'Sex While Drunk Is Now Legally Rape In California'?

OldNotWIse

tritium wrote: »

Its legally impossible in Ireland for a man to be raped. This case happened in the US

Thankfully other jurisdictions don't have the same asshat definition that we do
(albeit they have their own issues, especially when you see rape reclassifed as
'forced to penetrate and then ignored in studies by a major government agency)

Can you direct us to the legislation in that regard?

laoch na mona

tritium wrote: »

I never said you did. My point is that the way this principle is applied in the US is completly discriminatory (interestingly as the Mustard posted, the letter of the law isn't meant to be that way). There's been a pretty well publicised backlash against the trend on US campuses to actively presume male guilt in any sexual encounter. We've had the facepalm moment where a senior faculty member of one US college openly stated that the onus was on men but not women to seek consent. A number of cases are currently before the courts for violating the rights of the accused on multiple levels.

The reality is that there is a grey area in what would be called sexual crimes in these situations. Its the case where both parties give drunken consent. There's a major difference between a sober or near sober person taking advantage of someone who is wasted and two wasted people ending up in bed together. The latter has only two possibilities either both committed an offence or neither did. Attempts to disempower women under the guise of protecting them won't change that.

fair point I suppose all I can say is MURICA
I agree that applying it to one gender exclusively is ridiculous not to mention hugely discriminatory towards LGBTQ people.

As I said if it moves people away from the idea that consent is a grey area that's great but clearly that has to apply across the board or as you say it's disempowering women by assuming they are the de facto victims

OldNotWIse

Pretty much agree with post 3 in this regard - nothing seems to have really changed. Further reading would be required. I don't see anything new jumping out though. Silence does not amount to consent? It never did.

laoch na mona

Potatoeman wrote: »

Do you lock your front door?

not always , but that is not relevant it's not my job to prevent burglary, same as its not my job to prevent rape, the root cause of these things needs to be tackled.

it is also worth remembering rape disproportionately effects women which means putting the onus of prevention on the potential victim is also sexist.
that's not the case with burglary

tritium

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Can you direct us to the legislation in that regard?

Which, Irish or us?

OldNotWIse

tritium wrote: »

Which, Irish or us?

I know the Irish law in this regard, hence my statement that a man cannot legally be raped here. I was wondering about the case in question. Seems each state has different laws. Has this thing been passed yet or is it still a Bill? I don't really see much difference, will have to have a better look later.

newport2

Potatoeman wrote: »

It increases risk as it dulls your senses and impairs your judgement. You might put youself in situations you would not have while sober.

Even victims should analyse their actions to see if there was something they could have done differently. If I leave my front door open im more likely to get robbed as many crimes are crimes of opportunity.

I think anyone with an IQ above room temperature already knows that, so I don't really see the point of the poster campaign.

Sure, the onus is on me to lock my front door. Is the onus on women not to drink? A closer analogy to that poster would be telling people who got burgled that statisticly if you have doors and windows in your house, you're more likely to get a break in.

Carlos Orange

laoch na mona wrote: »

the thing is the onus should not be on the victim to prevent rape, same as it should not be on home owners to prevent break ins

Do you think we should teach people not to break into houses?

laoch na mona

psinno wrote: »

Do you think we should teach people not to break into houses?

no we should address the structural causes of burglary such as poverty and inequality

the structural causes of rape are different because RAPE IS NOT BURLARY

Potatoeman

newport2 wrote: »

I think anyone with an IQ above room temperature already knows that, so I don't really see the point of the poster campaign.

Sure, the onus is on me to lock my front door. Is the onus on women not to drink? A closer analogy to that poster would be telling people who got burgled that statisticly if you have doors and windows in your house, you're more likely to get a break in.

Drink sensibly. There are bad people in the world thats just a fact of life. Reduce the chance of being a victim. This is basic stuff. I find the culture of victimhood really damaging as it absolves any personal responsability and seems to come from an ideal world perspective.

Frank Lee Midere

laoch na mona wrote: »

no we should address the structural causes of burglary such as poverty and inequality

the structural causes of rape are different because RAPE IS NOT BURLARY

The idea that all criminals are poor is ludicrous of course. Some criminals engage in criminality ( largely amongst the poor and working classes) because they don't want to work, because it is a career, because money can be made.

Frank Lee Midere

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Pretty much agree with post 3 in this regard - nothing seems to have really changed. Further reading would be required. I don't see anything new jumping out though. Silence does not amount to consent? It never did.

Affirmative consent goes beyond the present law. It requires a YES ( or rather affirmation), not silence. They say this can be non-verbal but I can't really see anybody taking the risk.

As for drunkeness, unlike in DUI etc. that too is undefined. What is drunk exactly? What does the law say? Can someone be breathalysed?

Potatoeman

laoch na mona wrote: »

not always , but that is not relevant it's not my job to prevent burglary, same as its not my job to prevent rape, the root cause of these things needs to be tackled.

it is also worth remembering rape disproportionately effects women which means putting the onus of prevention on the potential victim is also sexist.
that's not the case with burglary

Someone posted stats on a different thread that there may be more men raped than woman in the US if you include victims in prision.

By not locking your door you are making it easier for burgulars. It is not in your interest to do this so it is in your benifit to change your actions to reduce your risk.

laoch na mona

Potatoeman wrote: »

Drink sensibly. There are bad people in the world thats just a fact of life. Reduce the chance of being a victim. This is basic stuff. I find the culture of victimhood really damaging as it absolves any personal responsability and seems to come from an ideal world perspective.

be reasonable demand the impossible

if we don't the world will be **** forever

Carlos Orange

laoch na mona wrote: »

no we should address the structural causes of burglary such as poverty and inequality

I imagine poverty and inequality has risen quite a lot in the last 10 years given the state of the economy. The population has gone up > 10%. Burglary stats 2004 - 2013 look pretty flat.

0712 Burglary (not aggravated)
24430 25911 24270 23052 23933 26113 24578 26724 27098 25207

laoch na mona

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

The idea that all criminals are poor is ludicrous of course. Some criminals engage in criminality ( largely amongst the poor and working classes) because they don't want to work, because it is a career, because money can be made.

look at the socio economic background of prison populations, crime is a way for people who could not achieve the aims of society (get rich) through accepted means. If we take your point that it is about making money then you are saying capitalism is the structural cause of crime, as it is the mentality of capitalist society that makes people willing to screw people over for money.

but this is off topic if you want to discuss the sociology of crime send me a PM;)

laoch na mona

psinno wrote: »

I imagine poverty and inequality has risen quite a lot in the last 10 years given the state of the economy. The population has gone up > 10%. Burglary stats 2004 - 2013 look pretty flat.

0712 Burglary (not aggravated)
24430 25911 24270 23052 23933 26113 24578 26724 27098 25207

makes sense when you factor in the mediating effect of the welfare system, other criminal activity ie drug dealing and the coercive effect of the threat of punishment.

Again off topic PM me for a sociological debate

ectoraige

In that Occidental university case, I don't logically see why the male does not bring forward a case himself that he was raped. He was clearly drunk enough to meet the university's criteria of being unable to grant consent. The female, by their standards, should have recognised this, the fact that she was incapacitated doesn't appear to be a valid defence. Who is charged when two homosexuals have drunken sex? Lock up the gays and applaud the lesbians?

Obvioulsy, it would be a cold act given the PTSD the female appeared to suffer from the incident, but it would show the absurdity of the standards applied.

OldNotWIse

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Affirmative consent goes beyond the present law. It requires a YES ( or rather affirmation), not silence. They say this can be non-verbal but I can't really see anybody taking the risk.

As for drunkeness, unlike in DUI etc. that too is undefined. What is drunk exactly? What does the law say? Can someone be breathalysed?

As I said, silence is not currently consent anyway. Also, comunication of consent can be non-verbal. Whether you see anyone taking the "risk" or not is your own opinion. Even in Ireland (I am aware we are referring to a different jurisdiction but by way of example) the standard is an honest belief that consent was present (Morgan principle).The less reasonable your belief, the less likely it was honestly held. So, even this involves some form of risk too, if you find yourself before a jury of your peers. You can't just blatantly assert, "I thought she consented" and let the issue die.

I would echo the sentiment of some posters on here and say it seems to be more a policy statement than an overhaul of the existing law.

OldNotWIse

Potatoeman wrote: »

Drink sensibly. There are bad people in the world thats just a fact of life. Reduce the chance of being a victim. This is basic stuff. I find the culture of victimhood really damaging as it absolves any personal responsability and seems to come from an ideal world perspective.

Do you think there is any element of personal responsibility on the part of someone who has been raped?

Carlos Orange

ectoraige wrote: »

Obvioulsy, it would be a cold act given the PTSD the female appeared to suffer from the incident, but it would show the absurdity of the standards applied.

It shows you can not trust peoples reaction to events even when it is genuine and heart felt. Which is pretty scary and very complicated.

Potatoeman

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Do you think there is any element of personal responsibility on the part of someone who has been raped?

Passing out drunk in a strangers house would put you at potential risk but ultimately its the criminals fault. Its not about blame rather about prevention and self interest. I should be able to leave my front door open when Im out but I accept the risks and lock it.

da_shivsta

I don't really understand why any discussion on rape turns in to "feminist hate men" and rebuttals of "not all feminists are like those crazies." To me, i'ts pretty clear what's going on there - it's basically the same as extremist Muslims hijacking the religion and giving the others a bad name. Is any rational person gonna say/think that their Muslim neighbour is about to blow them up? So why assume their fellow boardie hates men because he/she appreciates a good ole' anti-rape law!?

(*edit talking about heterosex - i have no experience of homosex/transsex) The fact is, guys, it's a hell of a lot more easier and (from my personal experience as a non-rapist) more common for a drunken guy to go "right i'll stick my dick in it" while the girl is half-conscious. (*edit without realising he is wrong) He's often too drunk to realise you're more or less asleep. Yes, you both might be wasted. I've never been the guy in that situation. I'm sure drunk girls try leap on drunk unwilling guys often enough too, in which case, you can also take them to court for it.
The way I see it; it's easier for a girl to come out & say she was raped. Because according to society, it just doesn't happen to guys. But it is up to everybody to realise that hey - hang on - s/he's wasted. I'm wasted. Let's sleep this off and see in the morning where we all stand. If people actually practised this then I think everyone would be much better off. If you're a guy and you get taken advantage of, but don't report it - then it's actually perpetuating the notion that it doesn't happen. I'm not in to victim blaming, but I do feel responsible to report any crime against me so that it doesn't happen to anyone else. (*edit - I don't feel at all responsible for any crime committed against me. Even a provoked attack - it is everyone's responsibility to control their reaction to any situation. I am responsible for reporting it, however.)

It's happened to me. It didn't traumatise me but I do wish I'd spoken to the guy about it while we we sober in the morning. But it was embarrassing. Another reason we shouldn't be engaging in sexual relationships before we're emotionally mature enough!

Potatoeman

da_shivsta wrote: »

The fact is, guys, it's a hell of a lot more easier and (from my personal experience as a non-rapist) more common for a drunken guy to go "right i'll stick my dick in it" while the girl is half-conscious. He's often too drunk to realise you're more or less asleep.

There is a world of difference between drunk sex and riding someone that's unconscious. I dont follow the above but I hope your not saying that most guys would rape someone thats unconscious?

da_shivsta

Just edited to clarify! No I meant it happens with young people in college especially that they are both drunk and neither actually realises how drunk the other person is.
Neither do they realise the consequences nor understand how that encounter might affect the other. Often they don't even know each other's names! It will do no harm to hold people responsible for their actions, whether drunk or not. Enforcement of this rule here might help to combat our drunk culture.

Potatoeman

da_shivsta wrote: »

Just edited to clarify! No I meant it happens with young people in college especially that they are both drunk and neither actually realises how drunk the other person is.
Neither do they realise the consequences nor understand how that encounter might affect the other. Often they don't even know each other's names! It will do no harm to hold people responsible for their actions, whether drunk or not. Enforcement of this rule here might help to combat our drunk culture.

Hold who responsible? Are we going to bring in a DWI for sex, then are both not equally at fault?

da_shivsta

If someone is just laying there, half asleep from drunkenness, and someone else initiates or even continues sex then they should be held responsible.

another edit, sorry, I know sometimes I'm not clear enough.
If they are both drunk, have sex and don't have a problem, then no it shouldn't be a crime. if one of them has a problem, thee we go.

OldNotWIse

Potatoeman wrote: »

Passing out drunk in a strangers house would put you at potential risk but ultimately its the criminals fault. Its not about blame rather about prevention and self interest. I should be able to leave my front door open when Im out but I accept the risks and lock it.

I see your point regarding personal safety but I believe this should be asserted as a separate issue, rather than in the context of the offence as it risks blurring the lines. You might refer to "passing out drunk in a stranger's house" which is at the higher end of the spectrum with regards a lack of care for one's own safety, but the next person might refer to "passing out drunk in a pub", or passing out in the company of someone you've been flirting with all night" and all of a sudden we are back to "she was wearing a short skirt, what did she expect" mentality - an unfortunate but real attitude that still prevails. Women (and men) should always be concerned for their own safety, but discussing same in a blame/consent discussion only opens the door (no pun intended!) to victim blaming.

orubiru

da_shivsta wrote: »

I don't really understand why any discussion on rape turns in to "feminist hate men" and rebuttals of "not all feminists are like those crazies." To me, i'ts pretty clear what's going on there - it's basically the same as extremist Muslims hijacking the religion and giving the others a bad name. Is any rational person gonna say/think that their Muslim neighbour is about to blow them up? So why assume their fellow boardie hates men because he/she appreciates a good ole' anti-rape law!?

(*edit talking about heterosex - i have no experience of homosex/transsex) The fact is, guys, it's a hell of a lot more easier and (from my personal experience as a non-rapist) more common for a drunken guy to go "right i'll stick my dick in it" while the girl is half-conscious. (*edit without realising he is wrong) He's often too drunk to realise you're more or less asleep. Yes, you both might be wasted. I've never been the guy in that situation. I'm sure drunk girls try leap on drunk unwilling guys often enough too, in which case, you can also take them to court for it.
The way I see it; it's easier for a girl to come out & say she was raped. Because according to society, it just doesn't happen to guys. But it is up to everybody to realise that hey - hang on - s/he's wasted. I'm wasted. Let's sleep this off and see in the morning where we all stand. If people actually practised this then I think everyone would be much better off. If you're a guy and you get taken advantage of, but don't report it - then it's actually perpetuating the notion that it doesn't happen. I'm not in to victim blaming, but I do feel responsible to report any crime against me so that it doesn't happen to anyone else. (*edit - I don't feel at all responsible for any crime committed against me. Even a provoked attack - it is everyone's responsibility to control their reaction to any situation. I am responsible for reporting it, however.)

It's happened to me. It didn't traumatise me but I do wish I'd spoken to the guy about it while we we sober in the morning. But it was embarrassing. Another reason we shouldn't be engaging in sexual relationships before we're emotionally mature enough!

I think that we need more discussion on these issues from an earlier age to be honest.

It seems almost unbelievable to me that some people would question if, for example, affirmative consent should be necessary. I feel like the need for a mutual verbal agreement of some kind before things can proceed should be expected and young adults should learn this as soon as they are able to start having sex.

If a guy seriously thinks it's OK to go ahead and have sex with a girl who is drunk enough to not be fully "into it" then that guy is either a total piece of sh!t or has not been educated in how to properly conduct himself.

As a society, our reluctance to discuss the various issues surrounding sex with the younger generation is a serious, serious, problem. One wonders how we could impact problems of rape, sexual harassment etc if we just discussed these things openly with young adults.

I can't remember a single time in my teens where the topic of "consent" or any of the complexities that might come with that was actually brought up.

"Feminists" appear to be one of the few groups who do actually care, who do actually want to raise awareness. As a result of that we tend to get a rather skewed view of the situation. I think that the people introducing the rules or legislation are only doing so as a response to the "noise" being made by "women's groups" and so there is no real discussion. I almost feel like the college campuses etc are reacting like "Oh, it's these damn Feminists making racket again, OK, if we say if guys have sex with a drunk girl it's basically rape will that shut them up?".

That can't possibly be the best way to go about this? We are reacting to a situation where younger guys and girls are going out and getting sh!tfaced and they don't even know the "rules"...? Wouldn't it be better to catch them at a younger age and make sure that both sides understand that there should be a verbal agreement from both sides that they are both OK with what they are doing?

It annoys me that people who are not heterosexual tend to be left in a "grey area" with all this too. As people will no doubt point out what if two men get blind drunk and have sex? Can one accuse the other of rape? Can they both accuse each other of rape? Can neither make the accusation? How would the colleges etc react in cases like these?

In terms of responsibility... I think that every individual has a responsibility to protect themselves. If you engage in reckless, but legal, behavior and someone takes advantage of that to harm you then surely we have to acknowledge that the victim could have taken steps to be safer?

Obviously the perpetrator is the one who gets the punishment but I don't think it's safe to teach the younger generation that "if something bad happens to you then it's not your fault". It's equally a bit harsh to blame victims outright. We need to find a "common ground" where take care of the victims and do not blame them for what has happened and simultaneously put the message out there to potential future victims that they might want to be more cautious.

OldNotWIse

I'm wary of feminists, ever since learning that some of the more militant ones believe that even consensual sex is a form of rape, as the mechanics of the act of sexual intercourse necessarily involve an element of submission on behalf of the woman. It's hard to take people seriously when statements like this are being made. I realise these are are the more extreme end of the spectrum but they do not serve their cause well. Much the same way that I dislike people who shout through megaphones about being vegan and spit on old ladies coming out of fur shops. Even though I'm an avid supporter of animal rights, these people make us all look like loonies.

Potatoeman

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I see your point regarding personal safety but I believe this should be asserted as a separate issue, rather than in the context of the offence as it risks blurring the lines. You might refer to "passing out drunk in a stranger's house" which is at the higher end of the spectrum with regards a lack of care for one's own safety, but the next person might refer to "passing out drunk in a pub", or passing out in the company of someone you've been flirting with all night" and all of a sudden we are back to "she was wearing a short skirt, what did she expect" mentality - an unfortunate but real attitude that still prevails. Women (and men) should always be concerned for their own safety, but discussing same in a blame/consent discussion only opens the door (no pun intended!) to victim blaming.

This is the problem. The victim blaming get pulled out as soon as anyone brings up personal awarness and safety. The two issues are linked and the above poster being called victim blaming for highlighting a stat that could raise awarness is ultimatley going to keep back these types of compaigns.

orubiru

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm wary of feminists, ever since learning that some of the more militant ones believe that even consensual sex is a form of rape, as the mechanics of the act of sexual intercourse necessarily involve an element of submission on behalf of the woman. It's hard to take people seriously when statements like this are being made. I realise these are are the more extreme end of the spectrum but they do not serve their cause well. Much the same way that I dislike people who shout through megaphones about being vegan and spit on old ladies coming out of fur shops. Even though I'm an avid supporter of animal rights, these people make us all look like loonies.

Hm. I'd say the majority of men, like myself, don't REALLY even know what "feminism" is all about. Can a guy be a feminist? I have no idea.

One of the problems I think we have is that activists tend to make such a scene that it looks like they are the only ones who actually care about the issues. The vast majority of human beings surely hold the opinion that rape is one of the worst possible crimes a person can commit. Yet almost all the noise, awareness raising, pushing for legislation etc is coming from one specific sub-group. The authorities then seem to act in a way that's designed to appease the mob instead of actually doing something to fix the root causes of these problems.

It's like the whole scorpion and the frog thing. Saying "if the girl is drunk, then it's rape" doesn't make people less prone to bad behavior under the influence of alcohol, it doesn't pacify aggressive people, it does nothing AT ALL to stop predators. It's just a way for the college, or whoever, to wash their hands of the issue and say "well, we're giving you what you want so whatever happens now wasn't OUR fault, OK?"

OldNotWIse

Potatoeman wrote: »

This is the problem. The victim blaming get pulled out as soon as anyone brings up personal awarness and safety. The two issues are linked and the above poster being called victim blaming for highlighting a stat that could raise awarness is ultimatley going to keep back these types of compaigns.

I didn't call the poster a "victim blamer" - I said blurring the lines between consent and self-awareness can lead to the prevalence of victim blaming mentality. That is quite different.

da_shivsta

That can't possibly be the best way to go about this? We are reacting to a situation where younger guys and girls are going out and getting sh!tfaced and they don't even know the "rules"...? Wouldn't it be better to catch them at a younger age and make sure that both sides understand that there should be a verbal agreement from both sides that they are both OK with what they are doing?

Yes, this is what I mean by saying we shouldn't be entering in to these situations before we're emotionally mature/prepared. I think we are mostly talking about getting drunk, having sex without either of you being fully aware of what is going on. This kind of grey area.

Making responsible choices is part of growing up but some people never learn until it's too late.

As I said, not in to victim blaming but there does need to be some degree of responsibility. I'm gonna go out and get ****faced and I'm gonna wear a nice dress while doing it. And in no way should those choices alone mean that I am consenting to whatever the **** happens me. No.
At the same time, if I take a guy (or girl) home and get on top, you know.. do all the things you do... Actively partake in sex.. I'm not gonna call that rape?
If I fall asleep midway through and he keeps going.. he's a ****bag and will go to jail.
Of course it's all subjective and contextual but at the end of the day - all laws can be misinterpreted or skewed to suit if you want. It's just taking a pinch of common sense to know where the line is when you're getting in to bed with someone. If you can't have that conversation... that says enough.

Hm. I'd say the majority of men, like myself, don't REALLY even know what "feminism" is all about. Can a guy be a feminist? I have no idea.

You're spot on. For me, it's just simply about equality between the sexes. Mostly, I think we're doing okay in Ireland these days. I mean I accept women are physically different, and maybe our brains are wired a bit differently too - on the whole. But I just think we shouldn't be excluded or judged on a statistic either, you know? Like we can be really strong. We can be good mechanics! (I've yet to meet a female mechanic though :P ) by the same token, men can be great nurses. For me it's about a more even distribution of the sexes in the workplace and in Government.
I think the main problem here is inequality for those who are anything other than straight and white, though.
And yes, men can be feminists.

orubiru

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I see your point regarding personal safety but I believe this should be asserted as a separate issue, rather than in the context of the offence as it risks blurring the lines. You might refer to "passing out drunk in a stranger's house" which is at the higher end of the spectrum with regards a lack of care for one's own safety, but the next person might refer to "passing out drunk in a pub", or passing out in the company of someone you've been flirting with all night" and all of a sudden we are back to "she was wearing a short skirt, what did she expect" mentality - an unfortunate but real attitude that still prevails. Women (and men) should always be concerned for their own safety, but discussing same in a blame/consent discussion only opens the door (no pun intended!) to victim blaming.

We have to also consider that victim blaming is something we are conditioned to do from a young age. How many times in life do we learn lessons that eventually end with our parents saying "I told you so"?

If I wore a pink My Little Pony t-shirt in PE class and the other lads beat me up afterwards, I really feel that most parents out there would take the stance that "well, you're not wearing that T-shirt to PE class ever again, what were you thinking?!".

That's probably something that is deeply ingrained in Human behavior. We are raising kids along the lines of "Don't do X and Y because A will happen" and if they disobey then there's an understanding that the blame must be placed somewhere when things go wrong.

It might even be dangerous for us to do away with "blame culture" as it encourages people, maybe on a subconscious level but even so, to behave recklessly because they can't/won't be blamed for what happens to them.

I'm sure we'd never say to a girl "well you should never have been down that street, hammered drunk, in those clothes, what were you thinking" but, at the same time, don't we have a responsibility to young girls to say "it might not be a good idea to do X and Y and Z cos stuff might happen and on some level some of the blame will lie with you"?

I understand that teens and young adults are naturally rebellious but shouldn't that be more of a reason to say "if the victim had been more careful..." and maybe we can reduce the number of future victims in that way.

I don't know, maybe someone has already looked into that and has numbers, statistics etc. I just wonder if it's possible if our aversion to participating in "victim blaming" is based on a emotional response rather than a practical one.

da_shivsta

Well, I think shifting that thinking is EXACTLY what we need to do.
How often have you heard it said "you made me mad, you made me hit you." ??
Teaching kids that yes, if you dress in short clothes people might think badly of you - how is that really beneficial? No more girls in short skirts?
Teaching kids that you can always walk away from a fight instead of punching is much more beneficial to society.
Bringing up decent people who won't encroach on another's personal safety is more important than teaching girls not to wear whatever they want, act how they want once they are not hurting anyone.
Nothing *makes* someone rape you. There are statistics. I'm not up to date with them, but I have done a lot of study in the past on rape culture, rape crisis intervention etc. and basically what I learned was.. if someone is gonna rape, they are gonna rape.
In most cases 70% and above, it's someone you know, even a family member, in your home or their home. The stranger in the bushes doesn't come out that often...

It should be about teaching our young people to be responsible and THINK before they take action.

Potatoeman

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I didn't call the poster a "victim blamer" - I said blurring the lines between consent and self-awareness can lead to the prevalence of victim blaming mentality. That is quite different.

I was replying to your post but referring to this:

laoch na mona wrote: »

I view this as a positive development as it is a step away from victim blaming such as this fine example from the NHS http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1940614/thumbs/o-NHS-570.jpg?6

orubiru

da_shivsta wrote: »

Well, I think shifting that thinking is EXACTLY what we need to do.
How often have you heard it said "you made me mad, you made me hit you." ??
Teaching kids that yes, if you dress in short clothes people might think badly of you - how is that really beneficial? No more girls in short skirts?
Teaching kids that you can always walk away from a fight instead of punching is much more beneficial to society.
Bringing up decent people who won't encroach on another's personal safety is more important than teaching girls not to wear whatever they want, act how they want once they are not hurting anyone.
Nothing *makes* someone rape you. There are statistics. I'm not up to date with them, but I have done a lot of study in the past on rape culture, rape crisis intervention etc. and basically what I learned was.. if someone is gonna rape, they are gonna rape.
In most cases 70% and above, it's someone you know, even a family member, in your home or their home. The stranger in the bushes doesn't come out that often...

It should be about teaching our young people to be responsible and THINK before they take action.

It shows, to me anyway, how little I actually know. I thank you for your post.

Proving the point that obviously, as a society, we need a drastic shift on how rape (and consent etc) is discussed. I am sure that I am not the only person in the world to think "well, maybe they could have been a bit more careful" but obviously such trains of thought are not helpful in dealing with the problem.

Right now we seem to deal with the problem by basically reacting to whichever group is shouting the loudest. Really just appeasing them, for now, and not actually dealing with the problem in any way.

iptba

orubiru wrote: »

I don't know, maybe someone has already looked into that and has numbers, statistics etc. I just wonder if it's possible if our aversion to participating in "victim blaming" is based on a emotional response rather than a practical one.

I agree.

If one takes the reaction to a kit that detects a date rape drug:

Four students from North Carolina State University have invented a nail varnish that detects common date rape drugs by changing colour.

http://www.newsweek.com/controversy-over-nail-varnish-date-rape-drug-detector-267126

There were complaints about this:

“Whilst Undercover Color’s initiative is well meaning, on the whole,” she said, “Rape Crisis does not endorse or promote such a product or anything similar. This is for three reasons: it implies that it’s the woman’s fault and assumes responsibility on her behalf, and detracts from the real issues that arise from sexual violence.”

This seems akin to complaining about somebody who develops locks, or better locks, for property as it would blame the victim of the property crime.

Lemming

da_shivsta wrote: »

It should be about teaching our young people to be responsible and THINK before they take action.

... like trying to mitigate risk to themselves?

We should be teaching children to be considerate of others anyway. But like you have already pointed out, someone who is likely to commit rape is not going to be easily swayed by a slick poster, or Una Mulally articles, or something a teacher/parent once said long, long ago.

Frank Lee Midere

laoch na mona wrote: »

look at the socio economic background of prison populations, crime is a way for people who could not achieve the aims of society (get rich) through accepted means. If we take your point that it is about making money then you are saying capitalism is the structural cause of crime, as it is the mentality of capitalist society that makes people willing to screw people over for money.

but this is off topic if you want to discuss the sociology of crime send me a PM;)

I no more want to sociology with sociologists than I want to discuss astrology or homeopathy with astrologers and/or homeopaths.

Let me explain from why you are wrong.

Postulate: Poverty is the cause of crime.

But the mafia are rich

Postulate debunked.

ancapailldorcha

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I no more want to sociology with sociologists than I want to discuss astrology or homeopathy with astrologers and/or homeopaths.

Let me explain from why you are wrong.

Postulate: Poverty is the cause of crime.

But the mafia are rich

Postulate debunked.

How has the postulate been debunked?

Frank Lee Midere

da_shivsta wrote: »

If someone is just laying there, half asleep from drunkenness, and someone else initiates or even continues sex then they should be held responsible.

another edit, sorry, I know sometimes I'm not clear enough.
If they are both drunk, have sex and don't have a problem, then no it shouldn't be a crime. if one of them has a problem, thee we go.

The law ( or college rules) as they have been enforced go much further than your sane ideas. Guys are assumed to be at fault even when as drunk as the women, and drunkeness is not defined; the policy now demands "affirmative consent" to all acts. What that means is also not defined, but it would be a brave man on certain college campuses who bedded a slightly drunk sophomore and didn't ask for permission to change sexual position, tickle her, or any intimacy.

Not that even being so polite would necessarily stop the woman claiming lack of consent and dragging a mattress around the campus.

Frank Lee Midere

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How has the postulate been debunked?

Because the mafia are rich. Keep up.

ancapailldorcha

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Because the mafia are rich. Keep up.

The Mafia constitute an infinitesimal minority and even then only the ruling minority of the organisation will be wealthy.

iptba

People can have all the theories they like about what might stop burglaries in the future.

Until the risk disappears, I'm going to continue to lock my doors to reduce my chances of being a victim of burglary.

OldNotWIse

Potatoeman wrote: »

I was replying to your post but referring to this:

OK, I am not sure why you replied to my post to challenge what someone else said?

newport2

iptba wrote: »

People can have all the theories they like about what might stop burglaries in the future.

Until the risk disappears, I'm going to continue to lock my doors to reduce my chances of being a victim of burglary.

True, but locking the door doesn't actually have much impact on your lifestyle. Turn the key, big deal.

How about if you couldn't have a drink (or do something else you wanted to) without reducing your chances? I know I wouldn't abstain from drink permanently to reduce the chances of burglary happening and I don't feel I should have to either.

Lemming

newport2 wrote: »

True, but locking the door doesn't actually have much impact on your lifestyle. Turn the key, big deal.

How about if you couldn't have a drink (or do something else you wanted to) without reducing your chances? I know I wouldn't abstain from drink permanently to reduce the chances of burglary happening and I don't feel I should have to either.

Christ, nobody's saying "don't ever do something ever again" so that's just taking the argument to extreme to build a strawman. Use some common sense judgement first. Just because you want to do something (or "should be able to do/wear/say what you want" as is oft said) doesn't mean you always should or that it is appropriate to do so at that moment/location in time. In otherwords taking responsibility for your decisions/actions.

Why is it so difficult for people to grasp that simple, simple concept?

Seriously?

newport2 wrote: »

True, but locking the door doesn't actually have much impact on your lifestyle. Turn the key, big deal.

How about if you couldn't have a drink (or do something else you wanted to) without reducing your chances? I know I wouldn't abstain from drink permanently to reduce the chances of burglary happening and I don't feel I should have to either.

You’re not being asked to not drink, you’re being asked to be aware that by over imbibing to the point that your faculties are compromised you are placing yourself in potential risk.

Adults have to make decisions all the time where they must weigh up the risks verses the rewards for the actions they take.

For example there's an alley to my house that I use during the day, but avoid come nightfall.
I've simply decided that while I should (and probably would) be able traverse it safely it’s not worth the potential risk to me. So I take a longer route home which is less likely to place me in harm.