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

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Anyone who gets that paralyticly pissed is arguably not an adult.

But you're right. What we do need to do is start saying to people "you're a moron" it if you can't walk home.

Maybe even cells to keep them in overnight and for the third strike of polluting our sidewalks with puke and piss and impacting on decent folks' nights out, a free taxi service emblazoned with "bringing an idiot home" complete with flashing lights and Tellytubby music blaring.

Conall Cernach

Conall Cernach wrote: »

If you left the keys in your car and it was subsequently stolen I think the Guards would at least raise an eyebrow when you told them.

Your insurance will almost definitely refuse to pay out if they find out you left the keys in the car. In other words they apportion a considerable amount of the blame on the person who has had the car stolen from them......

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

Anyone who gets that paralyticly pissed is arguably not an adult.

But you're right. What we do need to do is start saying to people "you're a moron" it if you can't walk home.

Maybe even cells to keep them in overnight and for the third strike of polluting our sidewalks with puke and piss and impacting on decent folks' nights out, a free taxi service emblazoned with "bringing an idiot home" complete with flashing lights and Tellytubby music blaring.

Now you're talking!! :pac:


Although now I think of it, you're still going to have idiots who are proud of the fact that they got a ride home in a Tellytubby themed paddywagon after yet another "mad night out on the lash"...

razorblunt

I stopped reading at "Niamh Horan".
She craves attention, I can imagine her sitting at her desk watching the hit count on the article rise and rise.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

OK. Let us take the currently in the news Stanford sexual assault case in the US of A. Guy out of his head on drink, takes woman wasted on drink to the point of incoherence outside from a party and sexually assaults/rapes her when she passes out beside a dumpster. The lax sentence for the crime is another day's work, but simple question; remove alcohol from that scenario, how would her risks of sexual assault change? Would she have gone outside with him in the first place? Would she have lost all memory of the attack? Would he have seen her as more or less vulnerable? Hell, would he have been more or less of a rapey creep minus "dutch courage"? Anyone that answers "drink made no difference" is being either wilfully blind or dishonest.

Yes she is the victim of an assault on her person. Yes he is the perpetrator of that assault on her person. There is no mistake there. However to suggest there is no link between alcohol and the increased risk of rape or assault of any kind is beyond idiotic. It is not "correlation after the fact".

Nope, I'm just disagreeing with her assertions, because it's fuelling the idea that women are responsible for someone else's behaviour.

Actually, when it comes to drink sex and consent that's the message put out to men. The usual takeaway is women have little or no agency, need constant protection and it's always men's fault.

sunshine and showers

Why is it that alcohol is used as a blame factor for the victim of rape ("she was so drunk she were probably asking for it!") and a mitigating factor for the rapist ("he was hammered! he can't have known what he was doing")?

blue note

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Why is it that alcohol is used as a blame factor for the victim of rape ("she was so drunk she were probably asking for it!") and a mitigating factor for the rapist ("he was hammered! he can't have known what he was doing")?

The thread is nearly 20 pages long and I don't think I've read any post that says or suggests either of those things. You can quote one back if you can find one.

Dyr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

d 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...

Let me give you some advice, when you're reduced to making thin edge of the wedge arguments its time to admit you may not actually have a point

Crime has been around as long as humans and two millienia on we aren't all living in panic rooms.

One eyed Jack

Wibbs wrote: »

OK. Let us take the currently in the news Stanford sexual assault case in the US of A. Guy out of his head on drink, takes woman wasted on drink to the point of incoherence outside from a party and sexually assaults/rapes her when she passes out beside a dumpster. The lax sentence for the crime is another day's work, but simple question; remove alcohol from that scenario, how would her risks of sexual assault change? Would she have gone outside with him in the first place? Would she have lost all memory of the attack? Would he have seen her as more or less vulnerable? Hell, would he have been more or less of a rapey creep minus "dutch courage"? Anyone that answers "drink made no difference" is being either wilfully blind or dishonest.

But you can't just remove drink from the equation of an instance that has already happened? How is that not correlation after the fact? If drink is removed and it still happened, what else should we remove? I'm not saying drink made no difference, I can't, because all I would be doing is rationalising a scenario after it has already taken place. I'm not being wilfully blind about it either, my hindsight is fantastic! But, what I am saying, is that the victim in that case could not have had the foresight to see that she would be sexually assaulted later on that night. I have to use the term "sexual assault" and not rape, because he was found guilty of sexual assault, not rape, a fact that also seems to have gone over Niamh Horan's head. She needs to use the term "rape" though, so she can use the Stanford case in her conversation.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes she is the victim of an assault on her person. Yes he is the perpetrator of that assault on her person. There is no mistake there. However to suggest there is no link between alcohol and the increased risk of rape or assault of any kind is beyond idiotic. It is not "correlation after the fact".

It is correlation after the fact though because it doesn't explain the vast majority of people who drink to excess every weekend and they are never raped. It's one thing to claim there is a link, and we could do the same with women wearing barely there dresses and bambi heels, and we whittle down an extensive list that we have put together based on all the circumstances we know of in cases of rape, and we would still never be able to predict with any degree of accuracy who is and isn't more likely to be raped. You could literally draw up an extensive list of everything you can think of, get it out to every woman in the country, and hell even every girl in primary and secondary school too, and you're still not factoring in the one single cause of rape, the 100% guaranteed factor in all cases of rape, and why women are raped - because someone chooses to rape them.

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually, when it comes to drink sex and consent that's the message put out to men. The usual takeaway is women have little or no agency, need constant protection and it's always men's fault.

By whom though Wibbs? Another journalist on a wind-up mission to hold all men responsible for women being raped simply by virtue of the fact that they are men -

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-o39neill-20-minutes-is-an-awfully-long-time-when-youre-the-one-being-raped-404258.html

You wouldn't expect anyone to take that crap seriously either, and neither would I. Thankfully, anyone I know at least, doesn't take either journalist seriously.

One eyed Jack

Bambi wrote: »

Let me give you some advice, when you're reduced to making thin edge of the wedge arguments its time to admit you may not actually have a point

Crime has been around as long as humans and two millienia on we aren't all living in panic rooms.

But the "excessive alcohol intake increases your risk of being raped" is the original thin end of the wedge argument, and I was demonstrating that if we start going down that road, the logical conclusion is that we will end up no different to a State in the Middle East. And women will still be raped. Rape has been around since humans existed, and in spite of all our best efforts to eliminate rape from society, it still happens, in every society! We used to be able to use the excuse of "drink culture", now some wingnuts are pushing "rape culture", and we're falling back to arguing against "rape culture" by blaming "drink culture"? There is no one single solution that would prevent a person from being raped, but there is a single cause - someone chose to rape them.

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now you're talking!! :pac:


Although now I think of it, you're still going to have idiots who are proud of the fact that they got a ride home in a Tellytubby themed paddywagon after yet another "mad night out on the lash"...

Probably. But not too many if they were hit with the shopkeeper's bill for cleaning up the puke along with wages for lost time and lost custom due to the stink.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But you can't just remove drink from the equation of an instance that has already happened? How is that not correlation after the fact? If drink is removed and it still happened, what else should we remove? I'm not saying drink made no difference, I can't, because all I would be doing is rationalising a scenario after it has already taken place. I'm not being wilfully blind about it either

I would suggest you are. You've tied yourself to this string of thought and by god you're hanging on for dear life.

It is correlation after the fact though because it doesn't explain the vast majority of people who drink to excess every weekend and they are never raped.

I don't think correlation after the fact means what you think it means. The vast majority of people who drink to excess every weekend never get assaulted, fall over, or end up in A&E either. However ask anyone who works in such places what are the common factors involved and drink and drugs are right up there top of the list. Hell look at all the panic around drink spiking with "rape drugs". When the Irish stats and hospital reports were examined not a single case of a "rape drug" was detected in the last decade. Not one. Well, yeah, there was one; plain old alcohol.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But the "excessive alcohol intake increases your risk of being raped" is the original thin end of the wedge argument, and I was demonstrating that if we start going down that road, the logical conclusion is that we will end up no different to a State in the Middle East.

Only if one is in possession of an incredibly linear and simplistic black and white mindset.

armaghlad

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm nearly 20 years in a job dealing with victims of crimes.
I have seen and stamped many insurance forms & spoke with many insurance companies.
Trust me, if your in your house & some fecker steals from you, your insurance will pay out.
And if they chance their arm not to, argue because you will win.

Off topic tho, we will leave this here!

Maybe things are different in the north but relatIves of mine had their Toyota Rav4 stolen in a creeper burglary and insurance didn't pay out because entry was gained via an unlocked door.

blue note

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is no one single solution that would prevent a person from being raped, but there is a single cause - someone chose to rape them.

There are many things we can do to prevent many people from being raped. The rapists could just choose not to rape, but even though it is entirely their fault, I wouldn't rely solely on that. But there are other things we can do ;

Make the streets safer with increased lighting, police presence, cctv.
Work on how to get more convictions
Increase the sentences
Tackling issues of privilege is part of it

There are lots of things we can do but what we can't do for some reason is talk about how to stay safe. None of these solutions are going to work 100%. Because of that we need to use them all. Except for staying safe.

Now again, I will say that's there's stigma attached to sexual crimes and talk of staying safe is a problem for this. But surly we could talk about it like adults and understand that there's a gulf between advising people to mind themselves and it's their fault they were raped.

meeeeh

This is very good opinion piece on the subject.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/kathy-sheridan-drinking-is-never-an-excuse-for-rape-1.2684664

There is a massive need for conversation about attitudes to drinking but you don't hear every time someone gets smashed in the face with a pint glass or similar that they should be much more able to avoid attack if they weren't drinking. It's one thing pointing out that excessive drinking puts you in a lot more danger to be a victim or a perpetrator of something and another thing saying what did the victim expect, they were drunk as monkey...

Jayop

No harm Jack but I have to agree with Wibbs. It looks now like you posted an angle of discussion and despite multiple people using basic logic to show you are wrong you're sticking to it to save face.

Jack Killian

Jayop wrote: »

No harm Jack but I have to agree with Wibbs. It looks now like you posted an angle of discussion and despite multiple people using basic logic to show you are wrong you're sticking to it to save face.

I'm guessing the other Jack - clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Jayop

Yeah the other one.

meeeeh

armaghlad wrote: »

Maybe things are different in the north but relatIves of mine had their Toyota Rav4 stolen in a creeper burglary and insurance didn't pay out because entry was gained via an unlocked door.

But was it any less of a crime? We're the gang any less guilty?

Jayop

meeeeh wrote: »

This is very good opinion piece on the subject.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/kathy-sheridan-drinking-is-never-an-excuse-for-rape-1.2684664

There is a massive need for conversation about attitudes to drinking but you don't hear every time someone gets smashed in the face with a pint glass or similar that they should be much more able to avoid attack if they weren't drinking. It's one thing pointing out that excessive drinking puts you in a lot more danger to be a victim or a perpetrator of something and another thing saying what did the victim expect, they were drunk as monkey...

You don't hear it every time someone is smashed in the face because you don't known if they were drunk or not. I know for a fact that every time someone I know got assaulted on the way home whilst drunk, their drinking was always regarded as a factor in the discussion and it was never used to blame them.

Jayop

meeeeh wrote: »

But was it any less of a crime? We're the gang any less guilty?

Ah ffs it's become tiresome having to repeat against and again and again that I no one in the thread assigned any less than full blame on the person perpetrating the crime.

GT_TDI_150

If a woman out cycling hits a pothole, crashes and passes out and were to get raped .... are we saying she shouldnt have been riding a bike?

As a side thought ...... someone should invent a concent app....both parties signed in...all good.
One part hasnt ... no consent was given. And before you say cant expect fellas to go sign in to an app before having sex....consider the consequences when they havent. It would take a few cases where someone can point to the app and say i never gave concent for poeple to cop on and start using some thing like it.

Im off to the patent office

conorhal

meeeeh wrote: »

This is very good opinion piece on the subject.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/kathy-sheridan-drinking-is-never-an-excuse-for-rape-1.2684664

There is a massive need for conversation about attitudes to drinking but you don't hear every time someone gets smashed in the face with a pint glass or similar that they should be much more able to avoid attack if they weren't drinking. It's one thing pointing out that excessive drinking puts you in a lot more danger to be a victim or a perpetrator of something and another thing saying what did the victim expect, they were drunk as monkey...

Which literally nobody has said.

Maguined

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

If a woman out cycling hits a pothole, crashes and passes out and were to get raped .... are we saying she shouldnt have been riding a bike?

As a side thought ...... someone should invent a concent app....both parties signed in...all good.
One part hasnt ... no consent was given. And before you say cant expect fellas to go sign in to an app before having sex....consider the consequences when they havent. It would take a few cases where someone can point to the app and say i never gave concent for poeple to cop on and start using some thing like it.

Im off to the patent office

There already is just such an app but it is entirely pointless as how do you know someone was sober enough when using the app to consent?

meeeeh

Jayop wrote: »

You don't hear it every time someone is smashed in the face because you don't known if they were drunk or not. I know for a fact that every time someone I know got assaulted on the way home whilst drunk, their drinking was always regarded as a factor in the discussion and it was never used to blame them.

Ok, so quote me a similar article as the one in op, when this is pointed out for someone being assaulted and beaten when going home or similar? If it is so common it shouldn't be that hard.

I'm caught between two stools on this one.

On one hand, it's perfectly reasonable to be aware that if you lock your car, make sure your hall door is bolted, turn off the iron, and not be so incapacitated that you're not completely aware of what's happening to you, are all actions that enhance your general safety. That's all common sense.

On the other, if someone does happen to get drunk and is mugged, stabbed, raped or otherwise violated, I would hate to hear the conversation turn into "Everyone knows its dangerous to be paralytic, why did they put themselves in that postion" or worse, "what do you expect to happen if you let your guard down like that". I don't think victims of crimes like that should ever feel they're guilty of contributory negligence by trusting someone in the wrong scenario, or having their judgement impaired by drink, or being passed out, or just having the kind of common sense failure we all have from time to time.

So one course of action is reasonable, but it puts an unreasonable expectation on the woman - or man - to avoid being raped, or the conversation will turn to what THEY did wrong. And avoiding being raped really means the rapist will look for someone else.

SarahMollie

Niamh Horan is a glorified troll and the Indo is a rag.

Anyone remember her from this career highpoint? http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/niamh-horan-on-women-in-rugby-i-never-play-a-game-without-my-tan-30495836.html

Jayop

meeeeh wrote: »

Ok, so quote me a similar article as the one in op, when this is pointed out for someone being assaulted and beaten when going home or similar? If it is so common it shouldn't be that hard.

I didn't mention articles. I'm talking about personal experience.

OldGoat

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

If a woman out cycling hits a pothole, crashes and passes out and were to get raped .... are we saying she shouldnt have been riding a bike?

No. Whats being said is that if a sober woman and a drunk woman each get on bicycle then the sober woman is less likely to hit the pothole due to being more in control.

meeeeh

Jayop wrote: »

I didn't mention articles. I'm talking about personal experience.

Or otherwise it is completely outside public discourse while women get constantly told how they shouldn't drink so bad things won't happen to them in media and online.

Let's face it we all know getting drunk puts you into a whole pile of danger but only some of us are constantly bombarded with how really we should be more careful. Why wouldn't you tell men they shouldn't drink because they might rape otherwise? It would cause a war about how all men are vilified and so on...

Edit: just to add, I don't believe that there's rape culture, in fact I hate the therm. Neither I believe all men are potential rapist and similar nonsense. But every victim of a crime will wonder why they didn't lock the door, why they drank, why they went into that street. But they would take all the precautions they would be just replaced by another victim who didn't. Isn't then better to focus debate how to stop crime instead of how to avoid it? Compare rape debate which places responsibility on victims to avoid rape to the one of rural crime where the debate is how to prevent it.

meeeeh

OldGoat wrote: »

No. Whats being said is that if a sober woman and a drunk woman each get on bicycle then the sober woman is less likely to hit the pothole due to being more in control.

Actually a drunk woman is very much breaking the law..

OldGoat

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually a drunk woman is very much breaking the law..

Not really the salient point though. Someone drunk is in less control than someone sober. In ANY* situation having less control is the poorer option. It's just a piece of advice, take it or leave it.

*Fetishists aside.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

Of course its true that people's behaviour can increase the risk of bad things happening to them. Be it drinking, drug taking, walking alone at night, walking down dark lanes, walking in known bad areas etc etc. its head in the sand stuff saying risk isn't increased.

If people used "a correlation after the fact" as a reason to dismiss something we would basically be binning all stats gained after events happen.

Someone staggers in front of a car and gets knocked down - "sure it might have happened anyway you can't blame the drink".

Someone has a heart attack after taking drugs - "sure they might have had it anyway you can't say the drugs caused it".

Someone walks into a known bad area and is attacked - "sure they could have been attacked in the taxi they didn't get".

It in no way takes away from the severity of the crime nor does it place any blame for the actual crime on the victim to say that you increase your risk of things happening to you by behaving in certain ways.

sunshine and showers

blue note wrote: »

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Why is it that alcohol is used as a blame factor for the victim of rape ("she was so drunk she were probably asking for it!") and a mitigating factor for the rapist ("he was hammered! he can't have known what he was doing")?

The thread is nearly 20 pages long and I don't think I've read any post that says or suggests either of those things. You can quote one back if you can find one.

It's a general point about how rape cases are discussed and examined. It's the entire basis of the Stanford rape case.

Just because you haven't seen it expressed in this exact thread doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a way of thinking.

OldGoat

OldGoat wrote: »

No. Whats being said is that if a sober woman and a drunk woman each get on bicycle then the sober woman is less likely to hit the pothole due to being more in control.

Hitting a pothole of course due to each woman's own actions.
None of which have anything to do with someone else's actions.

The analogy doesn't work.
Unless a random man tries to push them off their bikes & you contend that if the drunk woman falls, then it's her fault for being drunk.

Ignoring of course, that it's an offence to be drunk in charge of a pedal cycle!

freddiek

like some people, I never took Horan seriously as a journalist. She tended to specialize in fluff pieces for the Sindo.

however this is on balance a very good article.

The Brock Turner case rightly appalled many.

I'm sure the victims in the vast majority of female rapes are not "out of it" and are capable of resisting, but in a male on female situation with no-one to help them they won't be able to fight off an attacker.

However there will be plenty of cases - just like Turner - where the attacker only takes the chance because the victim is extremely drunk or comatose.

Therefore, there are plenty of rapes that happen just because the victim is extremely drunk or comatose.

Her message to be safe is therefore well-intentioned and accurate.

I myself ended up in hospital some years ago after an accident that would not have occurred had I not been over indulging in alcohol.

Dyr

bubblypop wrote: »

Ignoring of course, that it's an offence to be drunk in charge of a pedal cycle!

Also ignoring the fact that its an offense to be a danger to yourself or others in public through drunkenness


But that's none of my business

suicide_circus

Luckily, outside the shrill hyper sensitive environs of social media, people can give and take simple common sense advice in the spirit it was given without resorting to moronic offense-seeking.

mariaalice

This is probably a bit of idiosyncratic view and it is more about safety in general.

Why does someone who grew up somewhere a bit dogey end up street smart?.

There is a false sense so security in how safe our environment had become when alcohol is not a factor.

Children are very protected by parents, schools have all sorts of policies about behaviour, work has HR to police behaviour. All this can lead to anyone with less that savoy attitudes, thought, desires or motivations to police themselves very carefully when they are sober but one once alcohol is involved it is different because alcohol loosens inhibitions.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

I don't think victims of crimes like that should ever feel they're guilty of contributory negligence by trusting someone in the wrong scenario, or having their judgement impaired by drink.

What about a situation where both parties are drunk?

Sorry in advance for being graphic, but for clarity, it's necessary to cite specific circumstances.

A woman knowingly gets very intoxicated on a first date, her judgment is seriously impaired; she is too drunk to consent, but performs oral sex on a man. There is no suggestion of violence. Upon police questioning, the act is freely admitted by the man, and therefore we have a prima facie sexual assault.

You might say, the man should have known she was too drunk to consent. Fair enough.

But suppose the man was equally drunk, or more drunk. He has no defence in law.

So citing intoxication is available to one person in resolving the dispute, but not to the other, despite the fact that both freely chose to become intoxicated.

So one course of action is reasonable, but it puts an unreasonable expectation on the woman - or man - to avoid being raped, or the conversation will turn to what THEY did wrong.

But that is not what the law says.

I am sympathetic to anybody who is the victim of sexual violence, but I don't understand why there is such a widespread presumption that it is women who are victims of unreasonable expectation.

Certainly, there are plenty of idiots on the internet who have serious issues with women in general. But those people don't administer justice. I'd be more worried about the possible unfairness that is actually embedded in our legal system.

blue note

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What about a situation where both parties are drunk?

Sorry in advance for being graphic, but for clarity, it's necessary to cite specific circumstances.

A woman knowingly gets very intoxicated on a first date, her judgment is seriously impaired; she is too drunk to consent, but performs oral sex on a man. There is no suggestion of violence. Upon police questioning, the act is freely admitted by the man, and therefore we have a prima facie sexual assault.

You might say, the man should have known she was too drunk to consent. Fair enough.

But suppose the man was equally drunk, or more drunk. He has no defence in law.

So citing intoxication is available to one person in resolving the dispute, but not to the other, despite the fact that both freely chose to become intoxicated.

But that is not what the law says.

I am sympathetic to anybody who is the victim of sexual violence, but I don't understand why there is such a widespread presumption that it is women who are victims of unreasonable expectation.

Certainly, there are plenty of idiots on the internet who have serious issues with women in general. But those people don't administer justice. I'd be more worried about the possible unfairness that is actually embedded in our legal system.

That's not what the thread is about. This is about whether or not it's okay to give women advice on ways to lessen their chance of being a victim. There have been lots of threads on consent, this isn't one.

blue note

blue note wrote: »

That's not what the thread is about. This is about whether or not it's okay to give women advice on ways to lessen their chance of being a victim. There have been lots of threads on consent, this isn't one.

Perhaps your first concern should be that your mod stripes have disappeared.

I responded to a specific point. I don't believe you get to decide whether either of those points are relevant.

SVJKarate

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

No, there's no connection between the alcohol content in the woman's blood and the behaviour of the rapist being implied by anyone here, . . . .except perhaps yourself?

What the journalist is saying is that being drunk leaves a woman (or man) more vulnerable to being assaulted or raped. That is simply undeniable. It does not transfer blame for the rapist's action to anyone else other than the rapist. Being drunk decreases powers of observation, decreases ability to flee, and decreases ability to make decisions quickly. Do you disagree??

While we're on the subject, there are other things that leave a person more vulnerable to attack: being intellectually impaired (being unable to judge the intent of someone), being physically slow (unable to flee), being very young (that's why children are considered vulnerable), being under the influence of the abuser (so, for example college students can be especially vulnerable to the inappropriate advances of a lecturer or coach), being visibly different in appearance (physical deformity, skin colour, height issues etc. etc.which could draw ridicule from an abuser) but while we all know this is true it in no way suggests that such people are to blame in any way for the acts of an aggressor / abuser.

So why is it considered taboo to point out the vulnerability of being drunk in any situation?

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

SVJKarate

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know you're being ironic, but I feel obliged to point out that it's perfectly possible for a person to enjoy a drink or two without becoming drunk.

Man or Woman.

Nobody here (well ok, I've not read the entire thread) is attempting to be a killjoy.

Or maybe when you describe yourself as being a member of "us silly women" you're admitting yourself to be a member of that tiny minority among the female population who really cannot apply reason?

One eyed Jack

SVJKarate wrote: »

No, there's no connection between the alcohol content in the woman's blood and the behaviour of the rapist being implied by anyone here, . . . .except perhaps yourself?

What the journalist is saying is that being drunk leaves a woman (or man) more vulnerable to being assaulted or raped. That is simply undeniable. It does not transfer blame for the rapist's action to anyone else other than the rapist. Being drunk decreases powers of observation, decreases ability to flee, and decreases ability to make decisions quickly. Do you disagree??

While we're on the subject, there are other things that leave a person more vulnerable to attack: being intellectually impaired (being unable to judge the intent of someone), being physically slow (unable to flee), being very young (that's why children are considered vulnerable), being under the influence of the abuser (so, for example college students can be especially vulnerable to the inappropriate advances of a lecturer or coach), being visibly different in appearance (physical deformity, skin colour, height issues etc. etc.which could draw ridicule from an abuser) but while we all know this is true it in no way suggests that such people are to blame in any way for the acts of an aggressor / abuser.

So why is it considered taboo to point out the vulnerability of being drunk in any situation?

The above is all very true, alcohol consumption, drug ingestion, etc, an infinite list of things really, can lower people's inhibitions and impair their judgement, increasing exponentially their risk of being vulnerable. The problem for me is that while many things can increase a persons risk of being vulnerable, there's a missing link between a person who is vulnerable, and that person being raped. The missing link is the person who rapes them.

Everyone in society instinctively protects themselves, and they take what they rationalise for themselves are reasonable steps to protect themselves, one example is staying with their group of friends, and each of them looking out for each other, share a taxi home, if they meet a guy in the club, let their mates know where they're going, etc, there's an endless list. It's very easy for anyone to point out after the fact, all the reasons why a person was raped, and the number of ways they left themselves vulnerable. But what use is that after the fact?

What are one person's reasonable expectations with regard to their personal responsibility, are someone else's unreasonable expectations when they want to go out and let their hair down. I'm not suggesting anyone shouldn't tell anyone that if they get drunk, they're increasing their risk of being raped. I'm just not sure how many people are going to pay attention to that message. They haven't in the past, and they're not about to now. So my thinking behind the whole idea is this:

The whole holding women responsible for getting drunk, is some people's answer to people who would hold would hold men responsible for rape. Meanwhile, most people in society will carry on about their lives with the thoughts of raping someone, or being raped, not even entering their heads. That's really as it should be IMO. There are ways to address the issue of rape prevention, but both groups holding each other responsible isn't actually doing anyone in society any favours IMO, nor is anyone telling anyone anything they aren't aware of already.

The Rape of Lucretia

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True. But no one is suggesting they shouldnt do either. But can nevertheless recognise that both increase the risk. Its a question of managing that risk sensibly.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

SVJKarate

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So my thinking behind the whole idea is this:

The whole holding women responsible for getting drunk, is some people's answer to people who would hold would hold men responsible for rape.

Did you read that sentence before posting?

I think what you're trying to say, among the mist of words you wrote, is that some people will use the "drunken woman" argument to deny the rapist's responsibility for his crime? And to avoid them having any credibility, we must not point out how being drunk leaves you more vulnerable to crime?

I can only respond by saying some people are idiots, and we should not be so fragile that we can't listen to a silly argument and dismiss it as silly.

Some people deny that gun crime is linked to the number of guns in society. Despite all the overwhelming proof, some people will trot out the "guns don't kill people" nonsense because it's easier than accepting responsibility for their own actions.