Dear rape apologists and whiners: I've done all the Bad Things. Repeatedly. It's never thevictim's fault.

[solidgoldbrass]

I haven't been raped.This is because lots of men are not rapists, and don't immediately rape women who are drunk, wearing short skirts or out after dark without an owner. If you think that any of the above things, or being asleep in a bed near a man, or even having some willing sexual activity with a man and then saying actually no, stop, means it's OK for the man to just go ahead and fuck till he spunks...Would your son do that? Your husband, your best mate, your brother? Do you really think that all the men you know are potential rapists?

neither would have capacity - so neither would be able to consent, its clear to me.

Don't get drunk (males and females) and no room for confusion.

Quite, and I tell DCs to avoid drunken sex due to informed consent issues.

It's very optimistic to imagine that young people won't get drunk

of course they will

it's better to tell them not to drive or rape when they do

Sorry, still don't get it. Are there 2 people accusing each other of rape after a drunken shag in this scenario?

No - but as we all know, under reporting is a massive issue.

And this did stem from your comment "If she's so drunk she can't give proper consent then it's rape, whether he's sober or just as drunk as she is."

That was in the context of him being admittedly 'consenting'. My point is really just that if they are both equally 'involved' then there isn't a victim so there's no rape. If one isn't involved - that'd be rape. If neither is involved - there'd be no sex. Getting tired now, 'involved' probably not the best word but you get the drift.

The point is that 'too drunk to consent' doesn't just mean she consented but regretted it the next day because she was so drunk - it means not actually able to consent.

These threads are starting to make me unreasonably angry.

I'm so glad so many women on this thread have walked home late and drunk and never met a rapist. And from this vast experience with not being raped, now feel free to tell other people they are rape apologists for suggesting preventive advice to women.

I was raped and nearly murdered at 16. I could have prevented it had I made better decisions. Yet strangely, I am still completely capable of understanding that the rape was not my fault. I have, however, at times advised other women not to do what I did.

I had a friend who had her drink spiked at a club. She woke up naked in the back of a van, with no memory of being gang-raped. She also has no problem understanding it wasn't her fault but you better believe she tells everyone not to leave their drinks unattended.

I agree that rape prevention should be aimed more at men than at women. I agree that women should not be made to feel that rape is ever their fault, that doing certain things is asking for it, or that women are more responsible for rape than their rapists.

But I simply can't fathom not teaching women how to protect and defend themselves -- I totally agree with Hully, it's not scaring women, it's empowering them.

I can only imagine some of you live in nice safe places where rape IS rare and not the dodgy neighbourhoods and countries I've always been in, where it is frankly stupid not to try to protect yourself.

Evening all. I can't see that folks are really massively disagreeing here. Rapists are responsible for rapes, full stop. The vast majority of rapists are people known to the victim and rapes happen in situation where most of the popular "personal safety information" traditionally given to women would be pretty useless.

But, a couple of people have pointed out how it is important to advise young people of BOTH sexes (and to be frank, people of all ages need to think about it,) to take care when out. In fact it's statistically more likely that young men will be physically assaulted by a stranger on a night out than a woman or man will be sexually assaulted by a stranger. Then there's also the risk of accidental injuries related to excess drinking, drugs, spiked drinks, etc., which can happen to men or women.

Basically, the problem here is that advice has traditionally been given to women on how to "avoid rape" that's pretty useless for that purpose, but similar advice IS useful for all people going on a night out, or walking somewhere unfamiliar after dark. Cut out the "this will protect you from rape" bullshit and you've got sensible advice for anyone.

When it comes to preventing rape, however, it's the messages given to sons that will more likely achieve that, not the messages given to daughters.

Is the fact that there is a raspberry and a blueberry on this thread making anyone else feel peckish?

(defuse the tension icon.)

dreamingbohemian - exactly!

Perfectly put dreaming & kritiq. Totally agree. Starting to feel silly now getting all argumentative over details of language essentially Am away to my bed

Off to bed now, going to save time by not locking up tonight. If I get burgled won't be my fault will it?

Getting very drunk and walking home alone does put you at some risk. It puts you at risk of falling down a flight of steps and breaking your neck, or of walking in front of a moving car. Fair enough to warn your teens about that.

But WRT to sex-when-drunk, I've done plenty of that. And not always remembered it in much detail BUT I have never had that sort of uneasy, unhappy, uncomfortable sensation that actually, something was done to me against my will. Women know the difference between pissed up sex, regrettable sex, unsatisfactory sex and rape. We are not idiots.

And, I've said this before and I'll say it again, the most important thing to teach young people about sex is that enthusiastic participation is the very minimum you should expect from a sexual partner. S/he should be moving towards you, responding, saying stuff like 'That's good, do it some more', initiating some of the activity eg actively touching you. If s/he is limp and passive, silent, or unconscious then something is very wrong and you need to STOP having sex on that person and find out what the problem is.

But Kritiq, there is no hard evidence that prevention advice is 'pretty useless'.

Imagine that there was no discourse of prevention aimed at women, that no women today had been exposed to it. Imagine no woman today had ever heard that she shouldn't walk home late or drunk or whatever. Would stranger rapes still be 15-20%? Or higher? There is absolutely no way of knowing.

I find it interesting that people use the 15% stat as an argument that prevention advice is useless, when for all we know it could be the result of people actually using prevention advice.

Rape is not inevitable. Rapists can be deterred and prevented, unfortunately not all the time, but at least in some cases, yes.

I agree that prevention advice should be carefully worded, so that the responsibility is still clearly laid on the rapist. But if it can save even one woman from being raped, I can't argue with it.

And I would really ask people to stop implying that stranger rape is incredibly rare and unlikely. It is less likely than being raped by someone you know, but it still happens all the freaking time.

I think prevention advice is useless against the majority of rape but off course is useful for that minority plus the other stuff SGB mentions.

I I object to language like women can be part o the solution to stopping rape, because that puts the onus where it's always been in patriarchy -with women. And if that worked, we would not be having this discussion wd we, because men wd no longer be raping us as we've been part of the solution for centuries and it doesn't work. Also following all the safety advice may stop me being one of those 8% of victims, it may stop rape for me, but it won't stop rape if that rapist rapes another woman.

This is a feminist chat section right? Is it really so outrageous that rape is discussed from a wider feminist perspective than just "how can I protect myself from being raped in certain untypical circumstances"?

I'm not against anyone taking any measures that make them feel safe. I am against people seeing the shake up of the Fwr section as an opportunity to ensure that rape myths and generalised unfeminst nonsense is presented as feminist analysis, because all I have tof do is say

Oops, bloody, phone... All I have to do is say I'm a feminist, put forward an argument that is not remotely feminist and stick it in the new friendly fwr section where it can't be pointed out that this argument does not come from a feminist perspective because fwr chat is not supposed to have any feminist perspectives in, it anymore or something

I've just had a look for stats on perpetrators -- hard to find anything specific. The Fawcett Society says:

? Women are most likely to be sexually attacked by men they know in some way, most often partners (32%) or acquaintances (22%) (AIUK 2007)

So unless I'm being dense, half the time the perp is either a stranger or perhaps someone the woman knows vaguely.

What I take from this, from a patriarchy perspective, is that women can be raped by anyone, and it is this very range of distribution in perps that supports the idea of a patriarchal society where women are treated like sexual objects.

I don't object to broader feminist analysis of rape. I object to preventive advice being called rape apology. Some preventive advice could be, if it is worded badly, but the concept itself is not automatically apology.

No it's, not, but nobody has called preventive advice per se rape apology.

It's all the other stuff around it - "the women are part of the solution" nincompoopery.

We have centuries of evidence to show that is wishful thinking.

The Stern Report addresses the lack of statistics.

?Women are most likely to be sexually attacked by men they know in some way, most often partners (32%) or acquaintances (22%) (AIUK 2007)

So unless I'm being dense, half the time the perp is either a stranger or perhaps someone the woman knows vaguely.

This doesn't allow for familial abuse - so I guess that would also ouch the figures up.

I think a lot of those are men they have only just met, so done't "know" them - they done't really count as acquaintances

I don't care about discourse. Nor do I care that this is the X board or the Y board so you must frame your arguments thus. I care about stuff that affects women now today in the real world we live in.

I work to change stuff whilst trying to keep myself and my dd and ds alive and safe.

I travel a lot, all over, so do my family. There are some countries where rape is so prevalent that you would be insane not to exercise care for your personal safety.

That's what I care about. Staying alive so the education can be carried out.

Not much point in being righteous yet raped/dead. If you don't mind me saying.

Totally agree Hully.

So why have the convo on thr fem chat board then?

Why not just in chat?
Or travel?

What's the point of a fem board with no fem arguments?