1. Riven  

    typos ftw... who double checks these flyers?

  2. Good God  

    Everything inside of me is laughing at that typo, and everything outside is trying to cover that laughter up.

  3. noitslavender  

    No-no-no...it's just too easy.

  4. i don't get it  

    where's the typo?

  5. but  

    The poster only mentions "rape survivors". That implies some women don't survive rape. Why aren't these women included in the statistics? Are they not legitimate rape victims?

  6. How do you  

    know when the rape has been "completed."?

    someone should come up with a good punchline to answer that.

  7. anon  

    seriously guys, these rape jokes have me rolling on the floor. so funny!

  8. took me a while  


  9. umm  

    the fist thing isn't even the weird part. "half of female rape survivors are younger than 18 when they experience their first...rape". how can you experience your first rape if you're already a survivor? I know what they were going for, but, um, no.

    • stickler  

      So it should (1) either be in past tense ("were younger...they experienced"), or maybe it should say "survivors-to-be".

      Nonetheless, I don't find it "weird" at all; using a category in such a temporally ambiguous (or "weird") way is incredibly common in English.

      "Most bwog posters are over the legal limit of intoxication when they make their first post."

      It should be "were", but if this historical trend seems to be ongoing (and Dr. Z. wants to emphasize it), then the present tense is not that weird (at least compared to how advertisers butcher the English language).

      I still think the "fist" oversight seems much more weird.

      • yo stickler  

        The difference is that the condition of being a "rape survivor" is reached at some point after the rape, while "bwog poster" is a condition reached simultaneous with posting.
        Of course, if "rape survivor" is a euphemism for "rape victim" then it makes more sense since one becomes a victim simultaneous with being assaulted.

        • yo yo stickler  

          I can agree with the difference you point between being a survivor and a poster, namely under conventional usage of "survivor."

          Indeed, however, I think it's being used more as a euphemism.

  10. Honestly  

    Some things you shouldn't joke about. This is one of them. Seriously.

  11. umm  

    the take back the night people are making a mockery of themselves. don't take bwog to task because they don't take their own event seriously enough to proofread.

    • well...  

      I don't know who makes the posters, but errors show up in places where people seem to take themselves seriously (e.g., the Times), so I don't think it's an indication of seriousness as much as it's more directly an indication of not being very good/attentive proof-readers (assuming their copy place didn't screw up or something).

    • Well  

      I think they do take their event pretty seriously, hence the incredible number of posters they've blanketed campus with. It just seems like a post about the incredible prevalence of sexual violence in our community could have been more beneficial - and more tasteful.

      • you from round here?  

        Bwog? tasteful? seriously?

        I think a lot of their readership sort of depends on that hint of dirty [email protected]

        (see: pretty image of gun after Virginia Tech shooting)

  12. i assume  

    that it uses the term "rape survivors" because they want to avoid using the word "victim"

    • hrm  

      so i'm guessing they aren't excluding those who don't survive being raped?
      might that group technically include next to no one, since people die as a result of an act of 'murder' and less so as a result of an act of 'rape'?

  13. Well,  

    this just proves that spellcheck can’t catch ’em all...

  14. dude  

    yeah! jokes having to do with rape are soooooo hilarious!

  15. once and for all  

    "rape survivor" doesn't mean they're a special group of people who didn't die after being raped. it just means they experienced rape; it's a more empowering way of saying "rape victim," as #13 said.

  16. Sprinkles  

    I think the people who speak at Take Back the Night are incredibly brave, but I think that the event would have a lot more meaning if the women actually marched in places that had a significance to the idea of females being able to go where they want without fear of assault. When TBTN started in the aftermath of a spate of murders in Northern England in the 1970s, women marched through public parks where the victims had been found brutally murdered by a man known as the "Yorkshire Ripper." Their point was to show that they would not be intimidated in their own hometowns by one maniac who was hell-bent on killing women. I think Take Back the Night has wonderful intentions, but why do they march on some of the streets that are already the safest places for women to be? If they were to walk en masse through Riverside Park it would have a more symbolic impact - that women should be able to feel safe in their own cities. Again, not to cheapen what they do, because it's very admirable - just a thought. If we as women are to truly "take back the night," we need to stare our fears in the face.

    • well...  

      if you go to the speak out at TBTN you will notice that the majority of instances of rape/sexual violence/coercion take place not as violent attacks on the street, but from people the women (or men) already knew, or even were dating. and those are often the ones that don't get reported.

      & when you consider those statistics, it makes sense that they're marching around CU. i think that for many women, they don't need to travel to riverside to stare their fears in the face.

  17. Taste level  

    i'm not sure what posting this online accomplished.

  18. also, bwog,  

    i find this post very tasteless. would you point out a typo in an article about the VA Tech shootings? is this really the level of debate you want to foster around rape & sexual violence?

    • Not the same  

      Bad example, barnard student. A better example would be "would you point out a typo on an anti-gun poster?" The answer, if the typo was hilarious, would most likely be yes. You're treating the Take Back the Night poster as if it was specifically related to the J-School case. Stop looking to be offended: Bwog did nothing wrong.

  19. Are you  

    telling me that the man who tried to put a rubber fist in my anus was a homosexual?

  20. sad  

    bwog, you just lost another reader. this was in horrible taste.

  21. Erm

    Did nobody understand what's wrong here? Every single post seems to be wrong. HINT: It's the word between "their" and "attempted".

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.