If you leave your front door unlocked and wide open, are you partially responsible for being robbed? The criminal is the robber obviously, but you made it easy for them. Whilst we live in a messed up world, we all have to take some responsibility to keep ourselves, our family, and our possessions safe. That is an unfortunate reality.
did you read my post at all or just quote it to say something irrelevant?
I don't think anyone is disputing any of that, apart from the BIB to be fair. Nobody is saying that men are not physically stronger than women.
It's not informing women of the dangers of being bladdered which is the issue, it's the assertion that them being bladdered makes them responsible for a man inserting their penis inside them against their will. The man can't help it and there's nothing that can be done apart from tell the woman not to drink so much. The bloke can drink as much as he likes.
Might be an idea. Delighted you think the sentences are 'fine as they are'.
Innit? Bless 'em. Don't have too much vino, now!
Men can't help themselves, apparently.
Education. Less victim blaming. That kind of thing.
Do you believe that education and less victim blaming will save a vulnerable women from being raped when shes paralytic? The rapist will somehow remember being told that he must get consent?
Do you believe that education and less victim blaming will save a vulnerable women from being raped when shes paralytic? The rapist will somehow remember being told that he must get consent?
I notice you conveniently avoided the point about levels of sobriety. Let me check again: 2 scenarios. 1 girl who doesn't drink much normally, but is celebrating a birthday and has 2 large glasses of wine on an empty stomach. She has a good night and ends up having a guy force himself on her in an alleyway. Contrast with a 'party animal' who is celebrating a mate's promotion and has 2 bottles of wine and 4 shots of tequila before puking, going back to a friend of a friend's house and being penetrated by one of the housemates.
I assume you have more sympathy for the former hypothetical victim?
You say you are tired of the house analogy but its the perfect example. Even if i leave my doors wide open and hang a neon sign up informing people I have lots of valubles, Im not "asking for it" to get stolen. But i dint do this, because i know that no matter how much we talk about blame and how we should be able to do stuff, the fact is that id be putting myself in a vulnerable situation and criminals take advantage of those.
Throughout this thread I keep seeing people saying that because women are the likely targets, the message is, rightly, aimed at them But women are NOT the likely targets - young men are at WAY bigger risk of an attack than women.
Yet we keep seeing articles and posts about how women, and women alone, need to stay sober and dress modestly and blah blah. All sensible advice. But isn't it at least a little peculiar that we almost never see that same advice aimed at men? Given that they are much more likely to get beaten on their way home from the pub.
And all this when it's really, really rare to get randomly raped. Women are at more risk from their immediate social circle, often sober and in comfy jeans and t-shirt.
So, effectively hammering down this message of "don't get too drunk in skimpy clothing" is doing very little to prevent sexual assault. Staying safe is of course sensible, I'm not disputing that, I just don't understand why this seems to be pretty much the only message we keep seeing about this issue.
Hmm, one cherry picked quote doth not a whole article make
I notice you conveniently avoided the point about levels of sobriety. Let me check again: 2 scenarios. 1 girl who doesn't drink much normally, but is celebrating a birthday and has 2 large glasses of wine on an empty stomach. She has a good night and ends up having a guy force himself on her in an alleyway. Contrast with a 'party animal' who is celebrating a mate's promotion and has 2 bottles of wine and 4 shots of tequila before puking, going back to a friend of a friend's house and being penetrated by one of the housemates.
I assume you have more sympathy for the former hypothetical victim?
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. So, 2 men, one leaves for holiday but forgets to lock his door, the other man purposefully leaves his door unlocked and puts up a sign outside his house saying he is going away. Both men get robbed. Which one do you give more sympathy? Is either of then to blame, or the robber? Which one do you think tried harder to protect himself?
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. So, 2 men, one leaves for holiday but forgets to lock his door, the other man purposefully leaves his door unlocked and puts up a sign outside his house saying he is going away. Both men get robbed. Which one do you give more sympathy? Is either of then to blame, or the robber? Which one do you think tried harder to protect himself?
I clearly give the former more sympathy. Anyone would and it doesn't even need asking.
But it's far easier to gauge in such an analogy than how much someone might have drunk in a rape scenario.
An interesting exercise though and very much relating to my hypothetical scenario. People (well, women), don't actually always go out with the intent of getting drunk so should we give more sympathy to those that inadvertently get hammered and raped to those who binge drink to blot out the pain (perhaps of a previous rape) who then get raped again? Should we give a lesser sentence to a rapist who was hammered and raped someone who was paralytic as oppose to a rapist who rapes someone who doesn't drink much normally but ooops got drunk?
It's not informing women of the dangers of being bladdered which is the issue, it's the assertion that them being bladdered makes them responsible for a man inserting their penis inside them against their will. The man can't help it and there's nothing that can be done apart from tell the woman not to drink so much. The bloke can drink as much as he likes.
Nobody, I repeat NOBODY, is saying that.
The rapist/attacker/mugger (because this isn't just a rape issue) is still responsible for the attack, but the person who got attacked can increase the chances of them getting attacked higher by making poor choices.
Therefore they can reduce the chances by taking precautions, such as not getting drunk to the point you are not in control.
You keep just focusing on rape, but of course if someone is that drunk they are not only at danger of being raped, they are also in danger of other attacks too.
Saying that we should teach men not to rape does not deal with the possibility of drunk people being beaten up and/or having their wallet/purse, phone or bag stolen.
What is a catalyst in all of these? The alcohol consumption.
To ignore the intoxication of the victim is wrong, as that often plays a big part in them becoming a victim due to their diminished personal control.
Are you really saying that people should be absolved of ALL responsibility for themselves because they have had a drink?
Why is it that women when they have had a drink should not be responsible for anything and everyone else is responsible for her well being?
Woman power!
Neither men or women can't at times, that is why they get so drunk that they are incapable of looking after themselves.
Regardless of gender, people need to realise that they need to be responsible for their well-being at all times.
Education. Less victim blaming. That kind of thing.
Education indeed, to ALL about how to drink responsibly, since that IS the issue.
You can bleat on about how 'men need to be educated that rape is wrong', but that is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.
What is lacking is self-control.
After all, women getting rape is rare, but people getting into all manor of trouble because they are drunk is not!
So is the message here, some men are indiscriminate robbers and burglars be it a house or a woman's most intimate self , note, both measured on the same scale of crime.
They are opportunists who will, like carrion crows,just be opportunist who cannot and will not be reformed nor educated so it's up to everyone else to modify their lives to accommodate that inability, that unwillingness to recognise that people have reasonable expectations not to be robbed and raped.
Crime will never be eradicated , but reducing it and minimising it come from educating the potential criminal and not building higher walls to keep them out.
A lot of what I'm reading on this thread suggests that a few posters don't want to acknowledge that there are very obvious gender differences.
Logically, it's straightforward to see (although some may inevitably disagree) that men and women are quite obviously not the same.
And in lots of situations, maybe different rules apply to each gender.
I keep reading posters saying, well if it applies to women, then the same should apply to men.........It's almost like some of us don't want to acnowledge the differences between men and women due to the fact that we've now got equality.
But we can still be equal to each other and yet have obvious undeniable differences between each other.
And maybe the odds are stacked against women. Maybe it's to be accepted that if a woman goes out and gets drunk, she'll face more risk than if a man does the same thing.
I think victim blaming and taking better care of ourselves are two different things.
Having said that, if a woman was raped in a hotel room tonight, because she willingly went back to his place, without knowing anything about him, threw caution to the wind and didn't care etc, and afterwards she ends up raped. Then of course the rapist is to be blamed, but the woman would have to and should still have to accept her part in it, for doing something so incredibly dangerous and stupid in the first place!
So is the message here, some men are indiscriminate robbers and burglars be it a house or a woman's most intimate self , note, both measured on the same scale of crime.
They are opportunists who will, like carrion crows,just be opportunist who cannot and will not be reformed nor educated so it's up to everyone else to modify their lives to accommodate that inability, that unwillingness to recognise that people have reasonable expectations not to be robbed and raped. Crime will never be eradicated , but reducing it and minimising it come from educating the potential criminal and not building higher walls to keep them out.
Do you really believe that? Do you think you can inform people that certain acts are against the law and crime will go down? So you have an area where there are spates of violence what form does this education take and what percentage of the crime do you think it would reduce by?
I notice you conveniently avoided the point about levels of sobriety. Let me check again: 2 scenarios. 1 girl who doesn't drink much normally, but is celebrating a birthday and has 2 large glasses of wine on an empty stomach. She has a good night and ends up having a guy force himself on her in an alleyway. Contrast with a 'party animal' who is celebrating a mate's promotion and has 2 bottles of wine and 4 shots of tequila before puking, going back to a friend of a friend's house and being penetrated by one of the housemates.
I assume you have more sympathy for the former hypothetical victim?
No. While Person 2 in your scenario did put herself in a more vulnerable position than Person 1, it's not fair to say that this made her in any way more "deserving" of what happened. Rape is not the victims fault. I have an equal amount of sympathy for anyone who has been raped.
I suspect you do something everyday because if you didn't, there is a chance you could be a victim of crime.
Indeed I close my front door when I leave in the morning. However if one morning I failed to do so and was burgled I wouldn't expect the response to be well you should have closed your door. The burglar would still have committed the crime with no doubt in their mind that what they were doing was wrong. The fact that it was easier to commit the crime doesn't absolve them from having made the decision to commit the crime. I would still be a completely innocent victim of burglary.
Indeed I close my front door when I leave in the morning. However if one morning I failed to do so and was burgled I wouldn't expect the response to be well you should have closed your door. The burglar would still have committed the crime with no doubt in their mind that what they were doing was wrong. The fact that it was easier to commit the crime doesn't absolve them from having made the decision to commit the crime. I would still be a completely innocent victim of burglary.
That's absolutely right. But as we already teach people that stealing is wrong, and it hasn't stopped burglars from existing, but locking your front door/having a burglar alarm DOES stop some burglars, it makes sense to do those things while we wait for the day when we CAN leave our doors unlocked and never get robbed.
The rapist/attacker/mugger (because this isn't just a rape issue) is still responsible for the attack, but the person who got attacked can increase the chances of them getting attacked higher by making poor choices.
Therefore they can reduce the chances by taking precautions, such as not getting drunk to the point you are not in control.
You keep just focusing on rape, but of course if someone is that drunk they are not only at danger of being raped, they are also in danger of other attacks too.
Saying that we should teach men not to rape does not deal with the possibility of drunk people being beaten up and/or having their wallet/purse, phone or bag stolen.
What is a catalyst in all of these? The alcohol consumption.
To ignore the intoxication of the victim is wrong, as that often plays a big part in them becoming a victim due to their diminished personal control.
Are you really saying that people should be absolved of ALL responsibility for themselves because they have had a drink?
Why is it that women when they have had a drink should not be responsible for anything and everyone else is responsible for her well being?
Woman power!
Neither men or women can't at times, that is why they get so drunk that they are incapable of looking after themselves.
Regardless of gender, people need to realise that they need to be responsible for their well-being at all times.
Education indeed, to ALL about how to drink responsibly, since that IS the issue.
You can bleat on about how 'men need to be educated that rape is wrong', but that is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.
What is lacking is self-control.
After all, women getting rape is rare, but people getting into all manor of trouble because they are drunk is not!
The chance of crime is always there one way or another, Some people do not care, Take precautions to limit the chances of being the next victim, it isn't your fault but it is a fact, Welcome to the jungle.
I think men as a gender need to start speaking up in a much louder voice about issues surrounding rape. Men who don't rape disassociate themselves from these rapists and therefore see it as something they are powerless to do anything about.
Lots of lads may know that one of their mates is 'a bit persistent ' when it comes to sex. They may not like what he does, but they accept it because generally they see him as a nice bloke. They may laugh if they hear him say, 'I'll soon talk her round' or 'look at her she's gagging for it'. This culture is endemic in our society . Even women themselves laugh it off. Accusations of prudish behaviour and lacking in a sense of humour is a massive barrier to zero tolerance of the use of this language.
For the men in this thread who have heard that said, or have even said it themselves, what do you think are the thought processes that made you or others come to that conclusion. Was it the way she was dressed, was it the way she was acting ?
Now if you as a non rapist know why you came to the same conclusion, just imagine the next step for your 'persistent' mate who bets he can 'get off' with her whilst ignoring the fact she can hardly stand up at the end of the night.
Do mates say 'I think you should leave it, she's too drunk' ? Or do they just go home, not giving it a second thought except to ask how he 'got on' the next time they meet.
Indeed I close my front door when I leave in the morning. However if one morning I failed to do so and was burgled I wouldn't expect the response to be well you should have closed your door. The burglar would still have committed the crime with no doubt in their mind that what they were doing was wrong. The fact that it was easier to commit the crime doesn't absolve them from having made the decision to commit the crime. I would still be a completely innocent victim of burglary.
But you still would have made yourself more vulnerable to somebody breaking into your house. Nobody is absolving rapists of their crime either.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. So, 2 men, one leaves for holiday but forgets to lock his door, the other man purposefully leaves his door unlocked and puts up a sign outside his house saying he is going away. Both men get robbed. Which one do you give more sympathy? Is either of then to blame, or the robber? Which one do you think tried harder to protect himself?
I find your analogy interesting - and I think it sits at the heart of why a resolution is so difficult with this subject. You said the second man 'puts up a sign saying he is going away' - and that implied 'invitation' aspect is why people are divided on this. I don't think that a woman getting drunk is ]analogous to the second man... but to the first. Others will disagree... because, subconsciously or not they believe the woman is inviting trouble, just as the second man did. But a woman getting drunk is doing so for her own benefit, not as an invitation. The rape victim here is analagous to the first man - she has gone out and by a stroke of bad luck a chancer has found that she is vulnerable and acted on it... just like a burgler happened to find an unlocked door.
Of course people need to protect themselves - but if they are unlucky and some git takes advantage of their vulnerability then it is the attackers fault, not the victims. Wrong place; wrong time - no blame.
Comments
So you genuinely believe that this will stop potential rapists from raping? If so, then I give up, because you are clearly not with it.
did you read my post at all or just quote it to say something irrelevant?
"Whatever happened to Karen Buckley, it was not her fault. She was an innocent victim who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time"
She seems quite clear in this case that she doesn't hold the woman responsible.
Sorry, I misread it.
Do you believe that education and less victim blaming will save a vulnerable women from being raped when shes paralytic? The rapist will somehow remember being told that he must get consent?
If you say so
Whatevs
Hmm, one cherry picked quote doth not a whole article make
I notice you conveniently avoided the point about levels of sobriety. Let me check again: 2 scenarios. 1 girl who doesn't drink much normally, but is celebrating a birthday and has 2 large glasses of wine on an empty stomach. She has a good night and ends up having a guy force himself on her in an alleyway. Contrast with a 'party animal' who is celebrating a mate's promotion and has 2 bottles of wine and 4 shots of tequila before puking, going back to a friend of a friend's house and being penetrated by one of the housemates.
I assume you have more sympathy for the former hypothetical victim?
Yet we keep seeing articles and posts about how women, and women alone, need to stay sober and dress modestly and blah blah. All sensible advice. But isn't it at least a little peculiar that we almost never see that same advice aimed at men? Given that they are much more likely to get beaten on their way home from the pub.
And all this when it's really, really rare to get randomly raped. Women are at more risk from their immediate social circle, often sober and in comfy jeans and t-shirt.
So, effectively hammering down this message of "don't get too drunk in skimpy clothing" is doing very little to prevent sexual assault. Staying safe is of course sensible, I'm not disputing that, I just don't understand why this seems to be pretty much the only message we keep seeing about this issue.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. So, 2 men, one leaves for holiday but forgets to lock his door, the other man purposefully leaves his door unlocked and puts up a sign outside his house saying he is going away. Both men get robbed. Which one do you give more sympathy? Is either of then to blame, or the robber? Which one do you think tried harder to protect himself?
I clearly give the former more sympathy. Anyone would and it doesn't even need asking.
But it's far easier to gauge in such an analogy than how much someone might have drunk in a rape scenario.
An interesting exercise though and very much relating to my hypothetical scenario. People (well, women), don't actually always go out with the intent of getting drunk so should we give more sympathy to those that inadvertently get hammered and raped to those who binge drink to blot out the pain (perhaps of a previous rape) who then get raped again? Should we give a lesser sentence to a rapist who was hammered and raped someone who was paralytic as oppose to a rapist who rapes someone who doesn't drink much normally but ooops got drunk?
The rapist/attacker/mugger (because this isn't just a rape issue) is still responsible for the attack, but the person who got attacked can increase the chances of them getting attacked higher by making poor choices.
Therefore they can reduce the chances by taking precautions, such as not getting drunk to the point you are not in control.
You keep just focusing on rape, but of course if someone is that drunk they are not only at danger of being raped, they are also in danger of other attacks too.
Saying that we should teach men not to rape does not deal with the possibility of drunk people being beaten up and/or having their wallet/purse, phone or bag stolen.
What is a catalyst in all of these? The alcohol consumption.
To ignore the intoxication of the victim is wrong, as that often plays a big part in them becoming a victim due to their diminished personal control.
Are you really saying that people should be absolved of ALL responsibility for themselves because they have had a drink?
Why is it that women when they have had a drink should not be responsible for anything and everyone else is responsible for her well being?
Woman power!
Neither men or women can't at times, that is why they get so drunk that they are incapable of looking after themselves.
Regardless of gender, people need to realise that they need to be responsible for their well-being at all times.
Education indeed, to ALL about how to drink responsibly, since that IS the issue.
You can bleat on about how 'men need to be educated that rape is wrong', but that is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.
What is lacking is self-control.
After all, women getting rape is rare, but people getting into all manor of trouble because they are drunk is not!
They are opportunists who will, like carrion crows,just be opportunist who cannot and will not be reformed nor educated so it's up to everyone else to modify their lives to accommodate that inability, that unwillingness to recognise that people have reasonable expectations not to be robbed and raped.
Crime will never be eradicated , but reducing it and minimising it come from educating the potential criminal and not building higher walls to keep them out.
I'm equal to men, I don't care what anyone says
Do you really believe that? Do you think you can inform people that certain acts are against the law and crime will go down? So you have an area where there are spates of violence what form does this education take and what percentage of the crime do you think it would reduce by?
No. While Person 2 in your scenario did put herself in a more vulnerable position than Person 1, it's not fair to say that this made her in any way more "deserving" of what happened. Rape is not the victims fault. I have an equal amount of sympathy for anyone who has been raped.
Indeed I close my front door when I leave in the morning. However if one morning I failed to do so and was burgled I wouldn't expect the response to be well you should have closed your door. The burglar would still have committed the crime with no doubt in their mind that what they were doing was wrong. The fact that it was easier to commit the crime doesn't absolve them from having made the decision to commit the crime. I would still be a completely innocent victim of burglary.
That's absolutely right. But as we already teach people that stealing is wrong, and it hasn't stopped burglars from existing, but locking your front door/having a burglar alarm DOES stop some burglars, it makes sense to do those things while we wait for the day when we CAN leave our doors unlocked and never get robbed.
Might be manner.
I'm not 'focusing on rape'. But this thread is.
Agreed, and I didnt need the DM to tell me the bleedin obvious
Lots of lads may know that one of their mates is 'a bit persistent ' when it comes to sex. They may not like what he does, but they accept it because generally they see him as a nice bloke. They may laugh if they hear him say, 'I'll soon talk her round' or 'look at her she's gagging for it'. This culture is endemic in our society . Even women themselves laugh it off. Accusations of prudish behaviour and lacking in a sense of humour is a massive barrier to zero tolerance of the use of this language.
For the men in this thread who have heard that said, or have even said it themselves, what do you think are the thought processes that made you or others come to that conclusion. Was it the way she was dressed, was it the way she was acting ?
Now if you as a non rapist know why you came to the same conclusion, just imagine the next step for your 'persistent' mate who bets he can 'get off' with her whilst ignoring the fact she can hardly stand up at the end of the night.
Do mates say 'I think you should leave it, she's too drunk' ? Or do they just go home, not giving it a second thought except to ask how he 'got on' the next time they meet.
MenCanStopRape.org
But you still would have made yourself more vulnerable to somebody breaking into your house. Nobody is absolving rapists of their crime either.
I find your analogy interesting - and I think it sits at the heart of why a resolution is so difficult with this subject. You said the second man 'puts up a sign saying he is going away' - and that implied 'invitation' aspect is why people are divided on this. I don't think that a woman getting drunk is ]analogous to the second man... but to the first. Others will disagree... because, subconsciously or not they believe the woman is inviting trouble, just as the second man did. But a woman getting drunk is doing so for her own benefit, not as an invitation. The rape victim here is analagous to the first man - she has gone out and by a stroke of bad luck a chancer has found that she is vulnerable and acted on it... just like a burgler happened to find an unlocked door.
Of course people need to protect themselves - but if they are unlucky and some git takes advantage of their vulnerability then it is the attackers fault, not the victims. Wrong place; wrong time - no blame.