to be properly offended by this numpty?

[maighdlin]

i love the BBC's have your say section. interesting read and you do get some clever people on it. today they were talking about "sexual" items aimed at children, t shirts that say "porn star" etc. one person said this

This does need to be addressed. Kids should be kids. I dispise seeing kids forced to give up fun for 'education' (some kids dont have a clue about fun) and I dispise seeing kids (usually young girls) wanting to look and act like tarts.

In my family I have cousins who were barely up to my knee in height but dance like lapdancers because of the pop singers at the time. Luckily their parents make them dress appropreately but I think if young kids were taught self respect there would be less rape cases. Being taught the difference between a prostitute/lapdancer/stripper and normal behaviour would make all the difference.

I completely agree with what they are saying except for the " I think if young kids were taught self respect there would be less rape cases" WTF????? I am very rarely offended but how bloody dare they say that a girl having low self esteem means she gets raped??? I hate this attitude that some people "deserve" or "ask for it" when it comes to rape. Rape is rape no matter what you are wearing or whatever. Its a stupid misogynistic way to think that only "good" girls get raped.

Im not sure im even making sense here but am so effing angry at this ignorance AIBU to think that some uninformed ignorant dickhead wrote this?

X-post. That was in response to "i'd far rather concentrate on reducing the chance of it happening in the first place."

'It really sounded like some posters here were ready to (figuratively of course) dress up their daughters and parade them out into the most vulnerable situations possible as bait to prove their point.'

How dare you, how fucking dare you. That is one of the most ridiculous, revolting, insulting things I have ever read on here.

I still want to know what these 'most vulnerable situations' are though.

All threads about rape seem to go the same way:

Poster 1 says "there are things you can do to reduce a risk"
Poster 2 says "so you're saying it's the WOMAN's fault now?!"
Poster 3 says "treat men with respect and acknowledge they have self-control"
Poster 4 says "well, how can men control themselves when there's girls staggering around in boob-tubes every night. It's cruel, it is."

And so on. Some people are rapists. Some people are muggers, thieves, murderers, etc. If you want to live a full life, you're going to come in contact with unpleasantness and unpleasant people, unless you're lucky. Responsibility for committing a crime is always the criminal's. Always. But you can make it harder for him or her to do it.

We tell children not to get in strangers' cars. If they do, and the unthinkable horrific happens, it's NOT the child's fault, is it? But we will still tell children not to get in strangers' cars. We need to apply the same viewpoint to all crimes. Not the victims' faults, and trying to keep safe doesn't acknowledge responsibility for crimes that might happen to you.

don't be silly loudrowdyduck, that's just twisting what i said.

i agree hecthehalls that we should do both. very reasonable. i doubt that we'd ever be able to drop the first. but in an ideal world we would, of course.

jessie has said exactly what i've been trying to say, much more clearly

"HerBeatitude: "their victims are interrogated about their sex lives, fantasies, previous partners, etc., even though they're not supposed to be."

MrManager: That's not true. Judges will only allow it if to not allow it would risk an unfair trial."

Sorry MrM, but although the law states that a victims sexual history can only be raised if to not to so would risk an unfair trial, in practice most judges will allow this kind of questioning most of the time, to avoid appeals on just that basis. Yet it's entirely irrelevant to the case and cannot be raised if the defendant has previously been convisted of rape, even in very similar circumstances.

However, none of this is addressing a very real problem - women's attitudes, not men's. Any barrister with experience of rape trials will tell you (and studies have shown) that the biggest barrier to rape convictions is women on the jury. Women jury members, far more often than men, are likely to believe defences along the lines of 'she asked for it' or 'she likes violent sex and just got upset afterwards'.

So yes, we do need to make our sons and daughters aware that rape isn't just something that happens down dark alleys, or to people who don't follow a magic rule book, but we also need to look at why many grown women want to believe that women lie about rape, or ask for it.

If I was guessing, I'd say it's because rape myths make some women feel safe - if they can convince themselves that rape only happens to 'bad' or foolish women, if they can believe there's a set of rules that will keep them safe (don't wear this, don't go there, don't drink, keep your head down) then they can fool themselves that it will never happen to them.

Men on the other hand - good men - are aware of how some other men think and behave and are more happy to see them banged up!

I think the point is that rape is one crime that the victim
can do very little to prevent.

And we also need to teach people about rape myths and that they are MYTHS. There's a lot of people who think particular situations aren't rape. Leading them to feel that a man is entitled to sex in such situations. Creating a culture where rape is sometimes not seen as rape.

So rapes occur. And if they're reported and taken to court, the jurors believe the same myths, too.

My sons are going to be very clear on what rape is and that they are not entitled to sex. Whatever the situation.

since rapists can be our husbands, fathers, uncles, partners, friends etc etc as well as cab drivers or scary strangers how exactly is one meant to avoid them?

in my experiences they don't come at you growling 'woo i'm a rapist,', they seem perfectly normal the one minute and a rapist the next3

maybe the solution is to round up all the men and ship them off to some island somewhere where they can't rape women anymore

they could call it something catchy like manstralia

and i know there is no way to tell in advance who will be rapist and who won't, so rather than taking any chances, round'em all up

i guess that's my lil 'avoid rape tip' of the day, if you want to avoid rape, avoid men

"But I cannot abide this idea that paraletic, drunken young women, are any less responsible for their own behaviour than equally paraletic, drunken young men."

Erm, raping someone is a forceful action, not passive. Being raped can be completely passive, but raping someone can only ever be an active action and therefore someone having sex with a girl needs to ensure she's sober enough to give consent.

TheFeministParent when is too drunk to give consent?

Look some of you on this thread just don't seem to know much about rape.

Fair enough.

Luckily, I've never been raped or sexually assaulted but I have had my eyes opened this year and in particular due to things which have been shared on this thread and this thread.

I really would recommend reading them and learning and reconsidering your views.

How parents of sons and daughters can find the message:

"men don't rape" more upsetting than

"women don't go out on your own/get drunk/wear short skirts/get taxis/walk home alone etc etc etc etc etc"

I don't know .

In fact I think it has to be even more clear than "men don't rape" because a recent survey showed (hell this bloody thread shows) that men and women do not know what rape is.

How about "men don't have sex without consent".

All this hand ringing about poor men not knowing whether they have consent or not - well I am pretty bloody certain that they do know.

Look at those threads I posted and you will see how it happens.

If these poor men aren't sure - do you know what - they don't bloody well have to have sex you know. .

What's more important here - a man's "right" to drunken sex or a woman's right not to be raped. .

I would say someone that is too pissed to talk properly, too pissed to undress themselves. Legally I'm not sure there is a strict definition.

re my earlier post

"The advice should be: girls - continue as usual - we will catch this man. To the man - this is a criminal offense - we will catch you very soon. To other men - do not do this - this is a crime - we will catch you."

mj asked

"Is this a real suggestion, you mean that the police shouldnt issue warnings, should allow women to continue as normal in an area there is a known rapist. And while the police are looking for the man, everyone should just carry on as normal and not be more vigelant?"

Yes it is a real suggestion.

Please note that this was a flasher btw not a rape.

Why should girls be warned not to walk to school at 8am. Warned. Reporting the incident will indeed alert local residents that the incident has occurred. People will decide for themselves whether to alter their behaviour.

Warning girls not to do something puts the
onus on them to not be in the "wrong place".

Why aren't police reassuring us in their press release that they will do everything possible to catch this man?

notmyproblem was this:

"It really sounded like some posters here were ready to (figuratively of course) dress up their daughters and parade them out into the most vulnerable situations possible as bait to prove their point. I understand fully their idealism, but losing all sense of realism is not how to prevent rape or how to even publicise the prevention of rape."

directed at me?

FFS - this is a disgusting - vile and disgusting. I am off to have a look at your posting history. I have found your posts on this thread to be incredibly upsetting and creepy.

But what if both are stupidly drunk but still try to have sex? Would the man still be liable for rape despite it being consensual?

If it was consensual how could any liability for rape arise?

Because the man has had sex with someone too drunk to give valid consent.

I think this whole debate about 'woman is drunk and does consent, but later regrets it' is ridiculous as it brings us back to the whole stupid Daily Maily notion that rape is either:

(a) stranger down an alley;
(b) drunk girl consents, but later regrets (which isn't rape)

When the reality is usually neither of the above, and girls who have consented, but later felt abused represents an infinitisimally tiny number of complaints, if anyone has ever indeed gone to the police on these grounds before, ever...

Look if a woman is too drunk to consent to sex, then technically it is rape, there is no question about that, why is it so difficult for people to get that through their heads? However, in the real world, as Diamondback says, nobody in those circumstances ever goes to the police about it anyway, because they know there is no point and for the most part, they blame themselves for being drunk, becuase rape victims are as vulnerable to rape myths as everyone else.

I totally agree with Diamondback's earlier post about how men are more likely to call rape when they see it, because they don't make excuses for men to the same extent and that's because they're not threatened by rapists. For most women, the thought that the nice looking bloke in the dock who they might actually fancy, is a rapist, is a horrifying thought - if he is, then who can you trust not to rape you?

That's why some people are so insistent that rapists are monsters, they look different from other men, they are wierd, they exude an air, your sixth sense would kick in, if you're not drunk you'll be able to somehow tell that this man is a predator -because the thought that actually, none of that is true, any bloke who you are friendly with, who might be your neighbour, your colleague, your friend's husband, could rape you and there is fucking nothing you could do about it, because if you complain, he will deny it and everyone will think you consented, is absolutely fucking horrifying. It is so much easier to believe that the woman in the witness box is a loon, even if she has no history of being a loon and doesn't look like one, or that if only you don't get drunk, it won't happen to you.

It can happen to anyone. 1 in 4 of us suffer rape or sexual assault and most of us won't bother reporting it when it happens to us because we know there is no justice. It is very very hard to face that, so I do understand why some women want to avoid it.

Diamondback these hypotheticals have to be debated to ensure that the law treats an innocent defendant fairly.

And I wasn't talking about 'Daily Mail-type' cold-light-of-morning regrets but the fact that a hard-and-fast 'this drunk = no valid consent' type law would make a husband a rapist if he and his wife came back from the pub blind drunk and had sex.

Oh dear how awful for a husband to be called a rapist.

It would only make him a rapist MrM, if his wife objected and complained about him.

If they had a good relationship, with trust, love and respect, how likely do you think it is that she would up and report him to the police for rape when she'd had a drunken shag?

And really, how likely do you think it would be, that the CPS would take the case to court (given that 90% of rape complaints get no further than a police statement)?

And if it did get to court, how likely do you think a jury are, to find him guilty in those circumstances, given that over 40% of rape defendents are found not guilty, and that's in cases where there has been bruises, injuries etc?

Really, waht do people think would happen if everyone agreed that women have the right not to be raped even if they are drunk? Do they think that the floodgates would open and all these previously happy, consensual women would rush around accusing their loved husbands and partners of rape?

What kind of relationships do you think people have?

OK, I'm giving some information here, something I've only ever talked about once before to a close friend.

When it happened to me I was drunk, not so drunk I was unable to say 'No' and did repeatedly, but, drunk enough not to realise the full impact of the assault until the day after. FWIW this was someone I knew, a collegue' and I never reported it. I asked to be transferred (said for employment development) but the few times I saw this man again I felt physically sick. I really do not think he realises how bad it was, I think he thought he was just being extremely persuasive, 11 years later though it still affects me.

I do believe being drunk does make you vunerable, but there are many people raped whilst sober, and many people who get drunk that never suffer.

HerBeatitude

You're wrong. That wasn't what HerBeatitude suggested. She suggested that there would be a level of inebriation beyond which consent could not be validly given, and that would make the husband a rapist even if his wife explicitly agreed. No right-thinking person would call him a rapist in those circumstances, least of all his wife.

I don't think that it would end up in court, but it could, and the law shouldn't be that sloppy.

mumbar, sorry that happened to you. Have you called rape crisis? It might help you to talk to someone about it, who you knwo will not blame you or condemn you or question you. Sometimes, just telling someone else about it, helps.