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?

I disagree (again). I think it is perfectly reasonable to look at the circumstances of a crime and see if lessons can be learned.

Up thread someone said she knew and trusted Mcdonald. Well the court paper says she bumped into him in a street and either he suggested they go to the hotel or she did (it was accepted that this was a matter of uncertainty). It's quite reasonable to wonder if she would have decided to do so if she hadn't been drinking so much.

Alcohol impairs judgement. In all situations. It still doesn't stop Evans being guilty of rape. IMO, it makes other people in part responsible for the situation (eg the taxi driver & hotel receptionist) who should have clocked that something wasn't quite right. It still doesn't stop Evans being guilty of rape.

I'd also like to know why Mcdonald wasn't charged with conspiracy to rape, or indeed the friends outside the hotel.

And the lesson here is don't try to have sex without consent and don't try to have sex if somebody isn't in a state to give consent.

Lougle, I suspect the CPS considered that they had a better chance of securing a conviction of CM for rape than for conspiracy to rape. Given the evidence to hand, I think conspiracy would have been a hard charge to stick.

For, the men outside the room, I agree they behaved appallingly but I am not sure what law they broke. The images were indistinct and weren't distributed.

Finally, if you trust the verdict of the jury, since CM did not rape her, what happened was that she went back to a hotel with a man she consented to go with, and had consensual sex with him once she was there. Then another man let himself in and raped her.

There is absurdity in the argument that any advice about personal safety is misogynistic victim blaming. I would advise my daughter not to go alone to the flat of a man she met in a bar who was just released from a 20 year sentence for raping girls he met in bars.

Do you really argue that advice would be misplaced? misogynistic victim blaming?

Another thing to consider - the "visible" evidence of her drunkeness ie wetting herself, losing her handbag etc - was probably a factor in the jury's decision.

My only interest in looking for what makes a woman more likely to be raped - there are certain groups of women who are more likely to be raped, is to understand why that is, to try and do what i can as a parent to protect my dd, who is in a high risk group, and maybe by having the debate we can prevent more women bring raped in the long term.

I do get that rape is the one personal crime where people use the conduct of the victim as a way of excusing the rapist, or downplaying the effects of the attack, and that is obviously very wrong. But it is vitally important to be able to look at all the factors involved impartially, without blame, so that we can prevent future rape. And sadly I doubt anyone is brave enough to carry out such a study for fear of being accused of victim blaming.

So if she had been drunk but a bit less drunk, or had different physical reactions - she would still have been raped in that room but might not have got a conviction.

I agree with everyone who has said that the only way to stop rape is for us all to teach our children that anything less than enthusiastic, ongoing consent is rape. And that the only person who carries any blame for rape is the rapist.

By all means, teach children that it's not a good idea to get falling down drunk. Teach them to be aware of their surroundings. Just don't link it to rape. Victims blame themselves enough for 'getting themselves raped', without having their parent's voices in their minds doing the same thing.

Heebie, that's another poor analogy, because you'd advise either sex to take additional care around a known criminal.

The thread has turned into general things women shouldn't do, namely drinking.

Did you read what I posted above about the amnesty survey and victim blaming?

Here it is again, heebie:

Amnesty International UK research (Amnesty International Report on attitudes to sexual assault in the UK (2005) (www.amnesty.org.uk) found that:

34% of people thought that a woman was fully or partially responsible for being raped if she behaved in a ‘flirtatious’ manner
30% of people thought that a woman was fully or partially responsible for being raped if she was drunk**
26% of people thought that a woman was fully or partially responsible for being raped if she was wearing ‘sexy or revealing’ clothing
22% of people thought that a woman was fully or partially responsible for being raped if she has had many sexual partners

30% of people. 30%.

I want my children to know that even if somebody is extra specially nice to them and gives them presents, they don't have to go and sit on their knee, and if they do sit on their knee they don't have to do anything else.

I want my children to know that even if they have been whisked away to Paris and wined and dined, no means no and sex is not a quid pro quo.

I want them to know that rape can occur in a long term relationship even when the participants are stone cold sober.

I want them to know that inebriation does not imply consent.

My first concerns if they were paralytically drunk on a night out would be that they would be run over, O.D or fall into a river. There are many, many reasons not to walk the streets that drunk.

Looking at this crime to work out what the victim did wrong seems rather beside the point. More effective to look at the crime and work out what the perpetrator did wrong. That would reduce the number of people being raped.

You can still find this lovely little program description on ITV2

"New series. Dating is out and pulling is in as internet star Dapper Laughs teaches lads how to get female attention. Ricky from Coventry is the first to take the comedian's advice."

We do not need to muddy further the issues of consent and responsibility.

When a child is killed and people around them were involved with that child, there is a serious case review. That SCR looks at whether actions could have, or should have, taken place which would have prevented that crime.

When a drunk person gets into a car, and someone had an opportunity to either prevent them driving or report their crime to the police, I believe they bear some responsibility (morally) if someone is harmed as a result of the person driving while drunk.

I accept that the CPS secures the most likely prosecution.

The taxi driver and receptionist may have made the assumption that CM was not a rapist who would try and have sex with a woman who had no capacity to consent.

The jury concurred, or at any rate felt there was reasonable doubt.

There is only one message we should tell our daughters, and sons, while they are growing up.

If you, or anyone else, is raped while they are walking home alone or drunk or going back to someone's hotel room, or walking in the park in the afternoon, or in any other circumstance - it is not your/their fault

The thing about the CE case is that I've heard/read things like "well, what did she expect going up to a hotel room like that?" more times than I can count.

But perhaps she did not reasonably expect him to text his mate, his mate to turn up at the room unannounced, having lied to the receptionist to get a key card to the room, and to join in, before sneaking out the fire escape?

It is perfectly legal and usual for women to go out drinking. It is legal to go back to a hotel room with someone. It is not legal to rape someone.

Talking about the victim's "responsibility" not to be drunk, not to be alone - is putting the blame (or some of it) away from the rapist and onto the victim. However posters want to twist it, to wrap it up in flowery words or analogies - what you are doing is victim blaming. It is rape culture.

Maybe we could say something like "lads, don't get drunk, because your judgement might become impaired and you might think that if you sneak into your mate's room and there is a girl there and she is completely wasted she is probably gagging for it".

When I was growing up, a friend's mother was killed in a car crash. As was her baby sister. Her mother was driving to pick her up from a party, along a road which is a known accident black spot.

If my friend hadn't gone to the party, my friend's mother wouldn't have been on that road. If she'd left 5 minutes earlier, the drunk driver wouldn't have hit her. If she'd had better reflexes and swerved just a bit more, the drunk driver wouldn't have hit her.

We don't blame the mother for the crash because she was the victim and because she wasn't doing anything wrong. There are a lot of choices she could have made, including avoiding a road with a high accident rate. But none of those choices were culpable, so we don't see her to blame.

Why is it with women, we see them as partially responsible if they get drunk and get raped. Ah yes, because, underlying it all is a moral judgment that nice girls don't get drunk, that there is something inherently wrong with getting drunk. If she wasn't doing anything wrong, she'd been seen like my friends poor mum. Instead, she is seen as someone who 'didn't take responsibility'.

Now I'm not saying going out and getting plastered is a good idea. It puts you at risk of all sorts of horrid things happening. Most likely, you will injure yourself or lose possessions. You might decide, like a boy from my school, that you are superhuman and can swim the harbour, and drown . You might be a victim of crime. These are all good reasons to teach your child not to get plastered. I will be teaching my children (of both sexes) not to do this and the dangers if they do. But I won't be kidding myself that I'm materially reducing my daughters' risk of being a victim of sexual violence.

I also find the idea on this thread that some people are at a lower risk of sexual violence because the men they know are 'nice' men really odd. I hope I know nice men. But isn't the current spate of allegations teaching us a few things - priests can be rapists. Teachers can be rapists. Family members (even seemingly nice religious ones) can be rapists. I sincerely hope that all MNers only know nice men. Statistically, it's unlikely.

MM- Yes -that certainly is preferable to calling victims "drunken slags" or "asking for it" or "bringing it on themselves" - which may not happen on MN (in so many words) but has certainly happened on social media over the CE case.

People have a responsibility not to commit criminal acts. Men have to take responsibility to ensure that they are not committing rape - that a person is fully consenting and in a fit state to consent.