Chrissie Hyndes victim blaming SMH

I'll just wait here for him to answer then. Might whip up some muffins in the mean time.

I mean, no one would be suggesting it if they didn't expect a measurable outcome, right?

Sorry Yonic, I'm not much good at that magical thinking stuff. Ask JAPAB, he seems to be, at least about things which are almost certain never to affect him in any way.

(and obvs the first line of my last post was supposed to read You're getting the right to tell women that at least you didn't bring that rape on yourself.)

But Plays, surely there's an estimate of rape reduction that this safety measure will bring?

5% fewer rapes a year? 10%?

You're getting the right to tell women that at least you did bring that rape on yourself.

At least, that's what a fair few people seem to think.

What am I getting in return for curtailing my freedom, JAPAB? How many rapes will not happen if every woman in the UK has one less drink on her next night out?

If it's a trade off, what's our quid pro quo?

Just leaving this article here, without comment.

Because of the tradeoff between freedom and safety. Never leaving your house might be better at preventing a burglary than just remembering to lock up after you and buying a burglar alarm is, but most would agree that the former swings things too far away from freedom than the latter does.

Similarly a person might see the never alone with a man thing as going too far in removing freedoms, in a way that not leaving drinks unattended does not.

"She said: ??Technically speaking, however you want to look at it, this was all my doing and I take full responsibility. You can??t f* about with people, especially people who wear ??I Heart Rape?? and ??On Your Knees?? badges ... those motorcycle gangs, that??s what they do."

If she literally meant "all my doing" then she is wrong, clearly. Although it is possible to say such things without meaning them literally. Person A can say to Person B "well what did you expect would happen when you walk up to a homophobic brick shithouse and call him a homosexual. You only have yourself to blame for your black eye" without actually meaning that they think the assaulter didn't have full freewill and responsibility for their own decision to assault.

Still, if she did not mean that the way it might sound on first reading, well in a context such as this it really pays to be careful to say exactly what you mean. And if she did, then as I say, she is wrong.

You know, the only safety advice that would give women actual power to prevent being raped, is never be alone with a man. Yet funnily enough, that's one I never see being offered. It's all stuff about clothes and vigilance over drinks.

In the tradeoff between freedom and safety, people may draw different cutoff points as to when one becomes too inhibited by the other, but I think most people would agree that trying to arrange your life to never be alone with a man definitely swings things too far away from the freedom end.

Which side of the cutoff point things like clothing and drinks vigilance are, are things people tend not to all be on the same page on, however. So this observation isn't that surprising, perhaps.

As it was asked earlier, and from the initial Guardian article:

"She said: ??Technically speaking, however you want to look at it, this was all my doing and I take full responsibility. You can??t f* about with people, especially people who wear ??I Heart Rape?? and ??On Your Knees?? badges ... those motorcycle gangs, that??s what they do."

"??If I??m walking around in my underwear and I??m drunk? Who else??s fault can it be??? she said."

Not sure about children in some cases, particularly when they are girls.

whirlpool- That's because men, children and the elderly never want- or 'ask' to be raped.
A category women do not fall into apparently.

"Breaching or not breaching the social contract" is a fundamental point in legal philosophy !

that wasn't phrased very well, hopefully you get what i mean

Yes - I thought it was interesting that the thief breaching the 'social contract' to take care of a helpless person by doing the very opposite was so strongly censured in that case vs in sex crimes.

A man taking advantage of a woman is quite often code for a man raping or sexually assaulting a woman as well

I know that- the use of the word is quite different tho' . In the case of the drunk man it's used pejoratively against the person taking the unfair advantage; in the case of sexual assault it's just taking advantage of what's offered on a plate (and I assume you know me well enough by now to know that that last phrase is a a paraphrase of Daily Mail type comments, not my views)

That's interesting, Lass.

Obviously raping or stealing from a stone cold sober person is wrong too.

The case I am thinking of involved a man so drunk that he could have died who was relieved of cash, cards and phone. The drunkenness of the victim was treated by the court as exacerbating the crime not contributing to it.

A man taking advantage of a woman is quite often code for a man raping or sexually assaulting a woman as well.

advice to people (all people) on general safety = great. Lots of things can go wrong if you get so pissed you can't stand up, for example. Most likely you will hurt yourself / fuck all your friends off / lose stuff etc.

I have seen reports where a blind drunk victim has been described as being taken of advantage of. But this was in the context of " rather than helping him you took advantage of the situation to steal..."

And there is nothing wrong with that comment. Stealing from someone who is blind-drunk is despicable. So is raping them.

advice to people (all people) on general safety = great. Lots of things can go wrong if you get so pissed you can't stand up, for example. Most likely you will hurt yourself / fuck all your friends off / lose stuff etc.

Advice to one specific sex about things that they have to do in order to prevent this one specific crime = victim blaming shite.

• if we lower the chances of it happening to us, we are effectively pushing the assailant onto someone else

While this is great for the first person, it isn't a way to approach a problem at a societal level, is it. This is the only crime where having it happen to someone else, and not even looking at the criminal appears to be acceptable.

As in this case, as Lweji says, she takes 100% responsibility. If she takes 100% responsibility, then there is literally no-one else responsible. So either it's not a crime, or if it is, the person responsible for the crime is the victim.

And then lots of people come along and agree