1 in 6 female Australian students raped

[Serafina]

Actually, it tells me that a) she wasn't very bright, and b) predators recognized her as an easy target (as did her friends, which is why they stayed close).

Do you have any idea what that sounds like? Yes, exactly - like a "blame the victim"-mentality.

That aside, you missed my point. My point was that, if potential rapists were rare, the odds of this happening to a woman three times would be very low. The simple fact that this is happening to her so often should tell you that there are plenty of potential rapists around who are just waiting for an opportunity.
I was also explaining why your "i only know one woman to whom this happened"-angle was meaningless, because rape is not something you casually talk about, or at all for that matter.

I don't recall ever saying a thing about women consenting when they're "drunk enough to fall down." Take your nerd rage somewhere else if you can't have a simple discussion without distorting and then attacking my words.

So complaining about a very real problem is nerd rage now, huh?

That aside, you're certainly sounding like you have a "blame the victim"-mentality. Oh, sure, just the dumb one who get drunk get raped. If a woman gets raped you can conclude that she wasn't very bright - your OWN words, remember?
I'm not saying that this is the way you think, but right now it sure sounds like it is.

I realized that I had not read the specific language of the survey and so backtracked with an edit, as what I initially said (and what was quoted) was potentially unfair. If you'd like to continue to act butthurt, do so with that in mind.

It's hardly my fault if you can't read.

[Korto]

My point was that, if potential rapists were rare, the odds of this happening to a woman three times would be very low. The simple fact that this is happening to her so often should tell you that there are plenty of potential rapists around who are just waiting for an opportunity.

Not necessarily true. Your chance of running into a rapist would be dependant upon the number of people you run into, and the length of time you're running into them. There's a lot of people in a university, in close quaters, and you're running into them for a period of years, therefore the actual proportion could be low, but still have a high proportion of women raped.
Additionally, those potential rapists could tend to hang out at places where women may be more vulnerable, like lions hanging out around a waterhole.

Additionally, while at my glossing-over read the laws regarding consent and rape seemed OK in the link, there was a push once by a newspaper to have the laws "tightened up", so that, for instance, if a woman was drunk than even if she actively consented, then she was still raped. I'm sorry, but the road laws here, as I understand them are, even if you are drunk, you are still guilty of killing someone. You chose to drink, you're responsible for your actions after (nb - your actions. If you're not conscious, you're not consenting). And what if both parties were drunk? Were both raped? Is the victim decided by a race to the police station?

[Block]

My point was that, if potential rapists were rare, the odds of this happening to a woman three times would be very low. The simple fact that this is happening to her so often should tell you that there are plenty of potential rapists around who are just waiting for an opportunity.

Not necessarily true. Your chance of running into a rapist would be dependant upon the number of people you run into, and the length of time you're running into them. There's a lot of people in a university, in close quaters, and you're running into them for a period of years, therefore the actual proportion could be low, but still have a high proportion of women raped.
Additionally, those potential rapists could tend to hang out at places where women may be more vulnerable, like lions hanging out around a waterhole.

Additionally, while at my glossing-over read the laws regarding consent and rape seemed OK in the link, there was a push once by a newspaper to have the laws "tightened up", so that, for instance, if a woman was drunk than even if she actively consented, then she was still raped. I'm sorry, but the road laws here, as I understand them are, even if you are drunk, you are still guilty of killing someone. You chose to drink, you're responsible for your actions after (nb - your actions. If you're not conscious, you're not consenting). And what if both parties were drunk? Were both raped? Is the victim decided by a race to the police station?

There have been studies done that many women who are victims tend to be victims more than once. They either have personality traits or behavioral habits that put them more at risk.

[weemadando]

Or, alternately, they're in an environment where rape and rapists are common.

There are many cases where the rapist is the partner for example.

We have sports leagues and university clubs that seem to exist purely for the benefit of rapists.

So, yeah..

[Big Phil]

By the way, the simple fact that this has happened to the woman you mention THREE TIMES should tell you something. It seems quite likely that she's one willing to talk about it, rather than her just getting especially unlucky.

Actually, it tells me that a) she wasn't very bright, and b) predators recognized her as an easy target (as did her friends, which is why they stayed close).

Oh yay.

The "blame the victim" mentality.

FUCK YOU.

Perhaps the guys should have gone: "hey, this chick's absolutely fucking plastered. MAYBE I SHOULDN'T TRY TO FUCK HER WHILE SHE'S PASSED OUT/SO DRUNK SHE'S INCAPABLE OF KNOWING THAT I'M A GODDAMN NEANDERTHAL ARSEHOLE."

JESUS.

You realise that this exact mentality that you're displaying is a massive part of the problem don't you?

Wee man, are you incapable of having a debate without resorting to name calling? I know rape is a highly emotional topic, but it's absurd to claim that I am in any way blaming the victims of rape, unless your definition of blaming the victim includes "describing someone I went to college with who was nearly raped three times." The fact that she was falling down drunk each time it happened makes her judgment questionable; it does not make her in any way culpable for what nearly happened to her.

Do you have any idea what that sounds like? Yes, exactly - like a "blame the victim"-mentality.

Do I really need to address this again? "She's stupid" =/= "she's responsible."

That aside, you missed my point. My point was that, if potential rapists were rare, the odds of this happening to a woman three times would be very low. The simple fact that this is happening to her so often should tell you that there are plenty of potential rapists around who are just waiting for an opportunity.

Unfortunately, I agree with you

I was also explaining why your "i only know one woman to whom this happened"-angle was meaningless, because rape is not something you casually talk about, or at all for that matter.

Fair enough

I don't recall ever saying a thing about women consenting when they're "drunk enough to fall down." Take your nerd rage somewhere else if you can't have a simple discussion without distorting and then attacking my words.

So complaining about a very real problem is nerd rage now, huh?

Hardly. You flat out lied about my post, or (more charitably) you misread it. The description of my acquaintance and the question about the ability of drunk people (male or female) to consent were two separate thoughts which you conflated. If two drunk people have sex, and later the woman decides she didn't consent, the male can be accused of rape. Why is that rape if at the time both parties consented? If the guy didn't know he was having non-consensual sex, is it really rape? It's not a black and white... it's very confusing and unclear who did what and whether it was really rape.

If the standard is ANY inebriation = rape, then I've both been raped by and raped my wife many times over the years... and that's an absurd standard. I can't imagine that you're defending that standard, but there are people who argue this.

That aside, you're certainly sounding like you have a "blame the victim"-mentality. Oh, sure, just the dumb one who get drunk get raped. If a woman gets raped you can conclude that she wasn't very bright - your OWN words, remember?
I'm not saying that this is the way you think, but right now it sure sounds like it is.

You're putting a whole shitload of words in my mouth, none of which I actually said. As I said before, just because someone is dumb and keeps making the same stupid mistakes doesn't make her responsible for her near rapes.

[weemadando]

Wee man, are you incapable of having a debate without resorting to name calling? I know rape is a highly emotional topic, but it's absurd to claim that I am in any way blaming the victims of rape, unless your definition of blaming the victim includes "describing someone I went to college with who was nearly raped three times." The fact that she was falling down drunk each time it happened makes her judgment questionable; it does not make her in any way culpable for what nearly happened to her.

I didn't do any name calling.

And you contradict yourself.

Should you get falling down drunk, do you have a reasonable expectation not to be raped?

Why shouldn't she?

You say that it doesn't make her culpable, but in the same sentence you question her judgement.

[Simon_Jester]

Additionally, while at my glossing-over read the laws regarding consent and rape seemed OK in the link, there was a push once by a newspaper to have the laws "tightened up", so that, for instance, if a woman was drunk than even if she actively consented, then she was still raped. I'm sorry, but the road laws here, as I understand them are, even if you are drunk, you are still guilty of killing someone. You chose to drink, you're responsible for your actions after (nb - your actions. If you're not conscious, you're not consenting).

This can be problematic given that there's a fairly broad range in which you can be conscious, but drunk enough that your actions don't reflect what you would normally do.

The argument is that when you're that intoxicated, you can't give informed consent to anything. You're still criminally liable for your actions if you hurt other people, but you're not being accused of having committed a crime here. What's at issue is other people's ability to take advantage of your impairment, particularly in ways that might expose you to risks (disease, pregnancy for women).

I can see how there is a legitimate problem if both parties are drunk, because it's unreasonable to have a rape statute that can result in both parties being charged with rape, or seems so to me. I wish I knew how to deal with that.

[SVPD]

I hate to break it to some of you, but pointing out that the victim was in a situation or engaged in a behavior that opened her to victimization is not "blaming the victim". It does not, in any way, condone the behavior of the rapist or sugges tthat she was somehow responsible for it.

It's no different than pointing out that someone who had their car stolen should not have left it unlocked.

No one has any problem with pointing out behaviors that make a person vulnerable before they are a victim, and there is no reason that in the aftermath it should not be pointed out what could ahve been done differently to both the victim (for their future safety) and to everyone else.

Not wanting the victim's behavior to be an excuse the rapist can use to get out of trouble is one thing; immunizing it from all cricticism is quite another. It's foolish, and it's a major reason why I and many other law enforcement officers are skeptical of rape counselors and victim's advocates. They seem to want to shield the victim from any learning how to protect themselves in the future, when we already know women who are victimized once are likely to be victims again. Then they'll show right back up at the counselor/advocate's door, keeping the money rolling in and the statistics high.

[SVPD]

Additionally, while at my glossing-over read the laws regarding consent and rape seemed OK in the link, there was a push once by a newspaper to have the laws "tightened up", so that, for instance, if a woman was drunk than even if she actively consented, then she was still raped. I'm sorry, but the road laws here, as I understand them are, even if you are drunk, you are still guilty of killing someone. You chose to drink, you're responsible for your actions after (nb - your actions. If you're not conscious, you're not consenting).

This can be problematic given that there's a fairly broad range in which you can be conscious, but drunk enough that your actions don't reflect what you would normally do.

The argument is that when you're that intoxicated, you can't give informed consent to anything. You're still criminally liable for your actions if you hurt other people, but you're not being accused of having committed a crime here. What's at issue is other people's ability to take advantage of your impairment, particularly in ways that might expose you to risks (disease, pregnancy for women).

I can see how there is a legitimate problem if both parties are drunk, because it's unreasonable to have a rape statute that can result in both parties being charged with rape, or seems so to me. I wish I knew how to deal with that.

As a matter of fact, you can give informed consent to quite a few things when drunk. Most prominently, a breathalyzer test.

[weemadando]

I'm not seeking to ameliorate all responsibility, but its pretty clear cut to reasonable people that just because someone is too drunk to say no it doesn't make the rape even partly their fault.


Can there be extenuating circumstances and complex situations of implied and withdrawn consent, of course. But lets be honest here.

If a man gets falling down drunk, his chances of being raped are extraordinarily lower than a woman's. Surely people can see the obnoxious double standard with a blame the victim argument here.

[mingo]

While I served aboard the Hospital ship Comfort during Operation Desert Storm, I had a number of shipmates that were members of the Australian military. One of the Aussie sailors when bitching about the myriad faults of the US Navy, (as he saw them) said "I can't wait to get back to the Aussie Navy where sexual harassment is not only allowed, it's encouraged." I have no idea what he meant by that, but it does give me pause in light of this thread.

[Korto]

This can be problematic given that there's a fairly broad range in which you can be conscious, but drunk enough that your actions don't reflect what you would normally do.

As Andy Capp said.

A bloke who says somethin' when 'e's drinkin', that 'e wouldn't say when 'e wasn't drinkin', shouldn't be drinkin'

[hongi]

While I served aboard the Hospital ship Comfort during Operation Desert Storm, I had a number of shipmates that were members of the Australian military. One of the Aussie sailors when bitching about the myriad faults of the US Navy, (as he saw them) said "I can't wait to get back to the Aussie Navy where sexual harassment is not only allowed, it's encouraged." I have no idea what he meant by that, but it does give me pause in light of this thread.

Funny thing about that, we just had a sex scandal in the Navy that got a lot of press and embarassment from the ADF. I don't know if he was serious, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Surlethe]

I'm not seeking to ameliorate all responsibility, but its pretty clear cut to reasonable people that just because someone is too drunk to say no it doesn't make the rape even partly their fault.

I don't think that anybody is saying that.

[SVPD]

I'm not seeking to ameliorate all responsibility, but its pretty clear cut to reasonable people that just because someone is too drunk to say no it doesn't make the rape even partly their fault.

That is what I'm saying. The fault for the rape falls on the rapist. The victim is not responsible for being raped, but they may bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a situation where an attack is likely to occur. This is not a way of transferring responsibility to the victim. On the contrary, everyone knows there are rapists out there. Given that, it is perfectly legitimate to examine behavior that gave the opportunity to an attacker in order to educate the victim and others how to avoid attacks in the future. The point is not to castigate the victim in order to revel in their misery; it's to reduce attacks in the future.

Can there be extenuating circumstances and complex situations of implied and withdrawn consent, of course. But lets be honest here.

Yes, indeed, lets. We are not talking about extenuating circumstances, except in cases where there is legitimate reason to believe consent was given. What we are talking about is essentially whether the victim could have done something different to decrease their vulnerability. This is no different than pointing out how foolish it is to leave a car unlocked. Doing so does not in any was lessen the culpability of the car thief. This is about recognizing that there are people out there that take advantage of others, and making yourself an unattractive target.

Painting this as "blaming the victim" is what's dishonest. Sanchez was pointing out that the girl in question was a dumbass, not saying being a dumbass made it ok to rape her or mitigated the actions of the attacker.

If a man gets falling down drunk, his chances of being raped are extraordinarily lower than a woman's.

Irrelevant, and quite frankly, offensive to bring up. So what if men are raped less often? This does not make the experience any less traumatizing when they are. Furthermore, male victims are far less likely to be believed than female victims, and if the perpetrator is a female, his chances of being believed are even lower, and he is likely to be ridiculed out of whereever he makes the complaint. Female rape of males is rare, but does occur, and quite frankly, the refusal to take the possibility seriously is a major reason why the statistics are so low; any reported incidents are dismissed out of hand.

Surely people can see the obnoxious double standard with a blame the victim argument here.

No, there is no obnoxious double standard. Blaming the victim is just straight obnoxious; it has nothing to do with any double standard.

[Phantasee]

Since the topic is kinda related, what do you guys think of the Slutwalks that have been held in various cities across NA? The first was held in Toronto, IIRC, and there's one tomorrow in Edmonton.

[kaeneth]

Since the topic is kinda related, what do you guys think of the Slutwalks that have been held in various cities across NA? The first was held in Toronto, IIRC, and there's one tomorrow in Edmonton.

I'm not for or against it really. It raises awareness, I suppose, but the morons that triggered it will not have their minds changed by such tactics. Then again, Feminism in general leaves a bad taste in my mouth ever since some of the people involved started ignoring reality when they dislike it which is a trait I associate with Conservative morons. So I might be a bit biased against it.

[weemadando]

Since the topic is kinda related, what do you guys think of the Slutwalks that have been held in various cities across NA? The first was held in Toronto, IIRC, and there's one tomorrow in Edmonton.

The point is valid.

It shouldn't matter how someone is dressed. Everyone deserves to not be raped or sexually assaulted.

Just like no matter how you are dressed you shouldn't expect to be murdered.

[Norade]

So what happens if the typical party scene happens and drunk guy hooks up with drunk girl, they have sex maybe with maybe without a condom and she ends up regretting it afterwards and when asked claims she felt violated? Who supposed to be at fault for two drunk people making a bad choice?

[weemadando]

There have been cases of it. But you have to remember that for charges like this there needs to be intent -especially if it's likely to go to trial.

There is a difference between someone knowingly and intentionally taking advantage of a drunk victims and two people having a drunken liaison which one or both later regret. Especially if you are going to be making a criminal case out of it. However, remember that under Australian law consent can be withdrawn at any time. So if someone wants it to stop, even if it started with mutual consent it can become rape. That's where most of these cases come from.

But also remember that only 2% are reported according to that study. Because this kind of scenario is more likely to get you labelled a drunken whore than get a conviction.

Because unfortunately the blame the victim extends into the courtroom to the extent that sexual history is seen as relevant and a mark against the victim. Because if she's had sex in the past with someone then she was probably begging for it this time. Welcome to the myriad reasons why sexual assault is do widespread. It's rarely reported and even when it is, the chances are that the victim will come out yge other side with a more sullied reputation than the offender. Because prior offences aren't admissable, but a defense attorney will make a rape victim detail every previous sexual encounter to make it clear to the jury that the victim just loves sex and is a slurry whore so this can't really count as rape can it?

[Faqa]

Here's an interesting question - can you be held legally liable for a contract you signed while drunk?

[Bedlam]

Here's an interesting question - can you be held legally liable for a contract you signed while drunk?

Under current UK law, generally not.

The drunk person has to be drunk enought to not understand what they are doing and the other party has to know this is the case. The contracts legal if its ratified one the drunk is sober again.

So the personal has to be falling down drunk not just a bit tipsy and the other party has to be in a postion to be aware of this.

[Crown]

I agree with her, no argument but if you're getting so drunk where you regularly pass out, then I'm sorry, you're asking for trouble (goes for either a guy or girl).

[ArmorPierce]

[
Oh yay.

The "blame the victim" mentality.

FUCK YOU.

Perhaps the guys should have gone: "hey, this chick's absolutely fucking plastered. MAYBE I SHOULDN'T TRY TO FUCK HER WHILE SHE'S PASSED OUT/SO DRUNK SHE'S INCAPABLE OF KNOWING THAT I'M A GODDAMN NEANDERTHAL ARSEHOLE."

JESUS.

You realise that this exact mentality that you're displaying is a massive part of the problem don't you?

How is that blame the victim mentality? If you go into a ghetto and start flashing your cash, bling etc I'd call you an idiot to.

[PainRack]

I didn't do any name calling.

And you contradict yourself.

Should you get falling down drunk, do you have a reasonable expectation not to be raped?

Why shouldn't she?

You say that it doesn't make her culpable, but in the same sentence you question her judgement.

If you almost got into a car accident 3 times because someone almost crashed into you at the same road junction, where lack of visibility, lousy signage and road conditions make this likely, are you displaying a lack of judgement if you KEEP going through the same road junction without taking additional precautions?


You're not responsible for the rape, but Sanchez point that having learned from experience, said friend SHOULD have taken more precaution when going out drinking is certainly valid. You're arguing that a person shouldn't be raped when she's out having fun and guess what, Sanchez and I agree with you.

I don't think Sanchez was arguing about responsibility, but it certainly DOES betray a certain lack of judgement when one keeps going into situations where there is a demonstrable danger. Be angry at the state of the world where such danger exists, but being angry because one has to take actions against such danger?