The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

Holding a drunk woman responsible for her own rape, is not a feminist position, HRH.

Imagine your son is gay. He is drunk and forcibly penetrated by his equally drunk male friend. Do you honestly think he is just as responsible for his own rape, as the boy who penetrated him in that situation?

Because the very act of forced penetration, is the active act of aggression, drunk or not. How can your son be equally responsible for that act?

Not because people won't believe them though HRH

But I think you're right in that anyone who has been through any very traumatic experience, finds it difficult to talk about.

However, someone who is assaulted will be offered counselling, victim support etc. Whereas someone who has been raped, generally doesn't report, so won't be offered that. Rape Crisis get people ringing up twenty years after they were raped needing to talk about it.

I am really sorry if you think that we are adopting caricatures of what you are saying.

That really isn't my intention, I am reading exactly what you said and I genuinely don't know how else it can be read. I'm happy to read a clarification, but telling me I'm adopting a caricature, isn't clarifying anything. I'm baffled by how you think what you said can mean anything other than what I understand by it.

Yes I think your post is quite clear Tyr.

You are saying that if you don't go into the home of a man you don't know very well, you are minimising the risk of crime.

Which crime?

Rape. Or were you thinking of another crime? So does the advice not to enter the home of a man you don't know very well, extend to men, or is it just relevant to women? And do you also think that people shouldn't go into the homes of women they don't know very well in order to minimise the risk of crime?

Assuming that you do mean rape, why would not entering the home of a man you don't know well, minimise your risk of rape?

Er, because he might be a rapist.

How else can that possibly be read?

In effect, you appear to be saying, that the responsible course of action for women, is to treat any unknown man as if he is a rapist and not enter their houses in order to minimise the risk to ourselves of being raped.

I'm sorry if I'm labouring this, but you do realise that that sounds as if you think all men are rapists, or if they are not all rapists, then women should at least treat them all as if they might be. If a feminist said that, she would be very swiftly labelled a man-hater. Do you really not realise that that's what it sounds like you are saying?

In any case, given that most rapes are committed by men who are known to the victim of the rape, the advice not to enter the home of a man you don't know well, is a bit pointless. They would be better advised not to enter the homes of men they are very well acquainted with, as those are the men statistically most likely to rape them.

I think some of you have adopted caricatures of what I said and didn't say.
DCMP Sorry, but that last post is just silly.
I thought that what I did say was actually quite clear.

Well, exactly. Because the only way to avoid being raped by a man is to never be anywhere near one. Is this the world we want to live in? Do we accept 'they're just like that'?

but Tyr, why should I assume that I'll be a victim of a crime if I go into the home of a man I don't know very well?

Should I assume that he's some kind of criminal? Or that there might be a criminal in his home, waiting to commit a crime against me?

I think you really need to think about what you're saying.

No, it would not be a responsible starting point or even a logical one and it is not what I said.
A responsible starting point would be to accept that crime occurs and to seek to minimise one's chances of becoming a victim.
It would be equally illogical to assume that all youths are car thieves.

I would think of it this way. Would it be irresponsible to go back to a female's flat after a few drinks? If you don't think this is the same, Tyr, you might want to reflect on why you think this is different.
I am not saying this to attack you; I was just a little concerned by your example of leaving a car in a notorious crime zone comment. It sounded a bit like you were comparing putting yourself in the company of men to entering a crime zone. I would argue that there is no comparison. Men are not dangerous by nature to women. We have no need to avoid and fear their company.

Responsible? Possibly. Popular? Probably not.

Is a responsible starting-point, to believe that all men are rapists?

Why is it irresponsible behaviour Tyr? It's only irresponsible if you suspect that someone is a rapist or a murderer and might rape or murder you.

If you think they're just a normal person, why is it irresponsible to go to their home? What is the danger of going into the home of someone you don't know? Most houses are perfectly safe, not booby-trapped at all.

Or are women supposed to assume that all men are rapists so we shouldn't go into their homes?

Forgive me for lurking on this thread and for making a point that has already been articulated (if it has) but the issue of responsibility interests me.
I don?t think that irresponsible behaviour of a victim before the crime is the same as being partially responsible/to blame for the crime itself.
If I leave the keys in my car in an area notorious for car theft, that is irresponsible.
It does not mitigate the responsibility of the car thief for his actions.
If a woman gets drunk and goes back to a stranger?s house, I would say that is probably irresponsible behaviour. 99 times out of 100, no harm may come off it; if it does, she is not to blame for the actions of the rapist.

Yes most women don't talk at all ever, to anyone, about their rape because they simply cannot bear the thought that they will see that look of polite incredulity when they talk about one of the most traumatic experiences of their lives.

Viz the "she had had a hundred lovers already and she was only twenty" argument, even before my feminist consciousness was raised, I never quite understood that argument. I always used to think "If she was in the business of regularly sleeping around and she wasn't that fussy, the very fact that she's complaining about this particular guy, indicates that in fact it was rape - after all, if she doesn't generally notice who she has a casual fuck with, the fact that she's so upset about this one that she's gone to the police about it, means it wasn't just a casual fuck it was actual rape." I still don't understand why more people who don't take a feminist approach to rape, don't have that logic.

Yes I do. I have also said to partners/boyfriends/blokes I have gone home with after a drunken night out, in between kissing them passionately on the sofa/bed that I am not going to have sex with them too.

There are quite a few sites which offer handy guides to men on how to deal with the issue how to know if the intended sexual partner wants to have sex; for example:

polimicks.livejournal.com/16331.html