You are not responsible for the rape or sexual assault you endured

[differentnameforthis]

In light of many threads about Ched Evans' & his victim & in light of those who believe she could have prevented it by being sober (!), I thought it was important to raise this issue.

It doesn't matter if you were drunk
It doesn't matter if you were alone
It doesn't matter if you got into a taxi/car/train/bus with him
It doesn't matter if you went to a room with him
It doesn't matter if you knew him
It doesn't matter if you didn't know him
It doesn't matter if you started to have sex with him & said no
It doesn't matter if you had sex with him an hour/a day/a week before
It doesn't matter if you had sex with his friend
It doesn't matter what you were wearing

YOU ARE IN NO WAY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RAPE/SEXUAL ASSAULT YOU ENDURED.

We believe you

Why explain it all over again, CheesePuff? You can lock up your car or house on the offchance a robber may have a go, but you can't realistically lock your body away from all male persons on the offchance one of them's a rapist.

And what Buffy said, obvs.

buffy and garlic - you both said it right.

Come on CheesePuff don't be disingenuous. In the first place, the advice given doesn't work, so it isn't preventative. Secondly to imply that rape could have been prevented just makes victims feel really fucking shit. Both points have been made repeatedly over this entire thread. Why aren't you grasping them?

Gin - I am so sorry. You sound very strong.

You've got to wonder at what sort of a person enjoys goading a bunch of women who are talking about the topic of rape, many of whom have posted that they have been raped themselves.

You do indeed, Seven.

To put the onus on women to prevent rape, or even fight it off, is just wrong.

In my friend's rape case, the defence asked why she couldn't fight him off/escape from him (!) when she had hospital documented physical injuries. He was stronger than her. She was terrified of him.

Just so wrong.

Having a different point of view is not the same as goading.

Of course, there are countless examples of rape that could not have been prevented.

However, common sense precautions might prevent a small number of rapes, and if they prevent just one, in my opinion, the advice is worth giving. In an ideal world they wouldn't even have to consider rape, but we don't live in such a world.

And being really drunk makes you far more vulnerable in the eyes of a rapist.

I have followed this whole thread in detail, and am yet to see one 'common sense precaution' which could have 'prevented' any of the rapes described.

What is it about 'Rape is caused by rapists' which is so difficult to absorb?

I think that coming on to a thread where a bunch of women are talking about rape, many of them rape victims, and asking why one earth women shouldn't be told how they should "protect themselves" when it has been explained time and time again why that is a. victim blaming and b. pointless anyway is goading, yes. Getting a bunch of people some of whom are upset and poking them with a stick to see what reaction you can get out of them. I don't know what the purpose is in doing that, for fun presumably.

Instead of goading you could say winding up, taking the piss, aiming to upset, there's a load of other things there I guess.

Tell you what, some of the people on this thread were raped as children.

Let's all sit here why you explain to them what exactly the fuck it was they did "wrong" to "get them" raped, eh? I'm sure we'd all love to hear your words of wisdom.

That's not a genuine suggestion that you go through the thread and copy and paste all the stories people have shared and tell them where they went wrong BTW.

Just in case you are in the middle of a long post doing just that.

Happily, it seems that job has been done for you in at least some of the cases by people's parents, counsellors, families, friends and other organisations

And the police

I do almost wonder whether some people find it hard to distinguish between (consensual) rough sex and rape... That maybe somehow they fondly imagine that the latter is often basically just a version of the former? Is that where the whole underlying hint of 'it only happens to naughty girls' thing comes from?

CheesePuff, 1 in 3 rapes occurs when the victim has been drinking. Statistically then, you are more likely to be raped while sober.

Oh and hang on, what about MEN being drunk and (if they are mysogynistically inclined and highly likely to rape in the first place, of course) becoming threatening/abusive towards/actually assaulting a woman because of their drunkenness??? I was once (while entirely sober) trapped in a bedroom at a party by a very very drunk friend of a friend who blocked the door while becoming increasingly verbally threatening, sexually. I only managed to get out when the owner of the bedroom forced the door open from the other side. The drunk bloke in question clearly had the ability to turn nasty but it was only the drink, in this case, that actually brought it out in him (he was bizarrely mild mannered when sober)

It's just a thought but I really don't like this one sided assumption that only delicate ladies must take care not to drink too much.

It's ok, cheese is clearly posting from their time machine which has got stuck in the 1970s. No one. With half a brain. Blames the victim in 2014.

Well that situation sounds to me like it was totally and utterly your fault, emerald.

I hope you apologised to him for your behaviour the next time you saw him.

Just thinking as well.

The first respondent and that wanker on the radio + many others say that in many situations women and girls must bear at least some of the responsibility if they are raped. In the event of a successful prosecution, how much of the sentence should be given to the woman. If a man gets 5 years for rape, should the woman get 1, 2, 3? Should it vary depending on how much she had had to drink, how short her skirt was? If she is very attractive, and was out on a Friday night, should she maybe bear most of the blame, get 4 years to his 1? I wonder if they have followed their idea through to it's logical conclusion.

Should rape victims be prosecuted for facilitating a rape?

Because that is the direction some people are pointing in. I am sure they would say no no not at all. But. If a woman is implicated in responsibility for a rape, then she is implicated in that crime. Right?

That's the way they already do it in some parts of the world anyway isn't it. You know, the sort of places where women have to be covered and aren't allowed out without male relatives and OH LOOK they still get raped.