Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Flip

1 2 ··· 16 17 18 ··· 33 34

Original poster

AIBU with this perspective on rape?

846 replies

TheOnlyWayThrough · 09/01/2015 11:24

Rape is vile and awful and always the rapists fault in its entirety. Of course it is, you'd be mad to disagree.

The bit I don't really get is the argument that women shouldn't need to take any responsibly for keeping themselves safe. The idea that women (and sometimes men) wouldn't be vulnerable if rapists didn't rape.

Well of course that is true, but that would be in an ideal world. And this certainly isn't one, so the point is moot surely? That principle could be applied to all walks of life where some people do inexplicably nasty things to others... which is basically ALL THE TIME. Some things are obviously worse than others, and rape is up there with the most obscene. It's not the only awful thing though.

You don't hear people saying that elderly people shouldn't need to have chains on their door for their own protection. And if someone forced their way into the home of someone elderly without a chain, I wouldn't for a second blame them/say they were asking for it. It's just that that a chain might have kept them a bit safer; that's why we have them.

A friend of mine was mugged walking home from work one night recently (it was about midnight). She wasn't hurt, but was of course shaken up and felt horribly violated. She won't be walking home again like that as it clearly isn't as safe as she thought. And I think that's sensible. But I don't feel that makes me a 'mugging apologist'. My friend wasn't at fault for the scummy thing that happened to her, but she DID put herself in a situation which wasn't very safe... and she got stung.

When I was burgled whilst sleeping I wished I'd have put the burglar alarm on as it might have stopped it from happening. I put it on every night now, rather than saying "I shouldn't have to; it's the burglars that shouldn't burgle".

Why is saying that it's a good idea to keep ourselves safe somehow misconstrued as mitigating rape in a way that doesn't seem to with other crimes? It's not intended that way, and it's not judging or blaming anyone who has been raped. It doesn't matter if you were drunk, half-naked, whatever - the crime was the rape and the victim did nothing wrong.

So is it unreasonable to think that in some situations, some ladies have put themselves in situations which weren't at all sensible and made them prey to scummy behaviour? And to think that that isn't the same thing as saying they are to blame or deserving of rape in any way?

(Just to add, this isn't about the Ched Evans case any more than any other particular case. And to anyone who has been a rape victim, I hope nothing I've said offends you, it certainly wasn't meant to. And I hope those who hurt you receive justice)

OP posts:

madwomanacrosstheroad · 09/01/2015 17:56

The issue is that reasonable steps are all fine and well, except that they are not particularly effective at preventing rape. Most rapes dont include the scenario of "crazed psycho jumping out of bushes at 2am to rape drunk woman in mini skirt".
I spent a considerable part of the 1980s hitchhiking around Europe, walking home on my own or in small groups in the early hours etc. That was grand.
I did get raped, by my then boyfriend whom I knew and trusted.

The idea of prevention by being careful is placing responsibility on the victim and is a delusion of presumed safety.

GobblersKnob · 09/01/2015 17:57

Ooh I remember the days of the Ripper, we was aull told to keep us doors and winders shut, us knickers firmly on and stay at 'ome after dark, safe in us beds being raped by us husbands.....great days.

JohnQuig · 09/01/2015 17:57

Yes, I think it's a good idea for both genders to drink less. But if both are drunk and both agree, what is wrong then?

Oh, and well done for not getting the point of analogies at all. I'm not suggesting you password protect your vagina, it was just a comparison.

ItsAllKickingOffPru · 09/01/2015 18:01

both drunk and both agree

You're not talking about rape then, are you?

Jessica85 · 09/01/2015 18:03

John, two drunk, consenting adults can have sex legally. However, there is a point at which either party is two drunk to consent. Are you struggling because one person might not know when the other has passed that point?

JohnQuig · 09/01/2015 18:06

Jessica85

I'm struggling because people keep changing their minds in re: to the rules. Someone up the thread said any kind of drunken sex is rape on the part of the man! Why? If 2 drunk people consent, why does it matter if one is more drunk than the other? People can drink the exact same amount and be different levels of drunk depending on how they handle their drink.

Should every ONS be preceded by a breathalyser test so that we can be sure they're both the same amount of drink?

JeanneDeMontbaston · 09/01/2015 18:08

Er ... where, john? Or are you perhaps telling porkies about the post where someone pointed out that having sex with someone too drunk to consent is rape?

maddy68 · 09/01/2015 18:09

I actually agree with the OP. That's not accepting rape is ok!

However, sensible prevention of ANY crime surely is ideal

Don't get so pissed that you agree to go act to someone's house instead of going home or getting in some undesirables car, and not having the capacity to make sensible decisions seems common sense to me

OopsButItWasntMe · 09/01/2015 18:13

Jessica, I would tell my sons to not drink too much and not walk home alone through dodgy areas to reduce the likelihood of them being attacked. I know a lot of other mums who think the same. I don't really think of that as limiting their freedom.

madwoman no, not all but some do. I don't think anyone believes that it will protect them from any crime ever.

YvesJutteau · 09/01/2015 18:15

"Yves, but does that mean that by locking our doors at night that we are assuming that everyone out there is a burglar? It doesn't make sense to apply that logic to rape but not to any other crime."

Comparatively speaking, yes, it does. Imagine the following scenario:

Person A says "You have a responsibility to lock your doors at night to deter burglars"

Person B says "You don't have any particular responsibility to lock your doors at night"

Which one of those two would you say is leaning more than the other to the "assume that everyone out there is a burglar" end of the spectrum?

Certainly if Person B said that no one would pop up and say "you've proven how narrow-minded you are and apparently people are just horrible burglars."

YonicSleighdriver · 09/01/2015 18:18

John

It is not "being drunk"

It is not having capacity to consent.
Lack of capacity might be caused by many factors - medication, drugs, alcohol, MH issues.

Jessica85 · 09/01/2015 18:18

John, it's not about more or less drunk than the other person. It's about too drunk to consent. Even once 'too drunk to consent' has been established, it still needs to be proven that the other person had 'no reasonable belief' that the person could consent.

Jessica85 · 09/01/2015 18:20

Oops, it is limiting their freedom though. It might be with the best of intentions, and you might consider it to be a reasonable precaution to take, but it still does limit their freedom.

OopsButItWasntMe · 09/01/2015 18:21

yves What do you feel about the logic of saying that we shouldn't lock our doors at night because the world would be a better place if there were no burglars and locking our doors is limiting our freedom?

YvesJutteau · 09/01/2015 18:22

"Someone up the thread said any kind of drunken sex is rape on the part of the man!"

Where?

OopsButItWasntMe · 09/01/2015 18:23

Well, Jessica if it's a reasonable precaution for men/boys to take then why can't it be seen as a reasonable precaution for women/girls to take without it being seen as victim blaming?

maddy68 · 09/01/2015 18:24

To say it's limiting freedom is a daft arguement.
Not swearing at customers at work is limiting freedom but we do it because of the potential consequences
Most things limit freedom in a society

AliceinWinterWonderland · 09/01/2015 18:25

Wouldn't you think that a woman that is falling over, randomly incoherent, obviously drunk falls into the "too drunk to consent" category? If you're so bladdered that you can't tell if she's too drunk, then perhaps you should just not have sex. Seriously.

Jessica85 · 09/01/2015 18:31

As it applies to burglary, theft or non-sexual assault it applies equally to men and women. It limits the freedom of both genders equally and is therefore non discriminatory. Whether it is a reasonable precaution to take or not is down to the individual to decide. Whether they take the precaution or not, victims should be treated equally.

Where it is applied to rape it is something which is generally told to women. It limits the freedom of women more than it limits the freedom of men and therefore it is discriminatory as far as I can see. Again, whether it is a reasonable precaution to take is down to the individual to decide. And again, whether they take the precaution or not, victims should not be treated differently.

kattykinski · 09/01/2015 18:32

Alice if that person is too drunk to tell that the woman has had too much drink to consent, surely that person is too drunk to make a rational decision not to do it though. That's what I struggle with.

YvesJutteau · 09/01/2015 18:35

If there were statistics showing that the overwhelming majority of burglaries didn't take place at people's houses or involve doors, so that leaving doors unlocked would have only a tiny effect on the risk levels, then I'd probably think there might be something in it. And under those circumstances I'd probably get hacked off at the promotion of door-locking as some kind of marvellous "responsible" anti-burglary panacea.

Mind you, my doors are locked mostly so that DD2 doesn't escape. I think the analogy is starting to break down...

Back in the real world, having a burglar alarm probably did once prevent us being burgled. But as they just burgled the property next door instead I don't think it was really a great burglary-reduction measure, just a "shift the risk onto the person next to you" strategy.

Jessica85 · 09/01/2015 18:35

And limiting freedom is not a daft argument. All illegal things limit freedom. I don't have the freedom to murder someone, for instance. But I personally believe that we need to be careful where we limit personal freedoms, particularly when it limits the freedoms of one group of people more than another group.

YonicSleighdriver · 09/01/2015 18:35

Hi Katty

Being too drunk
is not a defence in law to committing a crime.

It would be far better to say "don't get in the driver's seat if you are over the limit; don't have sex if either you or your partner might be too drunk to be give meaningful consent. "

Sex doesn't run out. You can always have it the next day, or on the next night out.

kattykinski · 09/01/2015 18:35

It's like saying that a woman can be so drunk that they are not in control of what they're doing, but a man can't be so drunk that they are not in control. For the record I think rape is the most appalling thing but I do struggle with this concept.

YonicSleighdriver · 09/01/2015 18:37

Maddy, the limit on you swearing at customers is a limit on you of perpetrating unacceptable behaviour. Those limits exist on other perpetrators; they are called laws.

Unless you are suggesting people wear earplugs to stop the risk of being sworn at?

Flip

1 2 ··· 16 17 18 ··· 33 34

Swipe left for the next trending thread