant to be sexist however, your suggestion comes with massive repercussions of people getting away with murder essentially.

I see where you are coming from on that, but again, that's not the point of this topic. The point is, instead of naming any number of alternatives where the woman DOESN'T get raped, all of them still involve her getting, quite literally, screwed. Why not mention mace? Why not mention a taser? Why not mention simply kicking him in the balls? It's obvious how I feel about guns on this issue, but what about those options?

So many words, so few facts.

Let the University of Colorado present the following numbers:

1) How many cases of rape or attempted rape have occurred on campus in the past, say, 20 years?
2) In how many such cases was rape averted by the intended victim carrying a gun?
3) In how many such cases was the victim able to avoid being raped through other means?
4) In how many such cases was resistance impossible due to the assailant having a gun?
5) How many gun-related accidental injuries or deaths have occurred on campus during this time? (This includes both cases of people being careless with their guns, and people shooting intentionally at an innocent person, suspecting them of ill intent)

Once we have these numbers, we can discuss a little more rationally whether allowing guns on campus is a good or bad thing.

BTW, I would also include cases of robbery and other forms of assault a person might want to protect themselves against.

Also, is tear gas ("Mace") considered a firearm? If so, why? And if not, why aren't the women encouraged to carry that instead of a gun? (Or a taser, as mentioned above).

I see.

Yes, this is real life. And in real life, people get raped. And you are basically saying, you would rather get raped than shoot some scumbag who doesn't deserve to live anyway.

That's funny, because I said that accepting and submitting to the rape is an extreme reaction. why do you consider passive resistance as letting yourself get raped?

Just because you have guns doesn't mean they are the magical solution to all problems.
You aren't considering a lot of things here. you are seeing this as simple "I'm being raped, i'll shoot my attacker" without considering the aftereffects or possibilites of what might happen.

What if you pulled the gun, shot, and MISSED? do you think that you will get out of the situation alive if the attacker knows their life is at risk?

So many words, so few facts.

Let the University of Colorado present the following numbers:

1) How many cases of rape or attempted rape have occurred on campus in the past, say, 20 years?
2) In how many such cases was rape averted by the intended victim carrying a gun?
3) In how many such cases was the victim able to avoid being raped through other means?
4) In how many such cases was resistance impossible due to the assailant having a gun?
5) How many gun-related accidental injuries or deaths have occurred on campus during this time? (This includes both cases of people being careless with their guns, and people shooting intentionally at an innocent person, suspecting them of ill intent)

Once we have these numbers, we can discuss a little more rationally whether allowing guns on campus is a good or bad thing.

BTW, I would also include cases of robbery and other forms of assault a person might want to protect themselves against.

Also, is tear gas ("Mace") considered a firearm? If so, why? And if not, why aren't the women encouraged to carry that instead of a gun? (Or a taser, as mentioned above).

I actually just took a level 2 concealed weaponry class last Sunday (7 hours and boring as pomegranate, by the way), so I can actually answer that! Firearm only applies to what you typically think of as guns, but concealed "deadly" weapons include knives, brass knuckles, guns, anything designed specifically for doing fatal or permanent injury. Mace and taser do not fall under that category, at least not in this state, don't know about other states.

That's funny, because I said that accepting and submitting to the rape is an extreme reaction. why do you consider passive resistance as letting yourself get raped?

Just because you have guns doesn't mean they are the magical solution to all problems.
You aren't considering a lot of things here. you are seeing this as simple "I'm being raped, i'll shoot my attacker" without considering the aftereffects or possibilites of what might happen.

What if you pulled the gun, shot, and MISSED? do you think that you will get out of the situation alive if the attacker knows their life is at risk?

Unless you are using a single action revolver, you get more than one conseq shot, you know. And if you use a lower caliber weapon, it not only probably won't kill them unless you are a VERY good shot (yet will still stop them), it also won't penetrate them and hit someone behind them. Hitting someone with a weapon at under 10 feet (which is now the standard that the FBI trains at, by the way, since almost all gunfights occur at that range), is incredibly easy. Further than that, and you have time to get away or get behind something/call for help. Closer, and he's dead, and he will hesitate to get closer unless he's a desperate drug addict. I saw a stat this morning on how many times a gun is drawn in ratio with how many times it is actually shot in cases like this, and it's pretty damn low; just the threat is enough to scare people away.

I see where you are coming from on that, but again, that's not the point of this topic. The point is, instead of naming any number of alternatives where the woman DOESN'T get raped, all of them still involve her getting, quite literally, screwed. Why not mention mace? Why not mention a taser? Why not mention simply kicking him in the balls? It's obvious how I feel about guns on this issue, but what about those options?

Based on the context I believe they did this under the circumstance that they are bent over and about to be penetrated. Which would include not having access to your purse, which is more than likely is holding the aforementioned items.

Maybe he caught you off guard and took the bag from your posession to throw it somewhere else, anticipating it as a threat in one method or another. Point is your the stance isn't about "HEY BETTER ALTERNATIVES INCLUDE TAKING THE GUYS LIFE", which by the way, I can almost gurrantee most women, or rather people, could *not do simply off instinct. That's a heavy thing to carry when you're responsible for that. Although tazers and mace is acceptable, you have to remember there are "doses" allowable, and to be honest I'm not sure how effective they are.

Again based on the context of the suggestions, I think this is your last alternative if the aforementioned did not work for whatever reason.

Based on the context I believe they did this under the circumstance that they are bent over and about to be penetrated. Which would include not having access to your purse, which is more than likely is holding the aforementioned items.

Maybe he caught you off guard and took the bag from your posession to throw it somewhere else, anticipating it as a threat in one method or another. Point is your the stance isn't about "HEY BETTER ALTERNATIVES INCLUDE TAKING THE GUYS LIFE", which by the way, I can almost gurrantee most women, or rather people, could *not do simply off instinct. That's a heavy thing to carry when you're responsible for that. Although tazers and mace is acceptable, you have to remember there are "doses" allowable, and to be honest I'm not sure how effective they are.

Again based on the context of the suggestions, I think this is your last alternative if the aforementioned did not work for whatever reason.

It doesn't have to be in the purse. My dad's 40 is small enough to easily be hidden directly on your person, but when I watch him fire it from an angle it looks like a miniature flamethrower the blast is so strong. It could easily knock down a very large man; with a hollow point, it could blow off half his head. Only problem with semi automatics is apparently they don't fire if something is pressed against the muzzle usually, which might be an issue at that kind of close range. There are many others that are very small, though, some would even fit in a pocket or a shoe. And again, the same applies to mace and a taser.

It doesn't have to be in the purse. My dad's 40 is small enough to easily be hidden directly on your person, but when I watch him fire it from an angle it looks like a miniature flamethrower the blast is so strong. It could easily knock down a very large man; with a hollow point, it could blow off half his head. Only problem with semi automatics is apparently they don't fire if something is pressed against the muzzle usually, which might be an issue at that kind of close range. There are many others that are very small, though, some would even fit in a pocket or a shoe. And again, the same applies to mace and a taser.

This is all irrelevant. This is under the assumption that you're in the red zone, clearly, therefore it doesn't matter if she had it or not, the suggestions are last resorts. Even then it's pretty unreasonable for you to assume that a women is going to randomly have mace/tazer in her shoe (which more than likely is flipflops/heels/pumps, aka unhiddable), and most womens jeans pocket's barely can fit anything but a receipt. This is all under the assumption this is an average girl who buys most of her clothes at the mall and not sears.

But even then that's not even worth debating because your points are completely moot. What happens when you're bent over with the sound of a zipper unzipping, cus I assure you, if any aformentioned items were available, you wouldn't be in that position to begin with, now would you?

This is all irrelevant. This is under the assumption that you're in the red zone, clearly, therefore it doesn't matter if she had it or not, the suggestions are last resorts. Even then it's pretty unreasonable for you to assume that a women is going to randomly have mace/tazer in her shoe (which more than likely is flipflops/heels/pumps, aka unhiddable), and most womens jeans pocket's barely can fit anything but a receipt. This is all under the assumption this is an average girl who buys most of her clothes at the mall and not sears.

But even then that's not even worth debating because your points are completely moot. What happens when you're bent over with the sound of a zipper unzipping, cus I assure you, if any aformentioned items were available, you wouldn't be in that position to begin with, now would you?

Of course not, and that was my point; if they had a real form of protection and not "maybe if you try to gross him out he will leave", they wouldn't be in the situation to begin with. That's why the article is retarded, it offers no real form of fixing the problem before it starts.

Of course not, and that was my point; if they had a real form of protection and not "maybe if you try to gross him out he will leave", they wouldn't be in the situation to begin with. That's why the article is retarded, it offers no real form of fixing the problem before it starts.

But that point doesn't make sense in terms of context of this article. Not everyone has access to that, or feels it necessary to obtain such protection until it actually happens, legal or not, this would be the case. To be in a world where we have to carry hidden blades like assassin creed multiplayer to make sure bad things don't happen to us, is not only a gross exageration of your paranoia, but completely unnecessary. Yes bad things happen in life, but guns don't offer protection but fear of retiliation which in my opinion, leads to even more paranoia and thinner ice.

Again all irrelevant because mace and tazers would be the first reaction, and people would probably choose over guns anyway as they don't want a death on their conscious. Sometimes, for whatever reason, circumstance, malfunction, human error, they aren't gurranteed protection, writing an article telling all women that the public is full of rapists ready to pounce you any moment is unreasonable.

Of course not, and that was my point; if they had a real form of protection and not "maybe if you try to gross him out he will leave", they wouldn't be in the situation to begin with. That's why the article is retarded, it offers no real form of fixing the problem before it starts.

You guys both have points, however, every situation is going to be different.
It's impossible to just have one clear solution to this issue.

While I'm at it, keep in mind that the victims aren't always female, either...nor are the rapists always male.