George hook

jamesthepeach

About 20 years ago I was out on a work night out.
I got the drunkest I've ever been in my life and so did a few of my mates.
One of them decided to drive home and the rest of us who normally would habe said no way got into the car because it was lashing rain and we were too tight to pay for taxis.

On the way home he ran a red light, barely missing another car but he flipped his car with us in it.

We all got away with cuts and bruise but it could have been much worse. The driver ended up with a broken arm, again could have easily been a lot worse. Stupid decision all round. But it was all of our own faults.
Had even one of us been sensible it would not have happened at all.

So where did we go wrong.
Driving in to the venue in the first place knowing we.would be locked at the end of the night?
Getting so drunk we couldn't think straight?
Not objecting to him driving?
Getting into the car with him?
Egging him on to drive like a maniac while in the car?

Or were none of us to blame because we were all victims

martingriff

Sleeper12 wrote: »

How is this fool st on the air?

I heard his comments live yesterday and thought I'd gone back in time. I remember judges 25 /30 years ago letting off rapists in court here in Ireland because of the way she was dressed. Short dress =her fault =suspended sentence.

The same moron criticised Obama (a black president) for criticising his Beloved Trump for talking about scrapping the Dreamer programme. He totally ignored Clinton (a white president) who also criticised Trump for the very same thing.

This same moron said live on air if you ban Islam you won't have any terrorism.

He's defended Trumps wording on the riots. In fact he defends Trump on everything.

You must have not heard the comments very well and he very clearly said the rapist should go to jail and I don't think he was saying the length should be determined on the ladys attire of if she was drunk.

What he did say was that people should lessen there expose to these people by drinking less I would put to that walking home alone when drunk or going down an alley as it quicker when your drunk or anytime at night.

My brother was assaulted going home 1 night after a night out. He was drunk and decided to walk home (he did not decide to go with a girl he was with for the night). He went down the alleyway that would cut a bit of time and go attacked. Now is my brother or the attackers. Of course it the attackers but my brother wished he did not all those things above and get attached

Sleeper12

One_Of_Shanks wrote:

He wasn't condoning it. Not at all. He didn't articulate his point very well, and his point was sort of lost on most of us anyway, as his points often are, but he wasn't condoning it. That's taking it too far to say he condoned it.

I don't think he was condoning it but he was blatantly victim blaming and shaming. We stay away from victim blaming and shaming because it's downright wrong but it also puts off victims of rape reporting rape. In a round about way victim blaming and shaming enables rapists. Or am I stretching it too far by saying that? I'm genuinely not sure myself.

LordSutch wrote:

...... "Should she be raped? Of course she shouldn’t. Isn’t she entitled to say no? Of course she is. Is the guy who came in a scumbag? Certainly. Should he go to jail? Of course. All those things." ......

Agreed he said all those things and that's great. If he stopped there I'd have given him a medal. Unfortunately he didn't stop there. He went on to suggest that she was partly to blame for getting raped. I was stunned when he said it.

mzungu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Does George Hook bear no personal responsibility for his statements then?

I'm not at all outraged at what he said. Someone read that story to me this morning and all I could think was "*sigh*, it's George Hook", as much as to say "I've never given a tuppeny fcuk what George Hook has to say on anything, and I'm not about to start now".

TBH I had more or less the same reaction when I heard. Anytime I hear his show, he comes across as being very clumsy with his words, so when its a serious topic being discussed I'm not surprised he messes up badly every now and again. I think the key question is did George Hook say she bore responsibility for what happened as his detractors are claiming? The answer there is no. However, the false narrative has been set in stone and the pitchforks and Twitter mob are out in force.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

While I do understand where you're coming from, it's not even a question of luck. I don't imagine you ever got home in one piece and thought "I was lucky I wasn't raped tonight", because there aren't too many people, unless they are incredibly paranoid, that do think like that, and I don't think it's a good idea to foster that sort of paranoia and mistrust of other people, in anyone.

Oh I agree, and I'm not thinking there are bruisers around every corner waiting to knife me. When I was younger would saunter home at all hours after a night out and nothing ever happened to me. At the same time, I had friends who were attacked on their way home. In that sense, I was lucky. As I got older I thankfully lost my youthful recklessness and doing things like walking home alone at all hours no longer appealed to me. I fully realise I could be attacked at home, or knocked down by a car in broad daylight etc. However, I will try and minimise risk in general wherever possible. Sure, the chances of anything happening are small, but that is no reason for me to not try to take measures that are within my power to reduce the chance. There is a happy medium between being too paranoid and being too laissez-faire about things.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

While I understand the idea of personal responsibility, there are so, so many different scenarios, permutations and combinations of circumstances that can happen when you step outside your front door (and I've said this before, that more rapes happen behind closed doors), that nobody could possibly be expected to prepare for them all.

This should never be a reason not to take preventative steps when it is in your power to do so. We all know that if we are involved in a head on smash with an articulated lorry, a seatbelt won't do us much good. Yet we rightly wear it anyway as it could help in other types of collisions.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

All someone who intends to rape you has to think of, is the one thing you haven't thought of, that nobody expects to be raped.

This is exactly my point, scumbags are going to behave like scumbags, and even taking personal responsibility for ourselves probably won't be enough to stop any attack from happening. There are no guarantees, all it might do, is reduce the odds somewhat.

martingriff

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I don't agree that it's a good idea. I also don't see how it has anything to do with being raped when millions of adults across the globe do it, and the only difference between them, and someone who is raped, is that someone chooses to rape them.

Everyone is of course responsible for their own actions (that's what personal responsibility actually means), but holding people even partially responsible for someone else's actions, is ridiculous. It does nothing to prevent people being raped, no matter how much they do or don't drink, no matter who they go home with, no matter any number of circumstances that could equally be applied to anyone else, and yet they weren't raped.

So now would you care to tell me what circumstances are the differentiating factors between someone who is raped, and someone who isn't?

Consent. If your a bit pissed and you give consent it is still consent.

Now please show me where anyone is this thread or George hook said it is not rape if your drunk or dressed with short skirts etc.

martingriff

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't think he was condoning it but he was blatantly victim blaming and shaming. We stay away from victim blaming and shaming because it's downright wrong but it also puts off victims of rape reporting rape. In a round about way victim blaming and shaming enables rapists. Or am I stretching it too far by saying that? I'm genuinely not sure myself.




Agreed he said all those things and that's great. If he stopped there I'd have given him a medal. Unfortunately he didn't stop there. He went on to suggest that she was partly to blame for getting raped. I was stunned when he said it.

He did not blame her for been raped. George Hook is a bit excitable(a lot really) and when he gets talking about thing he forgets how to word stuff or structure the. The RAPE of this girl (I am pretty sure he said it was rape) was 1 point. The personal responsibility was another point. They were not to be taken together as blaming the girl. Should he have done a topic about personal responsibility and not talk about a specific rape before it ABSOLUTELY

markodaly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That house analogy is quite frankly, and not to put too fine a point on it - a load of bollocks that's not even worth entertaining in the context of rape.

Why?

Sleeper12

ThisRegard wrote:

Did that actually happen, or are you thinking about the Italian case?

I swear this happened several times. There won't be any links from 30 years ago so I'm relying on other older board members to back me up but I read several cases in the evening papers in the 80s of judges blaming the rape victim. My wife here beside me is remembering too. She was drunk, ah sure the way she was dressed. These were mitigating factors that could lead to a suspected sentence.
I'm almost certain that there was one in the last 10 years. I think the judge stepped down because of his comments.

RustyNut

martingriff wrote: »

You must have not heard the comments very well and he very clearly said the rapist should go to jail and I don't think he was saying the length should be determined on the ladys attire of if she was drunk.

What he did say was that people should lessen there expose to these people by drinking less I would put to that walking home alone when drunk or going down an alley as it quicker when your drunk or anytime at night.

Blame was the word he used and he directed it towards the rape victim not the rapist.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

The problem I have with the victim blaming thing and the usual gnashing of teeth and bunching of knickers sure to follow if it's is brought up with the words personal responsibility chucked in, is that there are two different things going on. The rapist is... well, a rapist and the full force of law should be brought to bear on the bastard. The person who is raped bears no responsibility for the rapist's crime. However they do, or should have the cop on to realise that it is not the perfect world some people increasingly seem to believe it is and in such an imperfect world sh1t happens and we should be aware of that and take steps to avoid sh1t when it does.

QV: "Rape victim, Fiona Doyle, said Mr Hook's comments were "outrageous" and "offensive".../... Women have the right to be drunk. They have the right to say no. They have the right to walk down the street naked if they wish". Actually on the latter point, go ahead and try it. Quite likely to fall afoul of the law there. Anyway, yes women have the "right" to be drunk and most certainly have the right to say no, but they also in situations like the one Hook refers should have the cop and and responsibility to think "hang on, is this a good idea?".

I'm not familiar with the case in question but from what I've read she had a one night stand and got raped by the guys friend. Not sure what steps she can take to avoid that apart from never having one night stands. So basically a "sensible" woman will never have casual sex with a stranger. And that doesn't even make sense as the vast majority of one night stands with strangers are fine. So statistically she wouldn't even be doing the sensible thing.

Most of these so called sensible restrictions arent really all that sensible. Apart from not getting catatonic drunk which I would recommend both men and women not do.

markodaly

RayM wrote: »

I hope someone writes one about how Hook used to portray himself as a sort of harmless curmudgeonly centre-right/liberal Fine Gael supporter, who supported Obama in 2008, and once stood at a podium on the Late Late Show making a heartfelt plea for people to vote in favour of marriage equality. It's kind of cringe-worthy how, over the last couple of years, he's turned into a piss-poor excuse for a US-style "shock jock".

You mean someone who goes against the general media consensus on some of the more controversial topics. Gosh, we cant have that now can we, just like Myers out with him and his ilk.

For all the talk about diversity, some people hate the idea of a diversity of opinions.

Sleeper12

martingriff wrote:

You must have not heard the comments very well and he very clearly said the rapist should go to jail and I don't think he was saying the length should be determined on the ladys attire of if she was drunk.

You didn't read my post properly. I said judges 30 years ago said these things. Hook didn't say these things

martingriff

RustyNut wrote: »

Blame was the word he used and he directed it towards the rape victim not the rapist.

We will have to disagree then as I did not take it that way and George I say did not either but he will talk about it Monday on the show I say to get his reaction

Dyr

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't think he was condoning it but he was blatantly victim blaming and shaming. We stay away from victim blaming and shaming because it's downright wrong but it also puts off victims of rape reporting rape. In a round about way victim blaming and shaming enables rapists. Or am I stretching it too far by saying that? I'm genuinely not sure myself.
.

There was no rape or victim in this case, so we can dispense with that for a start.

LLMMLL

markodaly wrote: »

Why?

Because locking your house is a standard measure that doesn't interfere with the occupants personal liberty.

Restricting women's behaviour on a night out, requiring them to take taxis they may not be able to afford, requiring them to dress a way they do not wish to address are all restrictions that interfere with the way they want to lead their lives.

martingriff

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You didn't read my post properly. I said judges 30 years ago said these things. Hook didn't say these things

Sorry mate my bad.

martingriff

LLMMLL wrote: »

Because locking your house is a standard measure that doesn't interfere with the occupants personal liberty.

Restricting women's behaviour on a night out, requiring them to take taxis they may not be able to afford, requiring them to dress a way they do not wish to address are all restrictions that interfere with the way they want to lead their lives.

Who is restricting them.

LLMMLL

martingriff wrote: »

Who is restricting them.

Anyone who's saying they should do these things or are partially responsible for what happens them.

RustyNut

martingriff wrote: »

We will have to disagree then as I did not take it that way and George I say did not either but he will talk about it Monday on the show I say to get his reaction

But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?

If that's not victim blaming I don't know what is.

martingriff

LLMMLL wrote: »

Anyone who's saying they should do these things or are partially responsible for what happens them.

It is called advice if they do not want to do them it is totally up to then that is what PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY means. Now if a law was being introduced I be with you.

What do you mean by the second bit

kylith

Just a point for the men on this thread agreeing with Hook: you're talking about yourselves, you know that, right? You're saying that every woman who has had a drunken fling with you should have assumed you were a rapist.

Every one of you who's pulled on a drunken night out, you're saying that the woman you pulled was reckless and possibly foolish for getting drunk and going off with some fella she didn't know. Every one of you who has used Tinder to hook up for NSA sex, you're saying that the woman was reckless and possibly foolish for going off with some fella she met on the internet. Indeed, every time you have ever been alone with a woman or gone on a date with a woman you're saying that she has been reckless because she has put herself in harms way by being alone with a man she doesn't know, or even that she does know, as the majority of rapes are not committed by strangers.

Oh, you think, but I'm not a rapist. Well, how is she supposed to know that? Either we trust that the vast majority of men are not rapists, in which case we run the risk of falling foul of the few that are, and have idiots like Hook say that we have to bear some responsibility for putting ourselves in danger, or we assume that all men are potential rapists and take pains to never put ourselves in the position to be alone with a man or men in case we're raped, in which case we're branded as hysterical women and get to listen to an eternal chorus of 'not all men'.

LLMMLL

martingriff wrote: »

It is called advice if they do not want to do them it is totally up to then that is what PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY means. Now if a law was being introduced I be with you.

What do you mean by the second bit

So if a woman doesn't follow this advice she is irresponsible?

Sleeper12

Bambi wrote:

There was no rape or victim in this case, so we can dispense with that for a start.

There was a rape though. We can't be talking about the same thing here?

martingriff

RustyNut wrote: »

If that's not victim blaming I don't know what is.

I agree it sound like he is blaming them for the rape and I can see why people take it up like that. Again I think it is George not saying what is in his mind is something he does quiet often. I don't think he meant to say it. Now I must go as I am feeling queasy with agreeing with George as normally I bit the other side

spookwoman

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There was a rape though. We can't be talking about the same thing here?

Sleeper it's still before the courts. He was found not guilty on 1 count and they couldn't make up their minds on the 2nd count. They have till the 15th to make up their mind on if they want a retrial

martingriff

LLMMLL wrote: »

So if a woman doesn't follow this advice she is irresponsible?

My own personal opinion is that you should follow the advice HOWEVER if you are attacked or raped you are not to blame for what happened to you.

See my example above about my brother who got attacked. He did not follow the advice (which he would normally would or make sure I did) he should have but he bares no responsibility for the attack

Dyr

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There was a rape though. We can't be talking about the same thing here?

Jury found the accused not guilty on one count and failed to reach a verdict on the other.

One eyed Jack

martingriff wrote: »

Consent. If your a bit pissed and you give consent it is still consent.

Ohh that depends upon soooo many other factors martin that I certainly wouldn't be hanging my hat on it and hoping to be exonerated of committing rape if a complaint were made. That'd be me exercising my standards of personal responsibility though.

I would suggest you were being personally irresponsible if you choose to hook up with a girl who is drunk, but you're not any more likely to heed that common sense advice than you weren't before, because you believe even if a girl is drunk, the fact she gave consent means you couldn't possibly be found guilty of having committed rape if she were to make a complaint.

I would suggest as a precautionary measure that you avoid drunken girls like the plague, but if you choose not to, then you can't complain afterwards if a complaint is made against you.

That's using your standard of what personal responsibility means to you.

Now please show me where anyone is this thread or George hook said it is not rape if your drunk or dressed with short skirts etc.

In the context of what we're talking about here, you asked whether I thought it was a good idea to go out and get drunk, and I understood that to mean you were suggesting that it increases a persons risk of being raped. Are you now suggesting that what you suggested has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a person is raped or not?

LLMMLL

martingriff wrote: »

My own personal opinion is that you should follow the advice HOWEVER if you are attacked or raped you are not to blame for what happened to you.

See my example above about my brother who got attacked. He did not follow the advice (which he would normally would or make sure I did) he should have but he bares no responsibility for the attack

Well then the analogy of the house makes no sense as there are consequences to not following the advice apart from the crime that is committed, I.e. no insurance payout.

eleventh

One night stands are just risky behaviour full stop. Anyone who engages in it should be aware of the risks.

martingriff

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well then the analogy of the house makes no sense as there are consequences to not following the advice apart from the crime that is committed, I.e. no insurance payout.

SO we should victim blame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF The reason to the advice is to lower the possibility of it happening

RayM

ligerdub wrote: »

I don't see how any of those hats he is wearing is contradictory of the other.

You've either never listened to his show or you're being willfully obtuse.

markodaly wrote:

You mean someone who goes against the general media consensus on some of the more controversial topics. Gosh, we cant have that now can we, just like Myers out with him and his ilk.

No, silly. Someone who used to come across as vaguely moderate most of the time, but now vocally supports a far-right US president and seems to begin every show with a five-minute rant about political correctness.

markodaly wrote: »

For all the talk about diversity, some people hate the idea of a diversity of opinions.

There isn't much diversity on Newstalk nowadays. Their prime weekday slots consist almost entirely of old men yelling at clouds and complaining about "snowflakes".

martingriff

eleventh wrote: »

One night stands are just risky behaviour full stop. Anyone who engages in it should be aware of the risks.

If its consential sex then yes

Dyr

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well then the analogy of the house makes no sense as there are consequences to not following the advice apart from the crime that is committed, I.e. no insurance payout.

You don't seem to be able to understand a fairly simple concept

It's a criminal offence to steal property. The criminal will be convicted on that basis, it has nothing to do with you

It is your responsibility to ensure that you've taken the measures as laid out in your insurance policy to mitigate against the risk of burglary. If you fail to follow them that's your fault, not the burglars

Nothing you do is going detract from the burglars culpability. But you will have to deal with the consequences of your own decisions.

markodaly

LLMMLL wrote: »

Because locking your house is a standard measure that doesn't interfere with the occupants personal liberty.

Locking your house is standard measure, why exactly?

martingriff

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ohh that depends upon soooo many other factors martin that I certainly wouldn't be hanging my hat on it and hoping to be exonerated of committing rape if a complaint were made. That'd be me exercising my standards of personal responsibility though.

I would suggest you were being personally irresponsible if you choose to hook up with a girl who is drunk, but you're not any more likely to heed that common sense advice than you weren't before, because you believe even if a girl is drunk, the fact she gave consent means you couldn't possibly be found guilty of having committed rape if she were to make a complaint.

I would suggest as a precautionary measure that you avoid drunken girls like the plague, but if you choose not to, then you can't complain afterwards if a complaint is made against you.

That's using your standard of what personal responsibility means to you.


In the context of what we're talking about here, you asked whether I thought it was a good idea to go out and get drunk, and I understood that to mean you were suggesting that it increases a persons risk of being raped. Are you now suggesting that what you suggested has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a person is raped or not?

I am saying there could be an increased risk yes but if they meet someone who want to rape them then they will probably get raped but if they are more sober they might stand a better chance of getting away. Same as if someone gets attacked going home drunk if more sober they might be able to get away HOWEVER IT DOES NOT DIMINISH THE FACT THEY WERE RAPED OR ATTACKED OR WHATEVER

Edit. I think Belligerent says it better then me

sterideal

Best hardy indoor exotic pot plants for Irish climate

martingriff

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ohh that depends upon soooo many other factors martin that I certainly wouldn't be hanging my hat on it and hoping to be exonerated of committing rape if a complaint were made. That'd be me exercising my standards of personal responsibility though.

I would suggest you were being personally irresponsible if you choose to hook up with a girl who is drunk, but you're not any more likely to heed that common sense advice than you weren't before, because you believe even if a girl is drunk, the fact she gave consent means you couldn't possibly be found guilty of having committed rape if she were to make a complaint.

I would suggest as a precautionary measure that you avoid drunken girls like the plague, but if you choose not to, then you can't complain afterwards if a complaint is made against you.

That's using your standard of what personal responsibility means to you.





In the context of what we're talking about here, you asked whether I thought it was a good idea to go out and get drunk, and I understood that to mean you were suggesting that it increases a persons risk of being raped. Are you now suggesting that what you suggested has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a person is raped or not?

In relation to the girl saying I raped them if they are drunk which I am sure has happened it could happen if they were sober. I chose to stay away from very drunk girls as they do not appeal to me but if I see a girl a like and she seems with it then yes if she consents that is fine for me as I do not go around thinking all drunk girls will scream rape

One eyed Jack

Bambi wrote: »

You don't seem to be able to understand a fairly simple concept

It's a criminal offence to steal property. The criminal will be convicted on that basis, it has nothing to do with you

It is your responsibility to ensure that you've taken the measures as laid out in your insurance policy to mitigate against the risk of burglary. If you fail to follow them that's your fault, not the burglars

Nothing you do is going detract from the burglars culpability. But you will have to deal with the consequences of your own decisions.

But what if you took all the precautions listed in your insurance policy and then some, and your house is still burgled?

Because that's what happens in reality when someone is raped - someone, somewhere, will always find a way afterwards to say "Ah, see that now, that's why you were raped!"

What good does that do to prevent someone from being raped in the first place? Should they just have stayed at home? Wrap themselves in a burqa? You know where else the women wear burqas and don't get drunk? Would you suggest that people should go nowhere without a chaperone to prevent themselves from being raped?

None of that appears to be a particularly preventative measure, and none of it puts any responsibility on the person who chooses to commit rape in the first place.

The whole "personal responsibility"... "argument" (for want of a better word) is simply a way to impose limits on innocent peoples behaviour, when it's the persons behaviour who isn't innocent is what who we should be scrutinising.

retro:electro

LLMMLL wrote: »

Because locking your house is a standard measure that doesn't interfere with the occupants personal liberty.

Restricting women's behaviour on a night out, requiring them to take taxis they may not be able to afford, requiring them to dress a way they do not wish to address are all restrictions that interfere with the way they want to lead their lives.

Sorry but we all take measures every single day that restrict our liberty in order to protect ourselves.

We have freedom of speech but we don't go around mouthing off and telling people what we think of them. We censor ourselves to avoid getting punched in the fcuking face.

We have freedom of movement and travel but we often don't take risks that'll increase our chances of being attacked or killed. I could go on but we do things like this every single day without even thinking. But for some reason the suggestion that you take care of yourself and avoid risky situations on nights out is too hard for some people to handle and is seen as victim blaming.

One eyed Jack

martingriff wrote: »

In relation to the girl saying I raped them if they are drunk which I am sure has happened it could happen if they were sober. I chose to stay away from very drunk girls as they do not appeal to me but if I see a girl a like and she seems with it then yes if she consents that is fine for me as I do not go around thinking all drunk girls will scream rape

Nor should all girls have to go around assuming they're going to be raped if they choose to get drunk.

markodaly

RayM wrote: »

No, silly. Someone who used to come across as vaguely moderate most of the time, but now vocally supports a far-right US president and seems to begin every show with a five-minute rant about political correctness.
.

News to me that George supports Trump policies on pretty much anything, more like he knows what buttons to push for people like yourself, which seems to be working since you have posted a few times negatively about him on this very thread.

Sleeper12

spookwoman wrote:

Sleeper it's still before the courts. He was found not guilty on 1 count and they couldn't make up their minds on the 2nd count. They have till the 15th to make up their mind on if they want a retrial

Bambi said that there was no rape or victim. She did not appear to acknowledge that there was a case in progress. I thought she thought that we were talking about a hypocritical situation.

eleventh

LLMMLL wrote: »

Because locking your house is a standard measure that doesn't interfere with the occupants personal liberty.

I used to live in a ground floor apartment and would like to have left my bedroom window open at night but could not as it would not have been safe to.

Wibbs

kylith wrote: »

Just a point for the men on this thread agreeing with Hook: you're talking about yourselves, you know that, right? You're saying that every woman who has had a drunken fling with you should have assumed you were a rapist.

Well kinda yes. They weighed up the risks and figured I wasn't. Just as I weighed up the risks by not pressing my suit if she was off her head on drink or whatever, or appeared to be delicate of mind, or likely to have a burly bloke hanging around ready to duff me up and rob me blind. It's what people do, or should. We all weigh up risks of various kinds on a daily basis. That's what being an adult with agency and personal responsibility does.

Oh, you think, but I'm not a rapist. Well, how is she supposed to know that? Either we trust that the vast majority of men are not rapists, in which case we run the risk of falling foul of the few that are, and have idiots like Hook say that we have to bear some responsibility for putting ourselves in danger, or we assume that all men are potential rapists and take pains to never put ourselves in the position to be alone with a man or men in case we're raped, in which case we're branded as hysterical women and get to listen to an eternal chorus of 'not all men'.

Well TBH that's a fairly "hysterical" black and white, either/or read of the matter. There is another option. Namely trusting that the majority of men aren't rapists, but in the context of say a one night stand with a complete stranger, the risk goes up of not reading the situation and the person and we must weigh up that risk and seek to minimise it. Getting off your head on grog is no way to minimise it. Rapists tend to be opportunistic and predatory and like all predators look for "weakness" in their potential victims. Goes for many crimes, like assault and muggings. Being off your head lowers your defences. Which potential victim would a mugger choose? The sober man walking confidently down the street, or the wasted runs man who can barely stand up?

Take another angle on such encounters. You hear tell of men concerned almost to the point of mania about women "tricking" them into pregnancy. Well then don't get pissed up and figure be grand we won't use condoms because she told me she's on the pill. If she was intending on getting up the duff she would still be to blame, but I'd have to take some personal responsibility for being a gobsh1te. So every time I've had a ONS I've worn a blobby on the knobby*. Minimise the risk.

I've also said early on in this thread that the vast majority of sexual assaults all the way up to rape are with people the victims know and usually trust. There is damn near no way to minimise that risk. Actually I can't think of one. But in this case of ONS and the like we can minimise risk. Again it does not mean the rapist isn't an utter scumbag and 100% guilty of the crime.



*Hell in relationships I have. I've only been 100% sure of three women in my life and trusted them to not BS me on this particular score.

One eyed Jack

anna080 wrote: »

Sorry but we all take measures every single day that restrict our liberty in order to protect ourselves.

We have freedom of speech but we don't go around mouthing off and telling people what we think of them. We censor ourselves to avoid getting punched in the fcuking face.

We have freedom of movement and travel but we often don't take risks that'll increase our chances of being attacked or killed. I could go on but we do things like this every single day without even thinking. But for some reason the suggestion that you take care of yourself and avoid risky situations on nights out is too hard for some people to handle and is seen as victim blaming.

But there isn't a victim if nobody chooses to rape someone else. You're analysing someone's behaviour in hindsight and attributing responsibility for their being raped to them.

RustyNut

eleventh wrote: »

I used to live in a ground floor apartment and would like to have left my bedroom window open at night but could not as it would not have been safe to.

And if you did leave it open hook would blame you for getting raped.

spookwoman

Can't find podcast of what he said, is this what hook said?http://www.thejournal.ie/george-hook-rape-criticism-3589574-Sep2017/

RayM

markodaly wrote: »

News to me that George supports Trump policies on pretty much anything, more like he knows what buttons to push for people like yourself, which seems to be working since you have posted a few times negatively about him on this very thread.

You've unwittingly reinforced the point I was making. He knows what buttons to push, and he pushes them because he knows it'll annoy people. He never used to be like that. I wonder if the "shock-jock" act is his idea or Newstalk's. Either way, by his own admission, he seems to have gone too far this time.

eleventh

RustyNut wrote: »

And if you did leave it open hook would blame you for getting raped.

I was following the analogy of the house - that if someone was passing and saw a window that could be pulled open from the outside, they could easily climb in if they were of a mind to.