To have no idea how to explain to my 9 year old DD what The Rapist Ched Evans did

[Hoppinggreen]

DD has obviously picked up some snippets about this and has asked what happened. She does know about sex but we haven't discussed what rape is and I don't know his to explain why the victim went to the hotel and what went on from there. I don't want to victim blame but I do want to perhaps talk to her about personal safety.
I also want to make the point that what The Rapist and his apologists are doing now is wrong and how Jessica Ennis ( who she worships) has done a great thing by condemning Sheffield utds actions.
Any suggestions?

Is your reply addressed to me lougle?

Though, I do take your point, you may have missed mine.

Most women take precautions to avoid injury or mishap, whether accidental or inflicted by random assailants, all the time.

But if we want to have a social life and private and professional relationships we have make the leap of faith of being alone with a man.

I've done it. I bet you have, haven't you? So if you have, you haven't taken all sensible precautions. Because the only way to avoid rape is never to be alone in the company of a man. Actually, that's not a guarantee either, but this post is getting long and I'll save that for another post.

It's quite common on MN for someone to express nerves or 'spidey' senses about a man's intentions and to be shouted down. I don't think I am a particularly nervous person but sometimes I read those threads and think: 'You can't fucking win.'

On this thread we have people saying you can't walk through the park at 3am naked (as if that would happen unless the reason was that the woman had just been raped), and on other threads you have people berating women for suspecting all men are gagging for sex with anyone - old women, children, pretty women, averagely-attractive women covered in vomit.

I get annoyed at having to restrict my life, but I do it.

But what really annoys me is the idea not just that someone might rape me just when I'd let my guard down, but he might do that secure in the knowledge that so many people, including women, would give him the benefit of the doubt for that old chestnut 'mixed signals'.

The classic defence of the sex offender is that their victim was 'asking for it' by their behaviour, clothing, location, etc.

By arguing that the victim bears some responsibility for reducing their risk, you are buying into sex offender's logic. By all means, teach sensible precautions to avoid these horrendous and evil people - but please let's remember that sex crimes happen because a sex criminal decides to commit them, not because of anything their victim does.

It is absolutely unacceptable in every conceivable way to blame the child victims of paedophilia and say that they were 'asking for it'. It is equally unacceptable to say that women are asking for rape because they are drunk/wearing a short skirt/behaving in a certain way/walking in a certain place.

But there are things you can do to minimize the risk, not prevent it per say.

For example, if you put a drink down and walk away or aren't paying attention to it, consider it gone. Likewise, don't let strange men get drinks for you, watch the bartender make them and get them yourself. These are easy ways to help minimize the risk of getting roofied.

But I will agree only rapists will rape. I got plastered at a party with a bunch of men, and they did what any decent man would do. Help me to the couch and let me spend the night to sober up and play video games with them in the morning. I was a prime target, but decent men do decent things.

That said, not every man is going to be decent, and it is wise to take a few precautions to account for that.

LadyLuck10 wrote - "Some people are just hell bent on seeing taking safety precautions as victim blaming. It's ignorant and foolish not to teach your children about the danger they could encounter by placing themselves in a vulnerable position. If you could do something that can minimize your risk of being raped, why shouldn't you do it."

The problem with the so-called "common sense, reasonable precautions" (avoid dark alleys, don't get drunk) type of advice is that the one thing it does not do is minimise the risk of being raped. The advice focuses on the lower-risk scenarios and shifts women's activity to higher-risk situations. (e.g. rapes by acquaintances or family members). For women, it is out of the fire and into the frying pan.

If we want to minimise a person's risk of being raped, it would be necessary to avoid contact with as many rapists as possible. Most rapists are not hiding down dark alleys. Most rapists are not raping drunk women.

It wouldn't surprise me if the people who are helped most by the advice to women to "not walk alone down a dark alley", "not get drunk", "don't wear short skirts" etc. are the rapists who prefer to rape sober women wearing long dresses in broad daylight in busy areas, or in a woman's own home.

If every woman in the world never drank another drop of alcohol or never again went out at night, do people think that rapists are too stupid or lazy to change their way of raping? I think rapists adapt to women's changing behaviour.

But again Bulbasaur that's ignoring the statistical evidence that in the majority of rapes no drinking was involved and that most rapes happen at home

to be honest it's totally unhelpful to continually focus the debate on women/pubs/clubs/drink - like not drinking is the key or not going out

the way to prevent rape is for rapists not to do it

oh and what Limited said I get annoyed at having to restrict my life, but I do it - this is why rape serves society - why it's okay to victim blame a bit and tut and ask 'where you drunk' etc etc because it keeps us in our place

the reason women have had to campaign for YEARS for rape and sexual abuse to be take seriously is because it serves a wider purpose

why do you think invade armies use it as a weapon - it tells you your status and modifies your behaviour

Women and children are not equal - and are most likely to be victims

equally male rape is under reported because of the 'gay' connotations - gay men are also lower down the rung so any hint that you may be a bit 'queer' - like being raped by another man (bet you asked for it) means you aren't believed or you don't report

rape serves a purpose

don't let strange men get drinks for you, watch the bartender make them and get them yourself. These are easy ways to help minimize the risk of getting roofied.

I don't understand this bulbasaur Particularly the concept of being 'roofied'.

There are instances of having drinks spiked. However, the sad fact is that if you've had an alcoholic drink, just one, and many of us have more than one on a night out, then in the event of a rape trial your judgement will be called into account and the judgement of the man will be too.

IME as a court reporter, the balance will tip in his favour.

Therefore there is no need to spend extra money or effort on obtaining Rohypnol in order to rape women.

Just do what Ched Evans did and let his victim buy her own alcohol and come along and have a go on her after your mate has 'got her'.

That's what McDonald's text said. Lovely.

Define 'strange men'. Would that be a man who you meet in a bar and who offers to buy you a drink as a prelude to getting to know you? That seems not only normal to me, but welcome. Where would be be if we suspected every man of trying to drug us and hurt us?

Surely that's not what you're trying to suggest?

I find that kind of siege mentality very depressing.

The concept of walking at 2am through a park naked and pissed is just weird.

Who would do that unless they had mental health problems, exhibitionist tendencies or had just been raped?

So can people stop bringing that up? Because it doesn’t happen and people who suggest that it does are as daft as the people who would do it.

Though sadly not as rare.

On the subject of roofies - which are a very rare factor in rapes.

www.salon.com/2009/10/27/date_rape/

One of the researchers, Dr. Sarah Moore, raises the possibility that “the urban myth of spiking is also the result of parents feeling unable to discuss with their adult daughters how to manage drinking and sex and representing their anxieties about this through discussion of drink spiking risks.” For me, this cycles back to the same prejudice that pervades the Daily Mail piece: the idea that women bear partial responsibility for being raped when they’re drunk, as opposed to when they’re drugged. And perhaps, in a more general way, it’s this victim-blaming mentality that’s causing women to believe or profess that they’ve been roofied. In a culture that implicates intoxicated victims in their own rape, they may simply, unconsciously be searching for a way to assuage guilt they shouldn’t feel in the first place.

also drunk women fit other stereotypes of 'bad' girls - a bit loose and a bit trashy - you know - not like 'good girls' who wont get raped because the conform behave ...

Drink spiking happens, but it's not necessary in order to rape or more importantly, get an acquittal for rape.

An alcoholic drink is enough and I really don't believe there is any need for a rapist to use anything other than alcohol.

Raped women now feel they should claim their drinks have been spiked because they were a 'good girl' who didn't drink that much.

That is completely fucked up.

I'm not blindly refusing to take the general point made by MEoD. I'm refusing to agree that my statements are as she perceives them, which I am entitled to do.

I repeat, in case it isn't otherwise clear:

I don't think that looking for common threads amongst rapes is victim blaming. I also don't think that doing anything makes a rape the woman's fault. Even if she shakes her bare chest at a man and is steaming drunk. However, if it becomes apparent that doing so is a factor in many rapes, I don't think it is victim blaming to suggest that other women don't do that.

Also, shouting and swearing doesn't make a point any more valid. I stand by my views.

Lougle I have given you evidence that actually the biggest 'factors in rapes' if you are desperate to look for cause and effect are a) being sober and b) being at home and c) knowing your rapist so do explain how to avoid those on a daily basis you know - because it's common sense if those things mean your at risk

lougle who is shouting and swearing at you?

Rape Crisis put it very well on ghosty's link:

The rules imposed on women's behaviour allow rapists to shift the responsibility for rape onto women wherever possible, so that rapists are sometimes portrayed as victims of malicious allegations, carelessness or stupidity. There is no other crime in which so much effort is expended to make the victim appear responsible.

It depends on the demographic. 10% is still a lot of rapes. Of those 10% of rapes, if we could reduce the number by promoting safety it would still be a good thing.

I'm still confused, though, why you want to discuss that 90% of rapes when this case was a stranger rape.

This rape fell in the 10% you are criticising my focus on.

Lougle

One of the points is - a measure taken to reduce your risk of one kind of rape may increase your risk of another kind of rape eg getting a male friend to walk you home might result in him raping you.

The other is... Well, if you are locked in a hotel room having sex, sober or drunk, the last thing you expect is for a stranger to let themselves in and the man you are with to step back, surely?

lougle I don't understand your last post about demographics and percentages at all.

And who shouted and swore at you?

I agree with your first point. I actually made a decision not to give a lift to a man I was talking with after meeting him in an evening class. I'm sure he is perfectly lovely. I'm not generally over cautious, but he had two options of lifts so I suggested he went with the other guy.

Your second point, I also agree with. I think the fact that she was so incredibly drunk took away any option she had for resisting or refusing that contact, though.

can you link to the evidence that 10% of rapes happen when women have been behaving in a 'risky' way?

limited I was saying that if we can reduce any rapes at all, it's a good thing.

but the assumption in your last post Lugle is that if she had 'resisted' or 'refused' she wouldn't have been raped ... it was only the fact that she couldn't because she was drunk that lead to the rape - I don't believe that

Who is 'you' and 'your' and 'she'?

Can you be specific lougle?

Limited - lougle is I think referring to crime statistic that 90% of rapes are carried out by someone known to the victim. Only 10% are stranger rapes. This thread is or was about stranger rape.

Incidentally, and I realise this detracts from the point and the debate, but you can't statistically leap from 66% of victims are sober, ergo being drunk is safer. Statistics don't work like that, unless you have two populations, one of which is always drunk and one of which is always sober. It's a false premise.

What was interesting in piper's link was the prevalence of rape, victims and perpetrators, in lower income groups. Anyone any thoughts as to why this might be?