Judge's warning to drunk women

[FirstShinyRobe]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39233617

AIBU to think she had a marvellous platform with her retirement speech to issue instead a warning to men not to rape women?

I asked DH the other day if he does a risk assesment in his head when he goes out. He had no idea what I was talking about. We know all this, have known it since we were teens. And mostly we do it, but occasionally we don't. Sometimes we dodge the queue, or snog a man we don't know. Not stupid foolish women, not women who arent like us, every single women I know has taken a risk. She had an opportunity to say something new, something that looked at the problem of male violence. She wasted that opportunity, we know her message, have heard it all our lives, what she said will not change a thing.

I just want to send out a massive hug to all of us- we are strong and amazing women.

A woman's state of inebriation is no consideration if it has been insufficient to consider inability to consent. The inebriation of the man, however, should be relevant in the context of whether they were reckless as to consent. Funny how that rarely comes up when a jury has to consider the reasonableness of their belief in consent.

However, the rapist fitted very neatly into the context of entitlement rape, so she could very easily have gone in that direction. She did, partially, when speaking of predatory rapists. However, most people think of those as bush lurkers, not those who want a warm body to spunk into rather than their sock when they get home. That guy (and his pal who was acquitted - no details on why he was) is no different in attitude to the boyfriend ejaculating in their partner when they have previously agreed on withdrawal or the guy who takes it that one step further after paying for a meal on a date. Entitlement to a woman's body. Yes, there is a narrative that rape is about power and control and that therefore there is a sense of anger (wrong word?) as the driver, but as I read more about cases in the press and listen to the stories of women who have been raped, I think there are so many cases that are simply about entitlement. An extension to the sense of entitlement to women's labour and emotional resource that we see daily on threads here.

She could have said something about that, but I guess she doesn't see many of those cases.

if you were drinking on a night out, or if I was, and you/I were raped - surely it follows that you'd think you/I were responsible partially for it? For not taking that advice to "reduce the risk of being target"?

I totally disagree. I just don't think that follows at all.

Massive hug back, joystir59, and OP (and others).

A woman's state of inebriation is no consideration if it has been insufficient to consider inability to consent

This is a slightly different point. This goes to the quality of evidence after the event, which is not the same thing as taking self protective measures at the time. If you're talking evidence, in any trial on any subject, any trial at all, a witness who is drunk at the time of the events will make a less credible (not necessarily less honest, but less credible to the judge/jury) than someone who was sober. It is totally fallacious to suggest this is limited to rape trials/complainants.

I also disagree that rape defendants are not challenged about whether they have been drinking. Where have you had that from?

But I think the court system is a whole other issue.

In terms of what the judge said, she was talking about preventing rapes, not about conviction rates. As someone who feels if I had had my guard up, I might have avoided being raped (it wasn't alcohol in my case so much as naivety), I feel really strongly that in a world where so many men feel entitled to violate women's bodies, we should do all we can to protect women and encourage them to protect themselves.

There definitely is an element of anger in male entitlement.

Lots of good points here, but I don't get the male entitlement issue.

Rape is not about male entitlement. It is a criminal and evil act.

If a female commits a crime, no one blames female entitlement, so don't get the connection here.

I don't think there is, often, PacificDogwod. I work in a male dominated field that has surprised me in its lack of overt sexism, but the latent (? lazy) expectation that women are there to serve men is rife. You can see it every day on threads on here, not in a sexual context. I wonder how many of the 84,000 annual rapes are anger related, I wonder, and how many simply due to the fact that the rapist could.

And sonyaya, if you look at any rape trial with full court coverage, you will see that the examination of the defendant's belief in consent and its treatment by the jury is far from compelling in terms of thoroughness, given how central it is to the trial. (see Ched Evans & the guy who was acquitted of raping a woman in a hotel that he claimed he thought was his girlfriend). It's the reasonable part of reasonable belief in consent that she is undermining in her comments (among other things), however well intentioned they may have been. There are an awful lot of people who think a drunk woman should have done something differently, as this thread attests.

Anyway, we're over 500 posts and still banging on about women drinking. Thanks to those who get where I'm coming from. We're a long way from tackling this problem at source, it seems.

I dunno, I work in a traditionally male dominated field too and have not been raped/sexually assaulted, but casual sexism as you say is rife and often entirely unreflected. And yes, rapists rape because they can and feel entitled to a woman's body, but I think may would react with anger if they were told they couldn't/shouldn't act as they do.
i think a lot of male entitlement is totally invisible, unacknowledged and subconscious and even pointing it out causes anger. And makes the person pointing it out a man hater and a lesbian, natch [despair]

Ok,
If you take the time to read the article, I did not take one part of it to be victim blaming.
She makes it clear that men should not rape women. Victim blaming would be 'he raped her but she left herself open to this by being drunk' this kind of statement would make my blood boil.
She is saying 'please listen and try to protect yourself by not getting into a paraplegic state and leaving yourself vulnerable.' She has seen numerous cases where predators take advantage of drunk women. She says that. That's not victim blaming! She's pleading that people don't get into such a state that these predators can prey on you!
I don't get the anger, I really don't, I think it's miss-targeted. Be angry at rapists, be grateful for the perspective of someone experienced in these cases.
I shudder when I think of my time in younger years when I got drunk (sometimes ridiculously so) I'm not proud, but at the time it was 'harmless' and I was invincible.
Had I been raped, it wouldn't have been my fault. The rapist chose their actions and is 100% at fault. However, fact is, if the rapist went out, with the sole intention of raping someone so drunk they couldn't stand up for themselves, then, if hadn't have been in that state, I wouldn't have been in harms way!
Not my fault, his fault, but if I hadn't have been there, it wouldn't have been me!

Not paraplegic!!!! Predictive text!!!!

Finally,

If someone tells you not to leave your house or car unlocked as it leaves it vulnerable to theft, I doubt I'd hear victim blaming.
I don't see what this judge has said as any different.

First
but as I read more about cases in the press and listen to the stories of women who have been raped, I think there are so many cases that are simply about entitlement.

I too have been getting the impression of this. I even think the men who feel this way don't even think they have raped. They think they've just had sex.(The prosecuting barrister in the first trial of the two rowers last year put this very point to them during the trial.) For men like this the 'no' was not real, or saying nothing meant consent, or 'yes' was from any number of possibilities like a flirt earlier; or escorting them back to their home or room; or being at a party where everyone was supposed to 'have fun'.

Even in a recent tv drama where the main character was considered a heart-throb, he committed a rape that we the audience were not supposed to think was a rape but sex that been too long in coming and had been been brewing from 'chemistry'.

firstshinyrobe

I am a barrister (though don't do criminal trials anymore) so hardly ignorant of the court process and I disagree with your assessment. I do not know what it is based on. Defendants in rape trials are routinely absolutely torn to shreds. I have seen this with my own eyes.

And people do get where you're coming from. We aren't too stupid to understand, but some of us have a different perspective to you and a different opinion on the pragmatics of protecting women.

To be fair, I think we are angry at rapists - which is precisely why we might be angry about statements that may (inadvertently or not) lead to possible victim blaming. And examining the woman's behaviour does lead to this - whether we like it not. The moment a woman's alcohol intake, or clothing, or whatever, is brought up in court, by the defence - well, that's part of victim blaming. Because it's always drummed into us, isn't it? Don't get too drunk, you may get raped. It is also these sentiments that leads to women not reporting, blaming themselves, feeling ashamed, that we know is so prevalent already in cases of rape.

If judges started saying "no matter how much a woman has drunk, no matter how short her skirt is, that is no excuse for the crime you have committed - the culture would be different, wouldn't it?

thewoodlander

She did say that, didn't she?

"There is absolutely no excuse and a woman can do with her body what she wants and a man will have to adjust his behaviour accordingly"

pebbles
But the judge has caused added distress to rape victims with her words.
I have just been catching up with this thread. I am sorry for what happened to you and I can see what you mean about the judge's words adding to the distress of all those who experienced this. Please do not blame yourself.

Also, getting drunk can often happen by mistake: inexperience, a different drink from usual, an over strong cocktail, not having eaten enough, some medications...

ThE drinking culture has got even more dangerous though in recent years because of shots. When people just had wine and cider it was less likely that someone would get to the more unconscious, confused stage.

Have you actually read the article?

That was directed to the woodlander, no idea how to tag clearly!

But the judge has caused added distress to rape victims with her words.

She has. Whether she meant to or not. She begged women to "protect themselves." By not getting drunk.

And yes, of course I've read the article(s).

The article(s) mention the Rape Crisis response to what she said- which I whole-heartedly agree with.

TheWoodlander
I'm sorry, in that case, you have completely missed the point.
Again, being advised to lock your house/car/belongings up to avoid being burgled, is that victim shaming? Nowhere in the judges comments does she allude to it being the victims fault.

Rape Crisis also missed the point then obviously?

I object to the comparison of rape with burglary for very good reason, as I have already explained. They are not comparable.

Can someone give a link to what the Judge actually said rather than the reporters account?
Thanks