Chrissie Hyndes victim blaming SMH

[FayKorgasm]

guardian.com/society/2015/aug/30/chrissie-hyndes-rape-comments Link

I always liked her but not after this.

A man taking advantage of a woman is quite often code for a man raping or sexually assaulting a woman as well

I know that- the use of the word is quite different tho' . In the case of the drunk man it's used pejoratively against the person taking the unfair advantage; in the case of sexual assault it's just taking advantage of what's offered on a plate (and I assume you know me well enough by now to know that that last phrase is a a paraphrase of Daily Mail type comments, not my views)

Yes - I thought it was interesting that the thief breaching the 'social contract' to take care of a helpless person by doing the very opposite was so strongly censured in that case vs in sex crimes.

that wasn't phrased very well, hopefully you get what i mean

"Breaching or not breaching the social contract" is a fundamental point in legal philosophy !

whirlpool- That's because men, children and the elderly never want- or 'ask' to be raped.
A category women do not fall into apparently.

Not sure about children in some cases, particularly when they are girls.

As it was asked earlier, and from the initial Guardian article:

"She said: ??Technically speaking, however you want to look at it, this was all my doing and I take full responsibility. You can??t f* about with people, especially people who wear ??I Heart Rape?? and ??On Your Knees?? badges ... those motorcycle gangs, that??s what they do."

"??If I??m walking around in my underwear and I??m drunk? Who else??s fault can it be??? she said."

You know, the only safety advice that would give women actual power to prevent being raped, is never be alone with a man. Yet funnily enough, that's one I never see being offered. It's all stuff about clothes and vigilance over drinks.

In the tradeoff between freedom and safety, people may draw different cutoff points as to when one becomes too inhibited by the other, but I think most people would agree that trying to arrange your life to never be alone with a man definitely swings things too far away from the freedom end.

Which side of the cutoff point things like clothing and drinks vigilance are, are things people tend not to all be on the same page on, however. So this observation isn't that surprising, perhaps.

"She said: ??Technically speaking, however you want to look at it, this was all my doing and I take full responsibility. You can??t f* about with people, especially people who wear ??I Heart Rape?? and ??On Your Knees?? badges ... those motorcycle gangs, that??s what they do."

If she literally meant "all my doing" then she is wrong, clearly. Although it is possible to say such things without meaning them literally. Person A can say to Person B "well what did you expect would happen when you walk up to a homophobic brick shithouse and call him a homosexual. You only have yourself to blame for your black eye" without actually meaning that they think the assaulter didn't have full freewill and responsibility for their own decision to assault.

Still, if she did not mean that the way it might sound on first reading, well in a context such as this it really pays to be careful to say exactly what you mean. And if she did, then as I say, she is wrong.

Because of the tradeoff between freedom and safety. Never leaving your house might be better at preventing a burglary than just remembering to lock up after you and buying a burglar alarm is, but most would agree that the former swings things too far away from freedom than the latter does.

Similarly a person might see the never alone with a man thing as going too far in removing freedoms, in a way that not leaving drinks unattended does not.

Just leaving this article here, without comment.

What am I getting in return for curtailing my freedom, JAPAB? How many rapes will not happen if every woman in the UK has one less drink on her next night out?

If it's a trade off, what's our quid pro quo?

You're getting the right to tell women that at least you did bring that rape on yourself.

At least, that's what a fair few people seem to think.

But Plays, surely there's an estimate of rape reduction that this safety measure will bring?

5% fewer rapes a year? 10%?

Sorry Yonic, I'm not much good at that magical thinking stuff. Ask JAPAB, he seems to be, at least about things which are almost certain never to affect him in any way.

(and obvs the first line of my last post was supposed to read You're getting the right to tell women that at least you didn't bring that rape on yourself.)

I mean, no one would be suggesting it if they didn't expect a measurable outcome, right?

I'll just wait here for him to answer then. Might whip up some muffins in the mean time.

Or a sammich.

Women are good at sammiches.

Maybe if we make enough sammiches men will stop raping women?

Oh I already did muffins.

They had grated courgette in. Is that anti-phallic?

Depends if you grated it

I did grate it. I got a boy child to help me, does that help?

BuffytheReasonableFeminist
And whose freedoms are we considering, in these scenarios?

The potential victims, since we are talking about the giving of safety advice and what this does or does not inherently imply.

And to bring another consideration into the mix, the question of responsibility and blame. Advice on clothes, drinks, alleys; this has at least the implication of responsibility for women (whatever words might be used to the contrary they are to at least some extent empty).

You can have "responsibilities" for different things. A person can be "irresponsible" towards their own safety without this having any impact on another person's responsibility for their own actions in harming them. It can be irresponsible to go jaywalking but this does not diminish the responsibility of the person who went drunk driving and hits you.

Where's the responsibility for men in any of this? Where's the consideration of their freedom versus safety?

That is not going to apply for the specific crime of rape as they are not potential victims. Well not in the same kinds of ways anyway. It will apply to men who may be the potential victims for other crimes such as burglary. Then there indeed may be ways a man might or might not be responsible for their own harm-avoidance, and arguments to be had as to whether any specific piece of advice crosses the line in diminishing freedoms.

YonicScrewdriver
What am I getting in return for curtailing my freedom, JAPAB?

If the specific piece of advice is sound, then you'd be getting a reduced risk of falling victim to a crime.

How many rapes will not happen if every woman in the UK has one less drink on her next night out?

No idea. The specific expected risk reduction is something to be argued about for individual pieces of advice. I have only been making points about what the giving of such advice necessarily does or does not imply. Although I doubt you will ever find precise percentages, if that is what you are after. How much does increased vigilance over your drinks reduce your risk of being spiked? If you are after a precise figure such as 71.4% or 48.1% say, then I doubt anyone could give that.