Feminist Pub 16: where the Bluestockings develop armoured stockings to deal with the thousand paper cuts

On a tangent, I have to confess I personally hate this notion of a rape victim 'forgiving' the rapist. I've heard of it a few times. I expect it's a very brave thing to do, but... definitely not for me, it makes me very uncomfortable. What do you all think?

Perhaps I'm just not very charitable. 'forgiveness' is a christian concept, a bit alien to me, unless it's to do with moving on with one's life.

spent so long typing that that i crossed with house!

if i've understood what you're suggesting humph, then if it's offered and the victim of rape is not happy to be involved, they could say no? plus i would hope that the people supporting the victim through the justice system would know whether this was an inappropriate thing to ask an individual victim based on their circumstances (though i realise that in reality this will depend on how much support the victim has actually received). i haven't been raped, however, so it's not for me to say either way

I name change to talk about work - but it's the legal side, mostly dealing with offenders. Which is a slightly strange world, especially when dealing with serious crime, so it's helpful to check out my thinking sometimes. I hope the question isn't triggering.

It's not quite either Groundhog. But when people have been sentenced, as part of the order, victims are sometimes involved in restorative work aimed at both making them feel that justice has been done and they can move on, and the offender recognise the effect of their crime to deter future offending. This guidance is about extending that practice more widely as evidence indicates it works well on both aims.

Also I'm a bit crap at following who is who here so it may be that other people here know what you do for a living and that would make it more clear. I'm not sure if you are dealing with victims as a HCP or from the legal side?

I have had a disagreement about some guidance on treatment of victims of crime, colleagues felt victims of sexual crime should be excluded, because any attempt to involve them or use restorative principles would be "too risky" and risk re-victimising them.

Sorry, I'm being thick here..but I'm not following? Do you mean victims of assault should have a choice on their medical/psychological treatment? Or the how their attacker should be handled?

Because with the first bit, obviously, yes they should be completely consulted and I'm not sure how that could victimize them? (Which is why I think I'm probably missing something)

The second point I don't think victims should have any say on the guilty. I think it should be set that certain crimes always receive certain punishments and I also think sex abuse victims are if anything more likely to let the perpetrator off easy.

Just wondering if I can ask for your thoughts. I have had a disagreement about some guidance on treatment of victims of crime, colleagues felt victims of sexual crime should be excluded, because any attempt to involve them or use restorative principles would be "too risky" and risk re-victimising them.

I disagreed, feeling that victims of sexual crime as with every other sort should have choices about their treatment. Victims of burglary are sometimes too traumatised to want to be involved in decisions about the perpetrator's punishment, but they are always given the option. To me it smacks of the "fate worse than death" attitude, that rape is something women can never recover from - and this seems to disempower and patronise. In my own experience it took me 20 years and a lot of expensive counselling, and whilst I wouldn't say I'm 'over' being raped, it doesn't limit my life or self image any more. I didn't share my own experience, by the way. I was told my attitude was insensitive - can you tell me what you think? I'm open to any challenge on my views.

brid

a number of my friends were raped at university, none reported their rapists. in one case she was persuaded not to by his friends, because he was studying law and wanted to be a lawyer, and a criminal record would ruin his chances. i don't know what he is doing now

Of course it's worse for men who are raped - everyone knows being penetrated against your will is magically less traumatising if you fancy your rapist. The mind boggles at the logic.

And I'm not remotely surprised looking at images of child sex abuse only warrants a caution. I was repeatedly orally raped, frequently, between age two and age five. He was sentenced to three years' community rehabilitation. The mind still boggles, and then comes to the conclusion that the world simply doesn't care all that much.

I think now I'd just turn it back on them and ask if they had been in the same position, would they have raped her too. Men seem to have this weird blind spot, where they don't want to be thought of as rapists, but are falling over themselves to excuse other men's rapist behaviour.

I'm swiftly coming to the conclusion that what men say about the new guidance around investigating rape allegations tells me whether or not they've ever raped someone. And yes, that might be unfair, but once they've had it explained to them, and they still believe that it makes men who are accused of rape guilty until proven innocent, then I don't think it is.

I actually went for the jugular (which is far less draining) and straight up asked if he thought I was a liar, given that he obviously thinks women can't be trusted to tell the truth about these things. (As CEs defence was that the victim was less drunk than she claims, and was lying about not remembering

Good for you

I've tried that approach breakinngdad, they normally say "but I'm not gay" Which obviously implies that the woman must have been a bit sexually attracted to her attacker as the sexuality seems somehow relevant. Also, "it's worse for men" oh is it?

or maybe if he'd been quite drunk would he have been happy for another man to walk in to your room and "have a go"with him.