Or is this victim blaming?

How long do women have to wait until men educate themselves, it's not a lack of understanding. Yes women should be able to live in a society that is not controlled by fear but I would be a hypocrite if I didn't admit that I have influenced my daughter and nieces on the risks of trusting a man to recognise and agree to consent. I would never blame any woman but I'm always going to warn my daughter of these risks.

"why would they put themselves..."

The OP is shifting responsibility to the victims of rape.

Did you see the judge's statement at Russel Brand's sentencing hearing?

"They were both accomplished women who took perfectly reasonable decisions to go to a party and have a few drinks or to go to your house for one type of consensual sex they were no more or less vulnerable than any adult woman making those choices. I pause to add and stress at once the fact that they did so in no way shape or form diminishes your culpability for sexually assaulting one and raping the other."

He next says something that is really clear, really obvious and I hope answers your initial post:

“Whatever women wear, wherever they go, whatever they drink, they retain the right to say no and demand justice in the criminal courts when sexual predators like you, Mr Brand, act without their consent.”

WHATEVER.

But what will you say to her if god forbid, she follows the rules and it happens anyway?

The fact that several people have compared women to objects such as houses and cars is part of the problem.

😂😂 brilliant!

Generally, the man has done a lot to give them the impression that they have nothing to fear, that it's platonic, they're just enjoying the conversation, just want a cuddle on the first night but will respect them and leave it at that, etc etc . They're not going back with a leery man that won't stop grabbing at them.

Women should be able to walk around outside naked and have nothing happen to them. However, we know that isn't the case, and not because she's doing anything wrong by being naked, but only because rapists exist. We have to keep ourselves safe from the scum predators that plague this Earth, taking precautions to mitigate the likelihood of such attacks occurring.

That being said, I would never, NEVER say to a woman that the SA happened because she "put herself in a dangerous situation". That exact statement, and that exact sentiment is itself putting the blame on the victim. Because you're saying had she not CHOSE to put herself in a dangerous situation, then she would not have been raped.

We know from the large array of different scenarios in which rape occurs that this is not a fool-proof way of stopping SA. You don't walk home late at night alone, you don't go out in the dark, you keep your keys pointed out of your fist, your cover yourself to not show skin, you walk home with a friend. Yet that night your husband decides to rape you. Do you see that? Do you see how not putting yourself in dangerous situations isn't the only mitigating factor to prevent this? You could take all the precautions in the world and it could still happen, because the problem is never the woman, its never the scenario, the problem is always the rapist.

I was drugged and raped at the age of 18 by a group of men on one of my first nights out in uni. My at the time boyfriend told me I put myself in that situation. And I did, I did put myself in the situatuion of going to a house party, I did not put myself in a situation of being drugged and raped. That was the choice of the rapists. Reading that exact statement now makes my blood fucking boil.

Yes, they do. And its also used in cross examination in court. Why do you think that 85% of rape is unreported? And that conviction rates are only 3.4% of that tiny minority?
The victim in a rape case doesn't own the process, we are literally just evidence to the proceedings, not even referred to as a victim. We are just a witness.

No, that's a cop-out. It's a similar principle other than that bodily integrity is so much more important than possessions so it's even more worthy of protection. While I could live with my property being violated, I'd find it much harder to live with my body being violated. So I would want to take every precaution I could to avoid it happening (even if I couldn't fully eliminate it).

Russell Brand has been blamed for rape and has been jailed but I bet you that his victims' lives are still destroyed by his actions. So I will continue to tell my DD when she's older to keep an eye on her drinks, do not get blackout drunk, do not go back to some random's house 'just to kiss' and do not walk alone in an unlit area. It won't be her fault if anything happens but I'd rather it didn't happen.

I know. Which is why there are endless threads on here advising women to end relationships with men who display red flags.

It's not victim blaming to point out that there is a chance if you continue to spend time with this man there is a higher chance you will suffer abuse. It's good advice. It's advising taking personal responsibility for your safely given than man sounds like an increased risk.

I just don't think its victim blaming to point out certain behaviors come with increased risk. Its just reality.

If you don't enter a hotel room with a stranger you are less likely to get raped by said stranger. Less likely to have a fun night and meet your future husband too. We all weigh up the possibilities/ risks of both and choose according to our own personalities.

This isn't victim blaming imo.

'This wouldn't have happened if you hadnt done this.'

Isn't the same as

'It's your fault this happened.'

Personally I believe we should be free to say the former without people telling us we mean the latter.

😆😆😆

Ps. You’re not a feminist. You’re not an advocate for women. Say what you like but cut the delusions that you are a friend to women.

You're speaking as if you know the OP.

You don't.

Probably the same thing she would say if she didn't follow the rules...it wasn't her fault, she is not to blame ... because she wouldn't be.

Yes.

There was a well known case that went to court in America several years ago now which included showing everyone in court the victims knickers to try and prove that because they were wearing sexy knickers, they clearly wanted to have sex.

It's a reason why the vast majority of rapes go unreported.

And given, as someone has pointed out, that men are statistically more vulnerable to physical attack when walking alone than women, would you therefore lament your sons' poor decision-making if they were attacked walking down the street on their way home?

What an odd comment. It’s an anonymous forum. Everyone comments based on the narrative in the OP. What else am I supposed to base my opinion on? How strange.

This is the thing though... There's literally no way to live a low-risk as a woman. Edit: low-risk life.

That's the entire point that feminists have been making for centuries.

Telling yourself that there is some way women can off-set the risk (moderate drinking, no one-night stands, stay home after dark, hold your keys between your fingers blah blah blah) is creating a false distance that gives you some mental comfort but is a complete illusion.

Being born female makes us a target, it's pure luck that keeps us safe in the street or in our homes, and the only end to it is to stamp out rapists and abusers.

Does anyone remember the "Ealing Vicarage Rape" case? The vicarage was violently burgled and her fiance and father were tied up and beaten. She was raped and had been a virgin. The judge said that the most severe sentence handed down belonged to the burglar who had not raped her because the theft was more important. English law is based on land and possessions, not people.

I know more rapes happen in marriage, relationships etc but we risk assess the men we marry and do as much as we can to make sure we have a good one. Nothing is foolproof but we try. A stranger in a hotel room has not been risk assessed at all so to me that’s riskier even if the stats say more rapes happen in marriage.

My stance is this:

There are two people in a situation.
Person A has had a drink and gone to a hotel room.
Person B has committed a heinous crime.

The person whose behaviour I'd be questioning is not person A.

Yes. They do. Questions like this are routinely asked during police investigations, witness interviews, and court proceedings. The intent behind them varies depending on who is asking - ostensibly they are supposed to be to determine timelines, or to collect physical or forensic evidence, understand the victim's level of capacity or intoxication - questions regarding alcohol or drug use can determine whether the victim had the legal capacity to consent.

But in court those same lines of questioning can be used for a different purpose which is often to test credibility, suggest alternative narratives, or imply that a lack of physical resistance or the presence of alcohol equates to consent. And questions about why someone didn’t scream or otherwise push back can often ignore trauma responses such as involuntary freezing or dissociation where the brain and body shut down under extreme threat. It’s incredibly difficult to bring a rape case to trial in the UK, not least because of the victims’ fear of being further traumatised/humiliated in court.

Well, I'd say it's similar with rapists and abusers. We might not want to admit it to ourselves but a lot of 'nice' middle class men and boys would rape and assault women if they thought they could get away with it. They might act all fine and upstanding but if they come into a room and there's a drunk woman passed out on the bed and nobody else is around, some of them will rape or assault her because they want to. Not because they aren't 'educated' but because they think they can get away with it.

I mean, genuinely, do people honestly believe that an education campaign for men that it's wrong to rape women and assault them is going to lead to a reduction in the number of men who do so?? Really?