"Women needs to face facts about the link between rape and drinking"

darkpagandeath

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Exactly my point - it is a circular argument, because there is simply no advice you can give to a person that will prevent them from being raped by someone else who chooses to rape them.

Well it would have an effect on targets of opportunity which the advice is intended for. Not being to drunk and alone for example you could spot danger.

darkpagandeath

bubblypop wrote: »

Don't leave your handbag in the middle of the road.
Don't leave the keys of your car in the ignition with the door open.
Etc etc etc
I get what you are trying to say, but it doesn't in anyway mean that by being drunk you are bringing anything upon yourself.


If I'm hammered, sitting on the side of the road & some scrote decides to come up & kick me in the face, is that my fault because I was drunk? Because I didn't see him coming ?
Because I can't protect myself ?
I'm a victim & to be honest, more of a victim when I'm drunk because that scrote took advantage of the fact that I'm drunk to kick me in the face.

Who is saying this ?????

One eyed Jack

scream wrote: »

In so far as advising men on trying to protect themselves from rape, I'd give them the same advice as I would to a woman. I really don't see what your problem with advising people to avoid situations where they might be more vulnerable to rape is? In every day situations we're aware of our surroundings and who is around us, we're able to identify potential threats more easily and more clearly, that's not the case when we're drunk, for men or women. Telling people that they shouldn't have to protect themselves against rape is nonsense.

Nobody is suggesting that anyone shouldn't try and protect themselves from being raped, people do it every day anyway and being raped is the furthest thing from their minds. Your advice that people shouldn't get drunk just doesn't stand up to scrutiny when people are raped every day in spite of the fact that they are sober, and the vast majority of people who get drunk, aren't raped!

So when someone is raped, in spite of taking all your sensible and common sense advice, then you have to come up with another reason to explain to them why they were raped. So now your sensible, common sense advice isn't actually worth anything, other than to be utterly condescending to grown adults.

Do you advise people not to rape other people as a way to protect themselves from being raped? That's about as much as your sensible, common sense advice is worth.

blue note

Digs wrote: »

I'm a mother of girls, I'm also a woman myself, I'm not an idiot. I very much intend to raise them with awareness of dangerous situations as I was myself. I will also be raising them to learn that in absolutely no circumstances is rape ok, in no circumstance did they contribute to it. However I think the media would do better to encourage discussion on consent and not raping people rather than how women can avoid being raped.

This is the type of comment which I just think contradicts itself. What's "an awareness of dangerous situations?" I take that to mean things like getting very drunk, particularly with people you don't know very well, alone, late at night - circumstances like those. So you're saying that you'll warn your girls about the things that are being talked about on this thread, but you don't think it's appropriate that this discussion take place in media or literature or in public?

I do appreciate that there's a level of shame attached to sexual assault that isn't there with other types of crimes and we want to avoid that. But I don't think this is a responsible way to do it. And I also think vilification of those that do say this is grossly unfair. Phrases like rape apologists, victim blaming are thrown at these people who are doing nothing of the sort.

Jayop

bubblypop wrote: »

Don't leave your handbag in the middle of the road.
Don't leave the keys of your car in the ignition with the door open.
Etc etc etc
I get what you are trying to say, but it doesn't in anyway mean that by being drunk you are bringing anything upon yourself.


If I'm hammered, sitting on the side of the road & some scrote decides to come up & kick me in the face, is that my fault because I was drunk? Because I didn't see him coming ?
Because I can't protect myself ?
I'm a victim & to be honest, more of a victim when I'm drunk because that scrote took advantage of the fact that I'm drunk to kick me in the face.

I don't think you get what we are saying at all. In fact it's been explicitly said over and over by those who you are calling victim blamers that regardless of circumstance the victim is completely faultless.

Words like "bringing it upon yourself" or "she had it coming" or any of those old short skirt references are appalling and I know I agree and I don't think darkpagendeath will mind me saying that they also think they are appalling.

Victim blaming though the years has led to the stigmatisation of victims of rape and without any proof to back it up I think it's also led to more rape. It's a disgrace. However, telling someone to take reasonable precautionsdoes not mean that if they don't they should be criticised.

By reasonable precautions I mean things like, not leaving your drink unattended, tell a friend before you leave a pub with someone, have a phone on you when possible, try not to get blind drunk.Under no circumstances does any of that mean that I would feel the victim were at fault if they didn't follow those precautions. FFS I was blind drunk on Saturday myself.

One eyed Jack

Jayop wrote: »

By reasonable precautions I mean things like, not leaving your drink unattended, tell a friend before you leave a pub with someone, have a phone on you when possible, try not to get blind drunk.Under no circumstances does any of that mean that I would feel the victim were at fault if they didn't follow those precautions. FFS I was blind drunk on Saturday myself.

But most people in society are aware of taking those sorts of precautions already, and people are still raped. Saturday night I'll bet that the possibility of being raped was the furthest thing from your mind, and I'm willing to bet that as you ordered that next drink, you still weren't thinking "I'd better not, or I might be raped!". People shouldn't have to expect to be raped when they go out. Nobody should have to expect to be raped, no matter what the circumstances.

By that standard, it won't be long before women are prisoners of their own making, refusing to leave their homes, wearing clothing that covers their whole body, living lives of abstinence from alcohol and no sex until they're married off to a man that has been arranged for them by their families...

And there will still be rapists raping people.

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

I don't think you get what we are saying at all. In fact it's been explicitly said over and over by those who you are calling victim blamers that regardless of circumstance the victim is completely faultless.

Words like "bringing it upon yourself" or "she had it coming" or any of those old short skirt references are appalling and I know I agree and I don't think darkpagendeath will mind me saying that they also think they are appalling.

Victim blaming though the years has led to the stigmatisation of victims of rape and without any proof to back it up I think it's also led to more rape. It's a disgrace. However, telling someone to take reasonable precautionsdoes not mean that if they don't they should be criticised.

By reasonable precautions I mean things like, not leaving your drink unattended, tell a friend before you leave a pub with someone, have a phone on you when possible, try not to get blind drunk.Under no circumstances does any of that mean that I would feel the victim were at fault if they didn't follow those precautions. FFS I was blind drunk on Saturday myself.

Then why are people pushing the fact that women should not get hammered drunk, in order to protect themselves from rapists?

People should protect themselves from many things when drunk, such as falling, forgetting their handbags etc, things that are as a direct result of them being drunk.

Rape does not occur as a direct result of being drunk. That is what I'm trying to get across here.

So advise people not to get drunk, in order to protect themselves from doing something as a result of their drunkness.
It's not acceptable to advise someone not to get drunk in order to prevent someone else from doing something.

Do you see what I'm saying ?

Tasden

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But most people in society are aware of taking those sorts of precautions already, and people are still raped. Saturday night I'll bet that the possibility of being raped was the furthest thing from your mind, and I'm willing to bet that as you ordered that next drink, you still weren't thinking "I'd better not, or I might be raped!". People shouldn't have to expect to be raped when they go out. Nobody should have to expect to be raped, no matter what the circumstances.

By that standard, it won't be long before women are prisoners of their own making, refusing to leave their homes, wearing clothing that covers their whole body, living lives of abstinence from alcohol and no sex until they're married off to a man that has been arranged for them by their families...

And there will still be rapists raping people.

The sad thing is I don't think you're completely right in what you're saying there. I think a lot of women are always acutely aware that they could be raped. And they already take precautions as a rule in a lot of cases. When they walk home alone at night they don't wear headphones because they need to hear if anybody comes up behind them. When getting in a taxi they'll make sure there isn't one person left alone at last drop off. Plenty women hold a key when walking alone. And like you say, they may still be raped, even by someone they trusted in a safe place, where they felt no precautions were needed.

Jayop

bubblypop wrote: »

Then why are people pushing the fact that women should not get hammered drunk, in order to protect themselves from rapists?

People should protect themselves from many things when drunk, such as falling, forgetting their handbags etc, things that are as a direct result of them being drunk.

Rape does not occur as a direct result of being drunk. That is what I'm trying to get across here.

So advise people not to get drunk, in order to protect themselves from doing something as a result of their drunkness.
It's not acceptable to advise someone not to get drunk in order to prevent someone else from doing something.

Do you see what I'm saying ?

I totally do see what you're saying, I just think you're wrong in some of it. Like I said in my very first post (I think) I will give my son the same advice as I'll give my daughter about going out. The chances of someone sexually assaulting him are much less, but the chances of him being physically assaulted at some point are very high. If he's twisted drunk walking home he's at a greater risk of being assaulted than had he got a taxi or not been as drunk to begin with. That's just logical.

Of course the rape isn't as a direct result of the victim being drunk. It occurs because some scumbag decides to do something awful. However, when speaking to my kids I'll be asking them to take precautions because it could decrease their personal risk by some amount however small.

I listed 4 things, you don't say you disagreed with the rest of the advise?

1) not leaving your drink unattended,
2) tell a friend before you leave a pub with someone,
3) have a phone on you when possible,
4) try not to get blind drunk

The very same could be said about the other things. Leaving a drink unattended doesn't directly cause it to be spiked, but never leaving one will ensure that you are never spiked.

Sand

bubblypop wrote: »

Then why are people pushing the fact that women should not get hammered drunk, in order to protect themselves from rapists?

People should protect themselves from many things when drunk, such as falling, forgetting their handbags etc, things that are as a direct result of them being drunk.

Rape does not occur as a direct result of being drunk. That is what I'm trying to get across here.

So advise people not to get drunk, in order to protect themselves from doing something as a result of their drunkness.
It's not acceptable to advise someone not to get drunk in order to prevent someone else from doing something.

Do you see what I'm saying ?

Lets say you had a younger sibling (male or female) heading out for a night out. They tell you they are going out to get absolutely toxic on alcohol.

Do you say:

A) 'You full time mad bastard! Have a good night. I am sure nothing bad will happen.'

' That sounds like a bad idea. Have a drink, have some fun but come home or switch to non-alcoholic when you feel your limit approaching'

Do you see what I'm saying?

Billy86

If there is any truth in this article, I wonder will it stop making every single drink awareness ad (be it driving, pedestrians, etc) make the male out to be the one not controlling their alcohol - either too drunk to take the wheel and kill a woman, or too drunk to walk home and step out in traffic in front of a poor woman.

Yes the above comes over like an MRA rant, but it's a major gripe of mine!

Jayop

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But most people in society are aware of taking those sorts of precautions already, and people are still raped. Saturday night I'll bet that the possibility of being raped was the furthest thing from your mind, and I'm willing to bet that as you ordered that next drink, you still weren't thinking "I'd better not, or I might be raped!". People shouldn't have to expect to be raped when they go out. Nobody should have to expect to be raped, no matter what the circumstances.

By that standard, it won't be long before women are prisoners of their own making, refusing to leave their homes, wearing clothing that covers their whole body, living lives of abstinence from alcohol and no sex until they're married off to a man that has been arranged for them by their families...

And there will still be rapists raping people.

See that's all nonsense OEJ. I explicitly said reasonable precautions. No-one is saying that anyone should live as hermits.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

Lets say you had a younger sibling (male or female) heading out for a night out. They tell you they are going out to get absolutely toxic on alcohol.

Do you say:

A) 'You full time mad bastard! Have a good night. I am sure nothing bad will happen.'

' That sounds like a bad idea. Have a drink, have some fun but come home or switch to non-alcoholic when you feel your limit approaching'

Do you see what I'm saying?

Of course, I understand that. That's all advise about people & their drinking.

My problem when it comes to drunk women being raped is that people, even when they say it's not her fault, will inevitably say something along the lines that she couldn't take care of herself because she got herself drunk. Thereby automatically diminishing some of the blame from the rapist.

If I'm hammered & get kicked in the face, am I partly at fault for being so drunk ?

One eyed Jack

Jayop wrote: »

See that's all nonsense OEJ. I explicitly said reasonable precautions. No-one is saying that anyone should live as hermits.

Ok admittedly it was purposely hyperbolic, but only to demonstrate the point that what one person considers having taken reasonable precautions, sensible common sense, whatever you want to call it, someone else will have their own standards of reasonable precautions, sensible common sense and all the rest of it, and people will still get raped. So then we have to include more common sense reasonable precautions, and people are still getting raped, and so on and so on, until women are leaving the house in hazmat suits in groups, and are back indoors before sundown...

They are completely trapped, and people will still be raped, because people who commit rape and sexual assault will still exist in society, people who are listening to the same advice you're giving to people to prevent themselves from being raped, and they will always, always be one step ahead of their victims.

failinis

I always feel like its made out to be make sure you don't get raped, just make sure its the next girl/guy that was not so lucky instead of you.

You are never to blame if you get raped.

Sleepy

People are far too worried about blame. No matter what the crime, it's never the victim's fault: whether the crime be rape or being shot. The only person responsible for the criminal act is the perpetrator. No one ever blames the victim.

Unfortunately, nobody seem to be prepared to accept the consequences of their own actions either. If you drink yourself paraletic you put yourself in danger. Would you accept that you've put yourself in danger if you step into the tiger enclosure at the zoo? Of course you would. Now think about it: tiger's aren't the apex predator on this planet; humans are.

failinis

Sleepy wrote: »

No one ever blames the victim.

A lot of people, even family members, blame the victim in the case of a sexual assault. Which is why its so important to state that it is not their faults.
I know you are saying "of course its not their fault" but the blame is not helping.

Jayop

bubblypop wrote: »

Of course, I understand that. That's all advise about people & their drinking.

My problem when it comes to drunk women being raped is that people, even when they say it's not her fault, will inevitably say something along the lines that she couldn't take care of herself because she got herself drunk. Thereby automatically diminishing some of the blame from the rapist.

If I'm hammered & get kicked in the face, am I partly at fault for being so drunk ?

No and the drunk rape victim isn't to blame either.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ok admittedly it was purposely hyperbolic, but only to demonstrate the point that what one person considers having taken reasonable precautions, sensible common sense, whatever you want to call it, someone else will have their own standards of reasonable precautions, sensible common sense and all the rest of it, and people will still get raped. So then we have to include more common sense reasonable precautions, and people are still getting raped, and so on and so on, until women are leaving the house in hazmat suits in groups, and are back indoors before sundown...

They are completely trapped, and people will still be raped, because people who commit rape and sexual assault will still exist in society, people who are listening to the same advice you're giving to people to prevent themselves from being raped, and they will always, always be one step ahead of their victims.

Common sense is called common sense because it's the common view of what's regarded as being sensible. I think what's regarded as "reasonable" has actually lessened and victim blaming has lessened in recent years so I don't think it's going to go the way you're saying.

Of course it will still happen and sadly I don't think there's **** all we can do to stop a lot of it. Still no harm to look after ourselves and each other as best we can though.

Jayop

Sleepy wrote: »

People are far too worried about blame. No matter what the crime, it's never the victim's fault: whether the crime be rape or being shot. The only person responsible for the criminal act is the perpetrator. No one ever blames the victim.

Unfortunately, nobody seem to be prepared to accept the consequences of their own actions either. If you drink yourself paraletic you put yourself in danger. Would you accept that you've put yourself in danger if you step into the tiger enclosure at the zoo? Of course you would. Now think about it: tiger's aren't the apex predator on this planet; humans are.

Ah they do. Some of the victim blaming and rapist congratulating that's gone on in Ireland even recently is a national disgrace.

SVJKarate

bluewolf wrote: »

Pointing out hypocritical attitudes which a small number of people hold which are harmful to victims of rape is always worthy of time, particularly as this thread is about same and not legal defences

FYP!

markupmales

The uneducated need to face facts about the difference between correlation and causation.

One eyed Jack

Jayop wrote: »

Common sense is called common sense because it's the common view of what's regarded as being sensible. I think what's regarded as "reasonable" has actually lessened and victim blaming has lessened in recent years so I don't think it's going to go the way you're saying.

It's often been said that common sense, isn't all that common. That's the thing about advising people about what they know already - their over-riding thought is that "it will never happen to me". As for the part in bold, well, I'd like to believe that Jayop, I really, really would, but the reality doesn't bear that out when people want to have "a conversation" linking women's alcohol consumption to reasons they're increasing their risk of being raped. It's literally the epitome of - "Drink too much? You were just asking to be raped! Oh you weren't drinking at all? What were you wearing then? That must be why you were raped! We'll add that to the list of common sense advice to protect yourself next time you venture outside your door!", y'know?

Who decides for someone else what's reasonable, and what's completely unreasonable, and why is it that the vast majority of women have to dress and behave appropriately or else they are seen to be encouraging the minority of men to rape them?

That's placing completely unrealistic expectations on the vast majority of women, and it's inferring a completely unfair accusation on the vast majority of men. It's feeding into the whole idea of "rape culture", which, according to RAINN, is actually doing the opposite of what it claims to be intending to do. The reality is that it is only a minuscule amount of men in society who commit rape of a woman on a night out, and yet "common sense advice" is that the vast majority of people in society must change their behaviour and their attitudes?

When did we start punishing the majority of innocent people for the crimes of a minority?

Of course it will still happen and sadly I don't think there's **** all we can do to stop a lot of it. Still no harm to look after ourselves and each other as best we can though.

Completely agree with you, and that's the only way we as a society will reduce allowing rapists to control our lives - by each of us looking out for each other, and trusting each other, rather than festering suspicion in society of each other on the basis that a stranger is likely to want to rape us, even when all the evidence and statistics that have been gathered, suggests otherwise!!

Maireadio

Billy86 wrote: »

If there is any truth in this article, I wonder will it stop making every single drink awareness ad (be it driving, pedestrians, etc) make the male out to be the one not controlling their alcohol - either too drunk to take the wheel and kill a woman, or too drunk to walk home and step out in traffic in front of a poor woman.

Yes the above comes over like an MRA rant, but it's a major gripe of mine!

Dunno about you, but the drink awareness ads I've seen have shown both genders off their tits.

Sand

bubblypop wrote: »

My problem when it comes to drunk women being raped is that people, even when they say it's not her fault, will inevitably say something along the lines that she couldn't take care of herself because she got herself drunk. Thereby automatically diminishing some of the blame from the rapist.

No one is saying that. Saying that no one is. Is saying no that one. One that is saying no.

What people are saying is that if you drink to excess you leave yourself vulnerable. You cant drive a car. You cannot drive heavy machinery. You cannot make legal decisions. You cannot take care of yourself. People are saying do not leave yourself vulnerable. Any philosophy which discourages that is questionable. I am male, 6'4 and given that males are 80% of the victims of violent acts I can tell you I am not as bothered about being blamed for being a victim of violence as I am about minimising my chances of being a victim in the first place.

Maireadio

Sleepy wrote: »

Unfortunately, nobody seem to be prepared to accept the consequences of their own actions either. If you drink yourself paraletic you put yourself in danger.

Yep, as said, I put myself in a dangerous position before due to being paralytic. It was my right to be drunk but that wouldn't have been much good if the situation had escalated to a dangerous level as it almost did.

I hate the tetchiness over victim-blaming.

stoplooklisten

One eyed Jack wrote: »

......
Completely agree with you, and that's the only way we as a society will reduce allowing rapists to control our lives - by each of us looking out for each other, and trusting each other, rather than festering suspicion in society of each other on the basis that a stranger is likely to want to rape us, even when all the evidence and statistics that have been gathered, suggests otherwise!!

Making friends and trusting rapists will reduce them raping...

One eyed Jack

stoplooklisten wrote: »

Making friends and trusting rapists will reduce them raping...

And the bizarre interpretation of the week award goes to you for that one!

How you could possibly have determined that from what I said, is beyond me, and I truly hope it's not you will be giving "common sense, sensible advice", to anyone, on the basis of how you just interpreted my post.

RDM_83 again

Sand wrote: »

I am male, 6'4 and given that males are 80% of the victims of violent acts I can tell you I am not as bothered about being blamed for being a victim of violence as I am about minimising my chances of being a victim in the first place.

Thats the thing, people talk as if victim blaming, or more accurately noting that their behavior made them a victim only occurs for rape.
Its completely false, it happens for many crimes particularly street crime against males.
Nobody gets annoyed if people say, you shouldn't walk that part of town alone, or watch out for those guys they will use any excuse to knock the head of you. Its not saying the victim isn't a victim or perpetrators are scumbags, its recognizing we don't live in a perfect world.

Its easy to come up with some falsehood like saying "nobody can stop themselves being raped", which is true, but its only as true as "nobody can stop themselves dying in a car crash if they drive". It gets the thanks though and gives the impression that they care.
Really caring would be recognizing involves helping people reduce their risk of something terrible happening to them, male or female, rape or violent crime (and while rape is extremely serious, so is loosing a kidney to a punch or bleeding to death from a stab wound)

RDM_83 again

One eyed Jack wrote: »

even when all the evidence and statistics that have been gathered, suggests otherwise!!

This old post here is useful when people start talking on this subject

padser wrote: »

I thought this thread might do well with a nice concrete example. From another AH thread going on right now.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=91269146#post91269146

For some short context, girl went home with someone she didn't know and got raped.

The poster below then pulls out the following post (I shortened the post slightly by deleting the lines at the end)




I think it's a good example of statistics being terribly misused by someone (I think probably out of ignorance rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead although that's not always the case).

Now I've often heard the point being made that you are most likely to be raped by someone you know. I've no idea whether it's true although I'd imagine so, and for the purpose of this lets assume it is true.

The generalisation that the poster is drawing from this "statistic" is that because rapes happen more often by someone you know, the girl in this case wasn't increasing her risk factor by going home with a stranger.

This misses quite a few key points (I'm not going to list them all out, just a few of them)

1) By definition you spend most of your life with people that you know. So almost anything you care to measure will happen more likely to you by someone you know (I'm more likely to be insulted by someone I know, I'm more likely to be punched by someone I know etc etc)
2) Assuming for a minute that most rapes happen when you are along with someone, the amount of time you spend alone with people you know dwarfs the amount of time you spend alone with strangers
3) As a general rule you can't take a very general statistic and apply it to a very specific situation. For example, I might know that the chances of a person in Ireland catching an illness today might be 0.001%. However I can't then decide to sit in a room full of people that have that illness and say "my chances of of catching that disease today are 0.001%" simply because I happen to a member of the population of Ireland and that's the rate for that population.....

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thats the thing, people talk as if victim blaming, or more accurately noting that their behavior made them a victim only occurs for rape.
Its completely false, it happens for many crimes particularly street crime against males.
Nobody gets annoyed if people say, you shouldn't walk that part of town alone, or watch out for those guys they will use any excuse to knock the head of you. Its not saying the victim isn't a victim or perpetrators are scumbags, its recognizing we don't live in a perfect world.

Its easy to come up with some falsehood like saying "nobody can stop themselves being raped", which is true, but its only as true as "nobody can stop themselves dying in a car crash if they drive". It gets the thanks though and gives the impression that they care.
Really caring would be recognizing involves helping people reduce their risk of something terrible happening to them, male or female, rape or violent crime (and while rape is extremely serious, so is loosing a kidney to a punch or bleeding to death from a stab wound)

Does stating the obvious come naturally, or is it a unique skill only you possess that you think nobody else could possibly have thought of?

It's easy to come up with a falsehood that's true? How? What? Seriously? And if you think people give their opinions looking for thanks, I have to wonder do you think the same of people who disagree with them who give what they call common sense, sensible advice that all of us as adults would know anyway?

Otherwise it couldn't be called common sense, could it? How common has common sense ever prevented a person from being raped? The answer is you don't know, because you can't know. I wasn't raped today, does that mean I was applying common sense? If I do exactly the same routine tomorrow and I'm raped, then what use has your advice been?

What we're talking about in this thread is a journalist (who's only qualification is that she is a professional wind-up merchant), suggesting that women are responsible for the behaviour of someone else who chose to rape them.

What that has to do with men getting punched in the kidneys by other men, I have no idea, but I wouldn't hold those men responsible for encouraging other men to punch them in the kidneys either, because that would be utterly stupid.

Sand

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What we're talking about in this thread is a journalist (who's only qualification is that she is a professional wind-up merchant), suggesting that women are responsible for the behaviour of someone else who chose to rape them.

Given you accuse her of being a WUM, where exactly did she suggest women are responsible for the behaviour of rapists? Less spittle and foaming at the mouth, and a little more thought might make this a less divisive topic.

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This old post here is useful when people start talking on this subject


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

I agree, little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that post is full of suppositions and things taken for granted and assumptions, so I'm really not sure why you thought to include it or what point it actually makes tbh.

storker

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What we're talking about in this thread is a journalist (who's only qualification is that she is a professional wind-up merchant), suggesting that women are responsible for the behaviour of someone else who chose to rape them.

What you're talking about, maybe, but not what people who haven't missed the point are talking about.

Dyr

bubblypop wrote: »

Thereby automatically diminishing some of the blame from the rapist.

There's that completely illogical addendum you keep adding when there is no grounds for it.

bubblypop wrote: »

If I'm hammered & get kicked in the face, am I partly at fault for being so drunk ?

If you weren't sitting at the side of the road hammered drunk would you have been kicked in the face? If someone tells you that it wasn't your fault will that unbreak your jaw for you? You are responsible for you, no one else is. It is in your own self interest not to jeopardize your own safety.

There's a phrase that I don't agree with because its too glib for me but I think it has a lot of validity in forcing people to take responsibility for their own safety.

"There are no victims, only volunteers"

One eyed Jack

Sand wrote: »

Given you accuse her of being a WUM, where exactly did she suggest women are responsible for the behaviour of rapists? Less spittle and foaming at the mouth, and a little more thought might make this a less divisive topic.

To be absolutely clear, I didn't just accuse her of being a wind up merchant, I know she's a wind-up merchant, from having had the displeasure of reading her previous, ehh, musings. By linking women's consumption of alcohol to their increased risk of being raped, she is suggesting that women are responsible for the behaviour of rapists. If only women didn't drink, apparently they would reduce their chances of being raped. What does that say for the thousands of women who don't drink, yet they are still raped? Her argument is both a non-sequitur, and a correlation/causation fallacy. I suspect she knows this, but she wants "a conversation" about it. What she really wants, is attention.

I'm neither spittling nor foaming at the mouth btw, and I've had plenty of time to think about the subject, and nothing she has written will make any sense to a lot of people who still question what was it about them that made another person choose to rape them. It's not me who's being divisive at all, it's a journalist who needs to "start a conversation" who needs to be divisive, and the topic of rape is clickbait gold right now.

Sand

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be absolutely clear, I didn't just accuse her of being a wind up merchant, I know she's a wind-up merchant, from having had the displeasure of reading her previous, ehh, musings. By linking women's consumption of alcohol to their increased risk of being raped, she is suggesting that women are responsible for the behaviour of rapists. If only women didn't drink, apparently they would reduce their chances of being raped. What does that say for the thousands of women who don't drink, yet they are still raped? Her argument is both a non-sequitur, and a correlation/causation fallacy. I suspect she knows this, but she wants "a conversation" about it. What she really wants, is attention.

I'm neither spittling nor foaming at the mouth btw, and I've had plenty of time to think about the subject, and nothing she has written will make any sense to a lot of people who still question what was it about them that made another person choose to rape them. It's not me who's being divisive at all, it's a journalist who needs to "start a conversation" who needs to be divisive, and the topic of rape is clickbait gold right now.

To be absolutely clear, you're angry about something she didn't say.

One eyed Jack

Sand wrote: »

To be absolutely clear, you're angry about something she didn't say.

To be even clearer - I'm not angry at all, your characterisations just don't fit, at all. I couldn't really give a tuppeny fcuk tbh for what she has to say on the subject, because that article is simply a paranoid, fearmongering piece designed to suggest to women that if they drink too much, they're likely to be raped, and then because they drank too much, they won't remember the details of being raped, and then they won't make a very good witness in court, and it will be all their fault because they drank too much.

freshpopcorn

i do think both men and women can drink to much on a night out and put themselves in a dangerous position later on in the night. From being attacked, to being mugged, getting arrested and people taking there own lives. Of course these situations rarely happen to most of us. The only thing I do think is people should look out for one another and if they see somebody might be a bit vunrable they should try and make sure there friend get home safely or at least get them a taxi!

AbusesToilets

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be even clearer - I'm not angry at all, your characterisations just don't fit, at all. I couldn't really give a tuppeny fcuk tbh for what she has to say on the subject, because that article is simply a paranoid, fearmongering piece designed to suggest to women that if they drink too much, they're likely to be raped, and then because they drank too much, they won't remember the details of being raped, and then they won't make a very good witness in court, and it will be all their fault because they drank too much.

Or perhaps it's an article saying that women should be careful about putting themselves in vulnerable positions. What an outlandish suggestion.

SeantheMan

Digs wrote: »

Even a whiff of suggesting women are responsible due to drink is sending a message that rape is justifiable. It's not, ever.

How about less victim blaming and more just don't rape someone??? Novel idea I know.

She's an awful twit imo.

What ? It doesn't give a message that it's justifiable at all.

Women’s drinking and the role it plays in putting them at risk of rape.

Alcohol is a factor in eight out of every 10 rapes and sexual assaults in Ireland. As part of the battle, we need to arm women — the most at-risk category — with the facts. If they drink alcohol to the point of oblivion they are putting themselves at risk of an attack — and it makes getting justice afterwards even more difficult.

She's saying the more you drink the more at risk you are of it occuring ,which is true.
Not that she condones it or that it's justifiable.
Can you please quote and explain how you came to that conclusion ?

stefanovich

Lollipop95 wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/niamh-horan-women-need-to-face-facts-about-the-link-between-rape-and-drinking-34794279.html

What do people make of this? Having read the article in full, I actually agree with SOME of the points she makes but I find the RSA comparison absurd. Car accidents ARE accidents, rape is anything BUT. I'm also quite disappointed that Niamh didn't focus on more of the onus being on the man not to rape. But it seems like she's trying to get across in the article that that side has already been discussed and she wants to open up another part of the debate

Perfectly reasonable article and I would argue common sense. Seems, based on the outrage, that a lot of people lack common sense. Getting obliterated drunk puts you at risk of lots of things, including rape. Doesn't mean the rapist is not at fault, just means you need to face up to the fact that the world is not a perfect place and you need to be smart.

Story Bud? wrote: »

Ireland's answer to Katie Hopkins.

She's an attention starved excuse for a "journalist".

Best off ignored. As is almost everything printed in that paper.

Why? What's so offensive about what she said?

Digs wrote: »

Even a whiff of suggesting women are responsible due to drink is sending a message that rape is justifiable. It's not, ever.

How about less victim blaming and more just don't rape someone??? Novel idea I know.

She's an awful twit imo.

How in any way is she suggesting it is justifiable? Seems being a realistic and sensible is a negative things these days.

One eyed Jack

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Or perhaps it's an article saying that women should be careful about putting themselves in vulnerable positions. What an outlandish suggestion.

Teblon wrote: »

In all aspects of life there are actions you can take or not take that reduce unneccessary risk.

Every adult actually knows this already. Niamh Horan, nor you, aren't telling anyone anything they don't know already.

tritium

There's a few different points here. Firstly, and I realise it's difficult given how the defence has in the past been allowed to question victims, we need to separate good precautions from responsibilityfor the act.

Maybe we need to frame it differently- "avoid getting too drunk boys and girls, bad things happen and you need to be alert.: Assault, rape, robbery, you're more vulnerable when you can't think clearly"

Secondly, as others have noted, we do currently tend to sermonise when something bad happens while someone is drunk. I've had friends pretty badly hurt in assaults in nights out that were completely out if their control but, especially in court, the level of drinking is always referenced

Thirdly, we need to have a more mature discussion around consent, especially where alcohol is involved. This needs to be led by legal and medical professionals not the groups currently pushing it. In particular we need to look at the tendency every weekend in Ireland for two parties to get blinded drunk and go and have sex. What does this mean for both parties consent?

Jack Killian

tritium wrote: »

There's a few different points here. Firstly, and I realise it's difficult given how the defence has in the past been allowed to question victims, we need to separate good precautions from responsibilityfor the act.

Maybe we need to frame it differently- "avoid getting too drunk boys and girls, bad things happen and you need to be alert.: Assault, rape, robbery, you're more vulnerable when you can't think clearly"

Secondly, as others have noted, we do currently tend to sermonise when something bad happens while someone is drunk. I've had friends pretty badly hurt in assaults in nights out that were completely out if their control but, especially in court, the level of drinking is always referenced

Thirdly, we need to have a more mature discussion around consent, especially where alcohol is involved. This needs to be led by legal and medical professionals not the groups currently pushing it. In particular we need to look at the tendency every weekend in Ireland for two parties to get blinded drunk and go and have sex. What does this mean for both parties consent?

This.

For some reason the only opportunity to advise/lecture someone about not drinking is WHEN something bad happens.

I'm all for having two or three every second weekend or so, or the odd one at home during the week, but the culture of getting wasted to the point of puking and barely being able to walk is astonishing.

And rape or no rape there is no way I'd leave myself in a position of being unable to walk in a city centre. And I'm male!

Yes the attacker is responsible, but people need to cop themselves on. I know people aged 30 with the livers of 90 year olds from the 70s or 80s.

If writing about rape is what gets it through their thick skulls then it's needs must; misguided, but worth a try.

VinLieger

Shes definitely right about generation snowflake, its becoming all to common in the states where college professors are having internal reviews brought about of their courses cus students complain about the content of the course. In most cases the problems the students have is the course is simply challenging their view of the world and how they think but they arent able to cope with that and instead of trying to learn are instead trying to censor those who have differing opinions than them.

One eyed Jack

SeantheMan wrote: »

She's saying the more you drink the more at risk you are of it occuring ,which is true.

How is it true though? It's a correlation after the fact, where in a very specific set of circumstances a woman was raped, and the only thing we know for a fact that increased her risk of being raped, is that someone wanted to rape her. There is no link whatsoever other than the suggestion that the woman had drank too much as the reason for her being raped. That is literally leading the reader to her conclusion, which is that women are raped because they drank too much. It's very convenient for her that she uses phrases like "the point of oblivion", and nobody knowing where that is exactly, and is there a point just before the point of oblivion where a woman isn't putting herself at risk of being raped, or is it that once she has a drink at all, she's increasing her risk of being raped?

I'm no "Generation Snowflake" as she likes to call it in the article, I'm just tired of journalists churning out this shìte as if it has any legitimacy whatsoever, and anyone who disagrees with them is spittling and divisive and "trying to shut down the conversation"? Nope, I'm just disagreeing with her assertions, because it's fuelling the idea that women are responsible for someone else's behaviour. That's not telling women to take personal responsibility for their own behaviour, it's making them responsible for someone else's behaviour!

Having a conversation about people's drinking habits - good idea.

Having a conversation about women being responsible for being raped because they drank too much - bad idea.

(or at least it's a good idea if you're a clickbait journalist)

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

This.

For some reason the only opportunity to advise/lecture someone about not drinking is WHEN something bad happens.

I'm all for having two or three every second weekend or so, or the odd one at home during the week, but the culture of getting wasted to the point of puking and barely being able to walk is astonishing.

And rape or no rape there is no way I'd leave myself in a position of being unable to walk in a city centre. And I'm male!

Yes the attacker is responsible, but people need to cop themselves on. I know people aged 30 with the livers of 90 year olds from the 70s or 80s.

If writing about rape is what gets it through their thick skulls then it's needs must; misguided, but worth a try.

I was agreeing with you right up until the end there. Trying to use rape to make a point about drinking is misguided. There was never any need to link excessive drinking to rape at all. The conversation Niamh Horan wants, is one that starts when people are children, not when they're grown adults, because by then it's far too late to be having that conversation.

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was agreeing with you right up until the end there. Trying to use rape to make a point about drinking is misguided. There was never any need to link excessive drinking to rape at all. The conversation Niamh Horan wants, is one that starts when people are children, not when they're grown adults, because by then it's far too late to be having that conversation.

Fair point, and that would be my preference too.

But the attempted shock factor is better than doing SFA; the current generation of alcoholics are no longer children to have that discussion with.

AudreyHepburn

This reminds of an article I posted about here where an English judge made the point that getting legless on nights greatly decreases the number of successful rape convictions, because how can a jury reasonably convict some-one if the victim can't remember what happened.

The judge too was vilified because people refused point blank to think logically about what she was saying, just like they are doing now.

Of course we should all be able to go out and get drunk without the fear of being raped but the reality is there are predatory individuals out there who look for easy targets and I see nothing wrong with warning women, and men for that matter, against making themselves vulnerable.

Getting blind drunk isn't a good idea any way and again what's wrong with reminding people of that.

It's not victim blaming, it's common sense.

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

Fair point, and that would be my preference too.

But the attempted shock factor is better than doing SFA; the current generation of alcoholics are no longer children to have that discussion with.

Then tackle the problem of people's excessive drinking habits without the scaremongering, because scaremongering doesn't work with adults. Hell it doesn't even work with children once they become teenagers and want to experiment for themselves. By the time they get to be adults, if nothing adverse has happened to them, the idea is ingrained in them that bad things happen to other people.