Actually.... yes.  You could.  The Soviet Union was the first country with the objective of destorying religion.  No doubt people are more likely to stick to their religion due to the fact that the evil dicks who made their lives horrible tried to take it away from them.

Nothing seems to stir religious adherence more then religious persecution. 

The Xenophobia was enhanced by the soviet union, it was basically they're tactic.  Racism is actually kinda strange like that.  In a lot of cases minority groups actually end up more racist then majority groups, even though they themselves are the target of untrue streotypes.  For some reason most people don't put two and two together like that.

The bolded reminds me of why I couldn't get myself to read The Master and Marguerita. I quit after the first couple of chapters. Just seemed like it was written by an angry christian who hated atheists.

Anyways, what you're saying isn't necessarily true. Most of the former Soviet states aren't very religious at all. Actually, Romania and Poland are the main exceptions. The only European countries who are more religious are the Vatican (which isn't really a country) and Turkey (only a small part of it is in Europe).

The xenophobia makes sense, but the racism didn't start with Communism. It's been there for far longer.

flip those around and you have His Dark Materials.  it really was something to be able to feel someones real world hatreds practically seething out of a novel like that

Well, in The Master and Marguerita you had "atheists deserve to die because they don't believe in Jesus", while in His Dark Materials the author gives better arguments, and the actions of the religious people from the books are inspired by the actions of real-life religious people. And like most Russian authors (such as Dostoeyevsky), Bulgakov gives some of the weakest reasons possible to be an atheist, only so he can reaffirm his beliefs.

抗议的话政府会重视吗?

yea or maybe that was the first think that came tohis mind?

if only...he was actually explicitly told not to say what he said and decided it should be said anyways.

I'm alittle late to the thread so sorry I didn't read all the responses.

Personally I think the officer was giving sound advice. As Scottie said the wording "Slut" might not have been the best choice of words. Maybe the officer could have said "You are less likely to be raped if you don't dress in very revealing clothing".

Honestly the less attractive you look the less likely you are to be raped. I don't need facts to back that up its basic human instincts.

Is someone going to rape you soully because you have a cute face, maybe. But are they going to choose a fully clothed girl with a cute face over a girl dressed provocatively who is also just as sexually attractive.

Also while I have no concrete facts to back it up. The majority of rapes and murders I hear about are women who are prostitutes. Now this might be rapists and murderers targetting sex industry workers. But it could in many cases also be because of how those women are dressed walking around town. They make very conveniant targets.

Also alot of rapes occur on beaches, at least from what I have read in the news. Why so many beach goers get date raped or raped on the beach I could say might be related to the lack of clothing.

Also date rapes in bars. The guy isn't likely to drop a roofie in a fully clothed girl's drink when he can put it in a girl with much more revealing clothes drink. Fact is men are highly attracted to the female body. The more it is covered the less they are attracted. The less men are attracted the less likely they are to rape a woman.

Same goes for sexual harrasment. I've known both attractive girls and non-attractive girls. The attractive girls who dress provactively are always complaining about getting their butt slapped or getting a rude comment. The girls who tend to wear less revealing clothes or who are less attractive complain the opposite that they never get guys attention and that no guys hit on them.

Now I could tell all my female friends, show more skin and more guys will hit on you. But I'd probably get slapped upside the head and loose alot of respect. But its a fact.

As such I think this Police officer was given sound advice, based on his own experiances and the knowledge he has built over the years of being on the police force. Also if he was talking to kids about rape chances are he is an officer who investigates rape crimes as usually specialists talk at schools. Meaning he probably had alot of experiance that gave him his belief and that belief while may not sound the best is probably closer to reality then the more politically correct belief that what girls wear doesn't affect their chances of being sexually abused!

You should have read the thread.  The facts show that the cop was wrong.

I agree with the policeman. There is a difference between dressing sexily and dressing like a slut, and most young woman these days don't seem to know the difference. What really grinds my gears is the way the policeman gave sensible advise and now people are protesting against. I'd be inclined to just say 'fuck it, let them get raped'.