What George Hook said wasn't so bad after all, was it?

Silentcorner

Here is where I had a problem with the whole debacle...

Calling the guy who did it was a scumbag serves no purpose, nobody is born a rapist and his life has been destroyed....

What we should have been asking was...
What was going though his mind when he did what he did?
Was he blind drunk?...which is a problem in our culture (American/British/Irish culture in particular)
Was he coked off his head?
Was he addicted to porn?
Was he addicted to sex?
Has he done it before?

To ask these questions we need to ask questions of our own behaviour...

It is a pity George focused on the actions of the woman only...he was ripe for the picking for any social media storm...

the_pen_turner

Vela wrote: »

I'm just really glad that it was me she called, and not someone who would react in this way.

Threads like this make me feel really sad about the world we live in.

everybody is happy she called you and got out safely

but people would be even happier if she wasn't in that situation to begin with.
there are two sides to that obviously. your friend going to some isolated place with a complete stranger and the 'rapist' who was trying to force the situation
if either of those two inputs changed the situation would have been a lot different. of course your friend should be able to do what she did but its too risky

Oldtree

It's gotten to the stage where a man needs written consent from a woman, in her right mind, witnessed by a lawyer, to have sex, or even kiss without fear of getting put on the sex offenders register. No doubt the agreement will have written parameters as to the exact course of events to follow, and indeed many more caveats. Que stage left the sex robots.

Case this week, judge said it was a he said, she said, and the jury sided with the woman.

Be careful out there.

As a concerned father, I understand what George was trying to say, albeit in his usual manner of posing a question to highlight a particular nuanced point in a discussion.

darlett

Silentcorner wrote: »

It is a pity George focused on the actions of the woman ONLY...he was ripe for the picking for any social media storm...

He absolutely didn't. You ignore his comments on the perpetrator if you will but they are contained here again particularly in conclusion.

Hook said:

"She was passed around, went the story. And apparently she went to bed with one guy and he goes out and another guy comes in. She doesn’t want to have relations with the second guy but he forced himself upon her. Awful.
But when you then look deeper into the story you have to ask certain questions. Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? She’s only just barely met him. She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, she has no idea what dangers he might pose.
But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her. Should she be raped? Course she shouldn’t. Is she entitled to say no? Absolutely. Is the guy who came in a scumbag? Certainly. Should he go to jail? Of Course. All of those things."

If a daughter of mine meets and goes back to a strangers hotel room on the night they meet, I'm worried to the point of panic incase they meet a scumbag. His words are designed to give advice to reduce rape occurrences. Scumbags exist. Be wary. That he was silenced for this makes you question the motivation/intelligence of his detractors. I think some disliked him for a long time due to his controversial opinions generally, and others were deeply misguided.

Vladimir Poontang

Vela wrote: »

I'm just really glad that it was me she called, and not someone who would react in this way.

Threads like this make me feel really sad about the world we live in.

Because of course if a distressed friend called me I'd have given her a lecture on being more responsible. :rolleyes:

It is a big bad world out there, if you are going to go out there looking to be offended you are not going to have a good time of it.

Roger Hassenforder

Vela wrote: »

I'm just really glad that it was me she called, and not someone who would react in this way.

Threads like this make me feel really sad about the world we live in.

Well I'm glad your friend wasn't raped.
Threads like this where you see a complete abdication of personal responsibility make me sad.

Whatll I tell my girls when they're of an age to be meeting guys in pubs?
"be careful going to strange mens homes ( particularly drunk), because he could rape or worse killl you."
Or
"you go girl and have zero regard for your safety because like you know, men they shouldn't rape women"

Of course they shouldnt rape. And of course women should be able to go about their business without being raped. Unfortunately, this is the real world where women are at risk of being raped, not putting oneself in such places where there is a greater risk is but common sense, not a blow for female liberties.

I suspect if you had a daughter you'd be saying the same thing, try avoid a situation where there is a greater risk of being harmed.

Dave147

Deleted User wrote: »

He didn't say that though

No, he said they must take some of the blame, which is just as bad. I've no problem with Hook saying women should be careful. Saying they should take some of the blame is a ridiculous thing to say.

PeterParker957

professore wrote: »

Paddy Cow wrote: »

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

To us maybe, but everyone is entitled to their view, and other cultures and traditions must be respected even if a long way from our own.

No they shouldn't. Some things are too barbaric to be respected. Gays are still prosecuted in many countries. Should I respect ISIS for throwing gay men off buildings just for being gay or women being stoned for adultery because that's how they roll?

ISIS are equal opportunity genocidal maniacs. They kill or turn into sex slaves anyone who is not them. Not just gays.

Vela wrote: »

Pithythefool wrote: »

Its just a case of applying different parameters. He is correct in the broad sense, you are correct in a particular sense.

Theres no reason to be disgusted, surely?

There's every reason to be disgusted. What he said and equally implied was irreprehensible and he should be off the air entirely in my opinion.

Damn him for going against the groupthink!!!

Silentcorner

darlett wrote: »

He absolutely didn't. You ignore his comments on the perpetrator if you will but they are contained here again particularly in conclusion.

Hook said:

"She was passed around, went the story. And apparently she went to bed with one guy and he goes out and another guy comes in. She doesn’t want to have relations with the second guy but he forced himself upon her. Awful.
But when you then look deeper into the story you have to ask certain questions. Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? She’s only just barely met him. She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, she has no idea what dangers he might pose.
But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her. Should she be raped? Course she shouldn’t. Is she entitled to say no? Absolutely. Is the guy who came in a scumbag? Certainly. Should he go to jail? Of Course. All of those things."

If a daughter of mine meets and goes back to a strangers hotel room on the night they meet, I'm worried to the point of panic incase they meet a scumbag. His words are designed to give advice to reduce rape occurrences. Scumbags exist. Be wary. That he was silenced for this makes you question the motivation/intelligence of his detractors. I think some disliked him for a long time due to his controversial opinions generally, and others were deeply misguided.

I didn't ignore his comments about the perpetrator what I said was calling him a scumbag serves no purpose....

What I meant was we should be asking ourselves how did this guy end up a convicted rapist? If we don;t ask ourselves that our society will continue creating situations like this one where two lives have been destroyed...

If he had asked those questions first (listed in my previous posts) he may not have been harangued out of his position...just my opinion...

PeterParker957

I have no qualms about women wishing to go off with whoever the wish.

I'm just curious why the woman in question went back to the house if not to have sex ? Did he seductively whisper on her ear "i have the box set of Stranger Things...." ?

Hannibal_Smith

When there is a rape, there is one person responsible for the rape. To say a person has contributed to being raped is not right and it takes the limelight away from the perpetrator.

I am surprised the post on the first page got so much thanks and it seems to me that a lot of people missed the point of the reaction to what George hook said.

Hannibal_Smith

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I have no qualms about women wishing to go off with whoever the wish.

I'm just curious why the woman in question went back to the house if not to have sex ? Did he seductively whisper on her ear "i have the box set of Stranger Things...." ?

Maube she went back for sex, but changed her mind. Maybe it was to use his jacks . Whatever the reason, to block her from.leaving unless she had sex with him was not a reasonable action.

scrawnyass

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

What George Hook said was perfectly correct in that he was acknowledging that the world is a big bad place and advocating that people take precautions for their personal safety in lieu of that reality.

Unfortunately we now live in the age of the outraged social justice warrior where articles by leading feminists advocate that women should be able to walk naked down the street without consequences, completely oblivious to the actual world we live in.

We don't live in this fantasy utopia. It would be great if we did, but that is not the reality of the situation.

So George Hook made the mortal error of saying women should take precautions.

And was villified by opportunists in the media who seized the chance to silence one of their enemies.

Ditto for Kevin Myers.

This post sums the whole George Hook situation up.Superb post

splinter65

Vela wrote: »

There's every reason to be disgusted. What he said and equally implied was irreprehensible and he should be off the air entirely in my opinion.

In your opinion, exactly. In my opinion there was absolutely nothing wrong with what he said and I’m delighted to hear him back on the radio.
I’m the 52 year old mother of a 20 year old student by the way.

Vladimir Poontang

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Maube she went back for sex, but changed her mind. Maybe it was to use his jacks . Whatever the reason, to block her from.leaving unless she had sex with him was not a reasonable action.

Nobody in this this thread has said his action was reasonable, quite the opposite actually.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

When there is a rape, there is one person responsible for the rape. To say a person has contributed to being raped is not right and it takes the limelight away from the perpetrator.

I am surprised the post on the first page got so much thanks and it seems to me that a lot of people missed the point of the reaction to what George hook said.

It is you that has missed the point.

Vladimir Poontang

Dave147 wrote: »

No, he said they must take some of the blame, which is just as bad. I've no problem with Hook saying women should be careful. Saying they should take some of the blame is a ridiculous thing to say.

No he said this actually.

But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her. Should she be raped? Course she shouldn’t. Is she entitled to say no? Absolutely. Is the guy who came in a scumbag? Certainly. Should he go to jail? Of Course. All of those things.

fergiesfolly

On many occasions, when listening to Hook, he would get so wound up in his argument, that his choice of word/s wouldn't be correct but the sentiment would carry him through.He will, because of his combative style of presenting, never back down, or admit fault.
If he were to sit down and write out his argument, he wouldn't have used the word 'blame".
The fact he came out so quickly and admitted fault says a lot about him. He didn't look to defend himself or his comments. He took responsibility and stepped down.

As for the debate itself... we live in the real world, not the really nice world.
Personal responsibility for your own safety has to be taken more seriously.
This doesn't absolve the perpetrator of a crime of any of the blame and it doesn't place any blame on the victim, but if you've ended up in a situation that could have been avoided by some more consideration, you need to start looking at your mindset when it comes to personal safety.

I have a daughter and when she's going out with friends, the last thing I say to them is " stay safe, stay together, don't leave with a stranger, don't let anyone one else either and keep your wits about you and watch what your drinking ".
It's just common sense in today's world.

If you leave door open and your house gets robbed, you'd of course blame the thief. But you'd feel stupid for giving him the opportunity.
How is personal safety any different?

Hannibal_Smith

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Nobody in this this thread has said his action was reasonable, quite the opposite actually.



It is you that has missed the point.

Unfortunately we now live in the age of the outraged social justice warrior where articles by leading feminists advocate that women should be able to walk naked down the street without consequences, completely oblivious to the actual world we live in.


^^ Your own words.

Regardless of the circumstances the focus should be...do not rape.

PeterParker957

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Nobody in this this thread has said his action was reasonable, quite the opposite actually.



It is you that has missed the point.

Unfortunately we now live in the age of the outraged social justice warrior where articles by leading feminists advocate that women should be able to walk naked down the street without consequences, completely oblivious to the actual world we live in.


^^ Your own words.

Regardless of the circumstances the focus should be...do not rape.

Rapists will always exist.

However more and more men are being branded rapists wrongly because of poor decision making by women.

We fought for equality. We must realise though that equality means we alone are responsible for our safety, there are no knights in shining armour out there, feminists have told them to get lost.

If you go out, make questionable choices and wake up with regrets - own your choice, accept you were stupid and move on not to do it again.

But don't create a crime and ruin someone's life.

splinter65

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Unfortunately we now live in the age of the outraged social justice warrior where articles by leading feminists advocate that women should be able to walk naked down the street without consequences, completely oblivious to the actual world we live in.


^^ Your own words.

Regardless of the circumstances the focus should be...do not rape.

In your opinion the focus should be “do not rape”.
So am I to assume that you find it unacceptable any suggestion that adults enjoying the freedom that adulthood brings should take responsibility for their own personal health and safety by , for example, not becoming so inebriated as to be incapable of making desicions an adult should be capable of making?
A capable adult of either sex when sober would not agree to go back to a total strangers hotel bedroom because that would be putting yourself in potential danger.
If, because you drank so much alcohol, you completely lost the ability to make the right desicion, then is it not your responsibility to only drink as much as you can handle?

Hannibal_Smith

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Rapists will always exist.

However more and more men are being branded rapists wrongly because of poor decision making by women .

We fought for equality. We must realise though that equality means we alone are responsible for our safety, there are no knights in shining armour out there, feminists have told them to get lost.

If you go out, make questionable choices and wake up with regrets - own your choice, accept you were stupid and move on not to do it again.

But don't create a crime and ruin someone's life.

I'm not sure what you mean by the bit in bold. I never said anything about waking up with regrets? I never mentioned waking up with regrets. I said where a person has been raped, there is one person to blame. The rapist.

Again, I never said there should be knights in shining armour. Telling people not to rape, is not diluting equality. Don't rape. If a person comes back to your gaff...dont rape them.

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

In your opinion the focus should be “do not rape”.
So am I to assume that you find it unacceptable any suggestion that adults enjoying the freedom that adulthood brings should take responsibility for their own personal health and safety by , for example, not becoming so inebriated as to be incapable of making desicions an adult should be capable of making?
A capable adult of either sex when sober would not agree to go back to a total strangers hotel bedroom because that would be putting yourself in potential danger.
If, because you drank so much alcohol, you completely lost the ability to make the right desicion, then is it not your responsibility to only drink as much as you can handle?

You are trying to read between the lines and are claiming I'm saying some thing, which I am not. You assume very incorrectly.

What I am saying is simple. DO NOT RAPE. If you take some one back to your gaff and they're locked out of their tree. Do not rape them.

PeterParker957

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Rapists will always exist.

However more and more men are being branded rapists wrongly because of poor decision making by women .

We fought for equality. We must realise though that equality means we alone are responsible for our safety, there are no knights in shining armour out there, feminists have told them to get lost.

If you go out, make questionable choices and wake up with regrets - own your choice, accept you were stupid and move on not to do it again.

But don't create a crime and ruin someone's life.

I'm not sure what you mean by the bit in bold. I never said anything about waking up with regrets? I never mentioned waking up with regrets. I said where a person has been raped, there is one person to blame. The rapist.

Again, I never said there should be knights in shining armour. Telling people not to rape, is not diluting equality. Don't rape. If a person comes back to your gaff...dont rape them.

Once again missing point I'm afraid

Not every rape that is reported was actually a rape.

Yes, rapists are venal horrific creatures BUT not every single person given this label is one.

Hannibal_Smith

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Once again missing point I'm afraid

Not every rape that is reported was actually a rape.

Yes, rapists are venal horrific creatures BUT not every single person given this label is one.

I'm not missing the point, no need to feel afraid. You're chucking in scenarios I have never mentioned.

My post was clear. I am talking about where there has been a rape.

splinter65

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

You are trying to read between the lines and are claiming I'm saying some thing, which I am not. You assume very incorrectly.

What I am saying is simple. DO NOT RAPE. If you take some one back to your gaff and they're locked out of their tree. Do not rape them.

But “do not rape” is not up for debate.”rape” is against the law. “Rape” is unforgivable and rapists should be castrated or given whole life terms to prevent them from raping again.
What I would like to hear is your position on appropriating personal responsibility to adults in regard of their own health and safety.
If you have a position on that subject.
Or is it that you find any discussion on personal responsibility for personal safety totally unacceptable?
If so, why is that?

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

But “do not rape” is not up for debate.”rape” is against the law. “Rape” is unforgivable and rapists should be castrated or given whole life terms to prevent them from raping again.
What I would like to hear is your position on appropriating personal responsibility to adults in regard of their own health and safety.
If you have a position on that subject.
Or is it that you find any discussion on personal responsibility for personal safety totally unacceptable?
If so, why is that?

Why would you come to a conclusion that I, some one you don't know and have never met, would find a discussion on personal safety totally unacceptable? Or are you quoting me by mistake?

I know plenty of people who went back to a fellas place for a one night stand and who weren't raped. I don't believe it's fair to look at all men as potential rapists.

I'm clearly going against the grain here.

splinter65

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Why would you come to a conclusion that I, some one you don't know and have never met, would find a discussion on personal safety totally unacceptable? Or are you quoting me by mistake?

I know plenty of people who went back to a fellas place for a one night stand and who weren't raped. I don't believe it's fair to look at all men as potential rapists.

I'm clearly going against the grain here.

Your avoiding a very simple yes or no question . Twice now. One last try.
Rape is wrong. Parents need to teach their sons that no means no.
Parents need to teach children of both sexes that once they reach adulthood they must take all steps and measures to avoid putting themselves in danger.
If it is raining outside and you are going out you must try to avoid getting wringing wet. Take an umbrella.
When crossing the road where there is traffic moving you must check both ways before moving off in order to avoid getting knocked down.
If you do stupid things when you are drunk that no normal person would do when you are sober, then don’t get so drunk.
Do you agree with these statements?

pitifulgod

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Once again missing point I'm afraid

Not every rape that is reported was actually a rape.

Yes, rapists are venal horrific creatures BUT not every single person given this label is one.

It's estimated that 3% of allegations are false.
https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/false-allegations/

_Dara_

The whole “take precautions” advice re: one night stands is so impractical and completely disregards social mores.

Most rapes are carried out by someone known to the victim. Of the ones that are carried out by a virtual stranger or complete stranger, there’s no blueprint for what a rapist might look like or act. They can be good-looking, they can be charming, they can be well-spoken. Rapist isn’t etched on their foreheads.

So, apply that to the landscape of one night stands. To truly ensure you’re not going home with a rapist, the only failsafe way to do it is to abstain. And to regard every potential one night stand companion as a potential sexual degenerate. People might respond to this that you have to weigh it up. But, as said, rapists can be charming. So how does one realistically do this?

So my questions to those who say one must take responsibility for one’s actions in this scenario:

Are you okay with someone you are chatting up not taking it further because they are worried you might rape them (they wouldn’t say that outright, I suppose)

Are you okay with one night stands just not happening any more?

One night stands usually pass without incident but the only way to prevent any from going awry is for people to abstain. That’s the only realistic was to take precautions in this scenario. You cool with this?

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

Your avoiding a very simple yes or no question . Twice now. One last try.
Rape is wrong. Parents need to teach their sons that no means no.
Parents need to teach children of both sexes that once they reach adulthood they must take all steps and measures to avoid putting themselves in danger.
If it is raining outside and you are going out you must try to avoid getting wringing wet. Take an umbrella.
When crossing the road where there is traffic moving you must check both ways before moving off in order to avoid getting knocked down.
If you do stupid things when you are drunk that no normal person would do when you are sober, then don’t get so drunk.
Do you agree with these statements?

Yes. I agree with those statements. I don't know why you think you have license to be patronising.

It still doesn't change my opinion on what Hook said though. If you are drunk or sober and you go back to another person's home and they rape you. You are not to blame, the rapist raped. You didn't.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

What George Hook said was perfectly correct in that he was acknowledging that the world is a big bad place and advocating that people take precautions for their personal safety in lieu of that reality.

Unfortunately we now live in the age of the outraged social justice warrior where articles by leading feminists advocate that women should be able to walk naked down the street without consequences, completely oblivious to the actual world we live in.

We don't live in this fantasy utopia. It would be great if we did, but that is not the reality of the situation.

So George Hook made the mortal error of saying women should take precautions.

And was villified by opportunists in the media who seized the chance to silence one of their enemies.

Ditto for Kevin Myers.

Great post. 100% spot on.

Vladimir Poontang

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Unfortunately we now live in the age of the outraged social justice warrior where articles by leading feminists advocate that women should be able to walk naked down the street without consequences, completely oblivious to the actual world we live in.


^^ Your own words.

Regardless of the circumstances the focus should be...do not rape.

That is the case. It's the law. What more do you want?

Women still need to take precautions. The same way I take precautions walking alone at night. If I get mugged down a dark laneway I will acknowledge my role in making a poor decision that put my safety at risk.

Adults need to take responsibility for their actions. Women included.

Hannibal_Smith

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

That is the case. It's the law. What more do you want?

Women still need to take precautions. The same way I take precautions walking alone at night. If I get mugged down a dark laneway I will acknowledge my role in making a poor decision that put my safety at risk.

Adults need to take responsibility for their actions. Women included.

Are you saying then that there should be no one night stands with strangers, just in case you get raped?

Should the focus not be, if you take some one back to your gaff, don't rape them?

Bellerstring

http://youtu.be/hiW93pApIEU

This clip is from The Pledge on Sky News during the week.
This is the kind of debate/ discourse that GH was not allowed to have.
The media in Ireland wouldn't touch this subject with a barge pole, unless they were condemning Hook in the most rightuous of terms.

splinter65

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Yes. I agree with those statements. I don't know why you think you have license to be patronising.

It still doesn't change my opinion on what Hook said though. If you are drunk or sober and you go back to another person's home and they rape you. You are not to blame, the rapist raped. You didn't.

The rapist is to blame for the rape. You have to take full responsibility for putting yourself in danger of:
Choking to death on your own vomit
Falling and hurting yourself
Making yourself incapable of making the right desicion (an adult responsibility) and increasing the likelihood that you will fall victim to a predatory attacker.

Hannibal_Smith

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Should the focus not be, if you take some one back to your gaff, don't rape them?

It already is. We have laws that seek to provide a clear warning to men not to commit rape. Only a minority of men ignore that warning and commit rape.

The fact is that the law can only be a guide towards socially acceptable behaviour and some people will seek to avoid that guidance. Prisons worldwide are crowded with people who hold little respect for the law, and even then, rapists are a minority.

The problem is that you're trying to remove responsibility for a woman's choices from the equation and place all the responsibility on the men. Which is completely unreasonable.

It's funny in a rather sad way. Sexism/patriarchy/etc relegated women to rather limited roles in society. To "protect" them from the dangers in the world. To limit their choices and freedoms. For their own protection. :rolleyes: Your logic would promote such sexism to return because women can't be responsible for their own choices, and handle the dangers that exist in the world.

I rather like equality, and being an adult. I'm responsible for my own decisions. Just as others are responsible for theirs. If I am raped by another man (or woman or transg), my decisions/actions/behaviour make me responsible for it happening... and the rapist is responsible for his decisions. Knowing that, means I will undertake all reasonable actions/choices to ensure my personal safety. And women should also undertake to do the same.

Are you saying then that there should be no one night stands with strangers, just in case you get raped?

One night stands are unlikely to ever stop. But people should enter into them with the full knowledge of the dangers that are possible.

Just as I know that going back to a female strangers place can contain any number of threats, but if I choose to go, then I'm accepting those possible risks.

It doesn't excuse the behaviour of those that seek to harm me. It simply means that I am responsible for my own choices.

PeterParker957

Deleted User wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Should the focus not be, if you take some one back to your gaff, don't rape them?

It already is. We have laws that seek to provide a clear warning to men not to commit rape. Only a minority of men ignore that warning and commit rape.

The fact is that the law can only be a guide towards socially acceptable behaviour and some people will seek to avoid that guidance. Prisons worldwide are crowded with people who hold little respect for the law, and even then, rapists are a minority.

The problem is that you're trying to remove responsibility for a woman's choices from the equation and place all the responsibility on the men. Which is completely unreasonable.

It's funny in a rather sad way. Sexism/patriarchy/etc relegated women to rather limited roles in society. To "protect" them from the dangers in the world. To limit their choices and freedoms. For their own protection. :rolleyes: Your logic would promote such sexism to return because women can't be responsible for their own choices, and handle the dangers that exist in the world.

I rather like equality, and being an adult. I'm responsible for my own decisions. Just as others are responsible for theirs. If I am raped by another man (or woman or transg), my decisions/actions/behaviour make me responsible for it happening... and the rapist is responsible for his decisions. Knowing that, means I will undertake all reasonable actions/choices to ensure my personal safety. And women should also undertake to do the same.

Are you saying then that there should be no one night stands with strangers, just in case you get raped?

One night stands are unlikely to ever stop. But people should enter into them with the full knowledge of the dangers that are possible.

Just as I know that going back to a female strangers place can contain any number of threats, but if I choose to go, then I'm accepting those possible risks.

It doesn't excuse the behaviour of those that seek to harm me. It simply means that I am responsible for my own choices.

Should be typed up and handed out at Freshers Weeks that.

splinter65

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Should be typed up and handed out at Freshers Weeks that.

It won’t be though because it’s so far “off message” the Gardai would have to be called.

PeterParker957

splinter65 wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Should be typed up and handed out at Freshers Weeks that.

It won’t be though because it’s so far “off message” the Gardai would have to be called.

Violating safe spaces is such a crime!!!

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

The rapist is to blame for the rape. You have to take full responsibility for putting yourself in danger of:
Choking to death on your own vomit
Falling and hurting yourself
Making yourself incapable of making the right desicion (an adult responsibility) and increasing the likelihood that you will fall victim to a predatory attacker.

So, no one night stands for anyone?

Hannibal_Smith

Deleted User wrote: »

It already is. We have laws that seek to provide a clear warning to men not to commit rape. Only a minority of men ignore that warning and commit rape.

The fact is that the law can only be a guide towards socially acceptable behaviour and some people will seek to avoid that guidance. Prisons worldwide are crowded with people who hold little respect for the law, and even then, rapists are a minority.

The problem is that you're trying to remove responsibility for a woman's choices from the equation and place all the responsibility on the men. Which is completely unreasonable.

It's funny in a rather sad way. Sexism/patriarchy/etc relegated women to rather limited roles in society. To "protect" them from the dangers in the world. To limit their choices and freedoms. For their own protection. :rolleyes: Your logic would promote such sexism to return because women can't be responsible for their own choices, and handle the dangers that exist in the world.

I rather like equality, and being an adult. I'm responsible for my own decisions. Just as others are responsible for theirs. If I am raped by another man (or woman or transg), my decisions/actions/behaviour make me responsible for it happening... and the rapist is responsible for his decisions. Knowing that, means I will undertake all reasonable actions/choices to ensure my personal safety. And women should also undertake to do the same.



One night stands are unlikely to ever stop. But people should enter into them with the full knowledge of the dangers that are possible.

Just as I know that going back to a female strangers place can contain any number of threats, but if I choose to go, then I'm accepting those possible risks.

It doesn't excuse the behaviour of those that seek to harm me. It simply means that I am responsible for my own choices.

That's not my logic at all. And I haven't made it a 'female thing, or said women should be anything. In fact, if you read back over my posts I've not made them gender specific, or at least tried not to, because not all rape victims are women. So, I am telling women nothing.

You have put a lot of supposing into my posts which simply isn't there. And you are completely incorrect. One night stands happen. That does not remove any choice from women. Rapists rape. The responsibility for the rape is 100% the rapists fault.

splinter65

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

So, no one night stands for anyone?

Absolutely have as many one night stands as you like.
But if you wifully render yourself incapable of looking after yourself by deliberately getting off your face then you will have to take personal responsibility for the consequences of putting yourself in harms way.
Very simple.

Vladimir Poontang

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Are you saying then that there should be no one night stands with strangers, just in case you get raped?

Should the focus not be, if you take some one back to your gaff, don't rape them?

Eh, that's already the focus, enshrined in law.

The focus should be on adults taking responsibility for their own safety.

If a person feels that rules out one night stands, so be it. That's entirely their decision.

Vladimir Poontang

If this wasn't so serious it would actually be hilarious.

The "do not rape" message is enshrined in law by virtue of it being illegal.

Yet many have some mental block where they think the "Do not rape" message is somehow incompatible with the equally important message of "take precautions for your own safety".

As the latter requires women (in the majority) to bear some level of responsibility for their actions it has been deemed a major faux pax amongst the social justice warrior brigade who would rather reiterate one stance that already has the weight of the law behind it, than ask women to be careful out there.

The stubbornness and stupidity is staggering not to mention fostering a false sense of reality upon impressionable young people where women can put themselves in harms way and absolve themselves of all responsibility in the event of things turning out bad.

If anything, these people are actually doing more harm than good.

Hannibal_Smith

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

That's not my logic at all. And I haven't made it a 'female thing, or said women should be anything. In fact, if you read back over my posts I've not made them gender specific, or at least tried not to, because not all rape victims are women. So, I am telling women nothing.

You have put a lot of supposing into my posts which simply isn't there. And you are completely incorrect. One night stands happen. That does not remove any choice from women. Rapists rape. The responsibility for the rape is 100% the rapists fault.

Yup. One night stands happen. Didn't suggest otherwise. And as for supposing a lot about your post, your last paragraph above supports everything I said previously.

This. The responsibility for the rape is 100% the rapists fault.

You're excusing any behaviour or choices that a woman makes prior to the rape. If she chooses to go into a dangerous area, it's not her fault that she's raped. If she picks up a stranger in a singles bar, goes back to his home, and gets raped, it's not her fault. Instead, the responsibility rests solely on the rapist.

Personally, I feel my way is better. Be aware of the risks involved, take precautions, and accept that you are responsible for the **** you get yourself into. Don't expect the world to be safe simply because you believe it should be.

kylith

So, we're back to the narrative of 'women should assume all men are rapists'?

splinter65 wrote: »

Absolutely have as many one night stands as you like.
But if you wifully render yourself incapable of looking after yourself by deliberately getting off your face then you will have to take personal responsibility for the consequences of putting yourself in harms way.
Very simple.

And what if you don't render yourself incapable through drink? What if you're teetotal? Do you have to take personal responsibility for a rapist's actions then?

kylith

kylith wrote: »

So, we're back to the narrative of 'women should assume all men are rapists'?

No, no. Women should never assume any man is a rapist because that's unfair and stereotyping and if she does, and won't put out, she's a stuck up feminazi.
But if anything does happen to a woman, she should have assumed they were rapists and it's all her fault.
Hope that cleared things up

splinter65

kylith wrote: »

So, we're back to the narrative of 'women should assume all men are rapists'?



And what if you don't render yourself incapable through drink? What if you're teetotal? Do you have to take personal responsibility for a rapist's actions then?

But I’m not suggesting anyone take responsibility for anyone else’s actions.
Where did you get that impression?
I’m just stating the obvious.
That you take responsibility for your own actions and desicions.
Why is this a problem?

kylith

bluewolf wrote: »

No, no. Women should never assume any man is a rapist because that's unfair and stereotyping and if she does, and won't put out, she's a stuck up feminazi.
But if anything does happen to a woman, she should have assumed they were rapists and it's all her fault.
Hope that cleared things up

Thank you for clarifying

splinter65 wrote: »

But I’m not suggesting anyone take responsibility for anyone else’s actions.
Where did you get that impression?
I’m just stating the obvious.
That you take responsibility for your own actions and desicions.
Why is this a problem?

But you're saying that if someone gets drunk they have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, so if they are raped that would have to imply that they have to take responsibility for getting raped (as if being raped is a reasonable consequence for having a few beers).

Anyway, could you answer the question? If someone isn't drunk and gets raped by a date or someone they met in a pub/club do they still have to take responsibility?

Vladimir Poontang

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

What George Hook said was perfectly correct in that he was acknowledging that the world is a big bad place and advocating that people take precautions for their personal safety in lieu of that reality.

Unfortunately we now live in the age of the outraged social justice warrior where articles by leading feminists advocate that women should be able to walk naked down the street without consequences, completely oblivious to the actual world we live in.

We don't live in this fantasy utopia. It would be great if we did, but that is not the reality of the situation.

So George Hook made the mortal error of saying women should take precautions.

And was villified by opportunists in the media who seized the chance to silence one of their enemies.

Ditto for Kevin Myers.

Spot on.