1 in 6 female Australian students raped

[Wing Commander MAD]

[
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.

Bad analogy man, that sounds like you're going directly with the she dressed like slut spiel, though I am fairly certain that is not your intent. SVPD's analogy of the unlocked car is better, as it is an act of failing to protect yourself.

I think the point that is trying to be made is that while nothing that the victim does excuses the rapists actions, the victim can still have made wrong decisions. Placing yourself in harms way, which is what getting pass-out-drunk is, is itself a foolish action that while separate from the crime committed upon the victim, can lead to making it easier for said crime to be committed. Therefore the person can rightfully be criticized for failing to take measures to protect themselves. It in no way excuses or ameliorates what was done, but denying the victim made no bad decisions does not help them.

[SVPD]

Bad analogy man, that sounds like you're going directly with the she dressed like slut spiel, though I am fairly certain that is not your intent. SVPD's analogy of the unlocked car is better, as it is an act of failing to protect yourself.

His analogy really isn't any different. Flashing your cash is dumb, but it doesn't make it ok to rob you. It only sounds liek he's going with the "dressed like a slut" line; he's not, and hypersensitivity to the phrasing of analogies is part of the problem in addressing this issue.

I think the point that is trying to be made is that while nothing that the victim does excuses the rapists actions, the victim can still have made wrong decisions. Placing yourself in harms way, which is what getting pass-out-drunk is, is itself a foolish action that while separate from the crime committed upon the victim, can lead to making it easier for said crime to be committed. Therefore the person can rightfully be criticized for failing to take measures to protect themselves. It in no way excuses or ameliorates what was done, but denying the victim made no bad decisions does not help them.

Correct.

[Stofsk]

The bigger problem is not that a girl might get drunk, which is risky behaviour as it may allow a potential rapist to take advantage of her. It's that the potential rapist will see a heavily drunk girl and see that as an invitation.

The former behaviour by the victim can be seen as stupid if you consider the latter behaviour the inevitable result. It need not be, and why should it be? Everyone has the right to go to a party and have a good time and not feel worried that by doing so might result in sexual assault. It's the latter behaviour which society should strive to change more than the former.

[PainRack]

The bigger problem is not that a girl might get drunk, which is risky behaviour as it may allow a potential rapist to take advantage of her. It's that the potential rapist will see a heavily drunk girl and see that as an invitation.

The former behaviour by the victim can be seen as stupid if you consider the latter behaviour the inevitable result. It need not be, and why should it be? Everyone has the right to go to a party and have a good time and not feel worried that by doing so might result in sexual assault. It's the latter behaviour which society should strive to change more than the former.

The original criticism was triggered against Sanchez, because people viewed his view that a girl who got drunk and was almost raped three times was stupid/displayed lack of judgement to be equivalent to a blame the victim game.


I don't think anyone here disagrees that its the rapist who's at fault and is despicable, but attacking sanchez comments that a lack of judgement was present when a clear danger exists isn't right either.

[Stofsk]

Criticising the girl for lacking judgement is part of the problem though. Girls are often told 'this is what you should do to minimise the risk so that you don't become a victim of sexual assault'. The presumption there actually is that the girl has some responsibility towards what can happen. Other people have the same attitude, hence Armorpierce's analogy of flashing cash in a ghetto. It's stupid to flash cash but ultimately it's the mugger who decides to break the law. It's stupid to get drunk but ultimately it is the rapist who breaks the law and should get punished for it.

Sounds reasonable, except when (or if) it goes to trial and the victim gets put through hell when put on the stand. My whole point is that arguing about whether the girl was stupid or not is missing the forest from the trees. There's a bigger issue here and everyone is skating around it. The attitude that gives rise to that rapist's reasoning process whereby he spots a girl who is clearly too drunk to resist him and sees that as a greenlight - THAT is an issue that needs to be combated. And it won't be if we go 'yes it was the rapist at fault BUT the girl was stupid and should never have been drunk to begin with'.

Seriously, what relevance does her lack of judgement have? Not from a criminological point of view - she's still the victim, he's still the rapist. Only one of these broke the law. Yet we still look down on the girl for engaging in 'risky' behaviour. Meanwhile girls are told all the time to not do things which can increase the risk of sexual assault. Are guys told at any time what consent means? Are guys educated on these things? Because another element that is in this discussion is not just that 1 in 6 women are the victims of a sexual assault, it also means that a lot of guys are the perpetrators of that assault. And we're sitting here talking about how girls needs to do x, y, z to minimise the risk, when we should be talking about what we need to do to change society's attitudes where an ordinary guy can take that extra step and become a rapist - that is what the real problem is IMO.

[SVPD]

The bigger problem is not that a girl might get drunk, which is risky behaviour as it may allow a potential rapist to take advantage of her. It's that the potential rapist will see a heavily drunk girl and see that as an invitation.

The former behaviour by the victim can be seen as stupid if you consider the latter behaviour the inevitable result. It need not be, and why should it be? Everyone has the right to go to a party and have a good time and not feel worried that by doing so might result in sexual assault. It's the latter behaviour which society should strive to change more than the former.

That is true. By the same token, if you go to a party and hook up, you should ahve the right to expect it will not mysteriously become rape later on when your partner sobers up (assuming he or she was concious when you were going at it in the first place.)

[SVPD]

Criticising the girl for lacking judgement is part of the problem though. Girls are often told 'this is what you should do to minimise the risk so that you don't become a victim of sexual assault'. The presumption there actually is that the girl has some responsibility towards what can happen. Other people have the same attitude, hence Armorpierce's analogy of flashing cash in a ghetto. It's stupid to flash cash but ultimately it's the mugger who decides to break the law. It's stupid to get drunk but ultimately it is the rapist who breaks the law and should get punished for it.

No, criccticizing the victim for lacking judgement is not part of the problem. Not cricticizing the victim is what's part of the problem. There is no presumption that the girl (or guy) has responsibility for the rape.

Sounds reasonable, except when (or if) it goes to trial and the victim gets put through hell when put on the stand. My whole point is that arguing about whether the girl was stupid or not is missing the forest from the trees. There's a bigger issue here and everyone is skating around it. The attitude that gives rise to that rapist's reasoning process whereby he spots a girl who is clearly too drunk to resist him and sees that as a greenlight - THAT is an issue that needs to be combated. And it won't be if we go 'yes it was the rapist at fault BUT the girl was stupid and should never have been drunk to begin with'.

Except that the stupidity of the girl IS a large part of the issue. In no way does addressing that inhibit combatting the mentality of rapists. No one is skating around anything; the skating around is being done by the "Shh, don't talk about it!" crowd that wants to ignore the fact that the victim was acting like an idiot. That stupidity should be pointed out, not studiously ignored like an elephant in a living room. What the victim goes through on the stand is irrelevant; a person is on trial for a very serious crime and the victim should be closely questioned to determine if she is being truthful.

Seriously, what relevance does her lack of judgement have? Not from a criminological point of view - she's still the victim, he's still the rapist. Only one of these broke the law. Yet we still look down on the girl for engaging in 'risky' behaviour. Meanwhile girls are told all the time to not do things which can increase the risk of sexual assault. Are guys told at any time what consent means? Are guys educated on these things? Because another element that is in this discussion is not just that 1 in 6 women are the victims of a sexual assault, it also means that a lot of guys are the perpetrators of that assault. And we're sitting here talking about how girls needs to do x, y, z to minimise the risk, when we should be talking about what we need to do to change society's attitudes where an ordinary guy can take that extra step and become a rapist - that is what the real problem is IMO.

Yes, guys are educated all the time about these things - frequently in ways that imply men are necessarily sexual predators who can't control themselves, just as you're doing here. Girls are educated that way because any of them could be a vicitim of the few guys who are rapists, but all guys are treated as rapists whether they are or not in any sort of class I was ever subjected to. In fact, that is part of the problem - there is way too much focus on changing attitudes and a shotgun approach that assumes all men are rapists, and "rape myths" which aren't all as mythical as people like to think and on supposed societal attitudes that are a good 25-30 years out of date. It's not effective and it creates this attitude that going out and acting like an idiot shouldn't be cricticized if you become a rape victim. Would we say this about someone who went out partying drunk and was robbed? I think not.

Furthermore, of those one in six, quote a few are going to be women who consented and then changed their minds later. I've seen one of these cases go down just like this. Once the story started not adding up the victim was questioned a little more closely, and sure enough.. her best friend didn't approve of her sleeping with 4 guys in one night and viola! she made a rape complaint to not look like a slut.

We look down on rape victims who engaged in risky behavior for the same reason we point out the foolishness of anyone else who is a victim because they did not take basic precautions- to educate the victim and others. As I pointed out, it is not to revel in their misery.

Finally, there needs to be a lot less assumption that perpetrators are male and victims female. Yes, this is the most common event, but same-sex rape can and does happen, with both sexes, and female-on-male rape does happen.

[Phantasee]

What about the fact that a lot of rape/sexual assault isn't random guy on random girl, but is family members and close acquaintances doing it?

[Stofsk]

Criticising the girl for lacking judgement is part of the problem though. Girls are often told 'this is what you should do to minimise the risk so that you don't become a victim of sexual assault'. The presumption there actually is that the girl has some responsibility towards what can happen. Other people have the same attitude, hence Armorpierce's analogy of flashing cash in a ghetto. It's stupid to flash cash but ultimately it's the mugger who decides to break the law. It's stupid to get drunk but ultimately it is the rapist who breaks the law and should get punished for it.

No, criccticizing the victim for lacking judgement is not part of the problem. Not cricticizing the victim is what's part of the problem. There is no presumption that the girl (or guy) has responsibility for the rape.

Look if someone is told 'do x, y, z as prevention for this' that says that you are at least partially responsible for what happens to you based on your conduct and that if you act stupidly then this leads to predictable results. This presumes some level of responsibility on the part of a potential victim. I don't think this is a very difficult concept to grasp.

There seems to be some miscommunication going on here. The point of receiving those tips is so that girls can have some power in preventing them from becoming victims of a sexual assault. That's great. What I'm saying is, that's only one aspect of this issue. The attitude of a guy who decides to go become a rapist because an opportunity presents itself is another aspect of this issue. It can apply to other crimes, not just sexual assault. If someone flashes cash around then gets mugged. The flashing the cash around doesn't mean that the victim deserved to be mugged, but there is an attitude here that well, maybe he shouldn't have been flashing cash around. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have been mugged. At least that's what it sounds like to me, but I don't buy it. Someone can get mugged without being extravagant with regards to what they have in their wallet. Similarly someone can become a victim of sexual assault without engaging in risky behaviour like getting drunk at a party.

Sounds reasonable, except when (or if) it goes to trial and the victim gets put through hell when put on the stand. My whole point is that arguing about whether the girl was stupid or not is missing the forest from the trees. There's a bigger issue here and everyone is skating around it. The attitude that gives rise to that rapist's reasoning process whereby he spots a girl who is clearly too drunk to resist him and sees that as a greenlight - THAT is an issue that needs to be combated. And it won't be if we go 'yes it was the rapist at fault BUT the girl was stupid and should never have been drunk to begin with'.

Except that the stupidity of the girl IS a large part of the issue. In no way does addressing that inhibit combatting the mentality of rapists. No one is skating around anything; the skating around is being done by the "Shh, don't talk about it!" crowd that wants to ignore the fact that the victim was acting like an idiot. That stupidity should be pointed out, not studiously ignored like an elephant in a living room. What the victim goes through on the stand is irrelevant; a person is on trial for a very serious crime and the victim should be closely questioned to determine if she is being truthful.

I'm not even sure what you're saying here. You say that the stupidity of the girl is a large part of the issue, then you fail to explain why. You say that her being stupid in no way inhibits combating the mentality of the offenders, when I and others in this thread, you as well, have pointed out that ultimately the rapist is the one responsible; if he's the one responsible, then what difference does her stupidity make? As for what the victim goes through on the stand, I would say that it is very relevant and a large part of the reason why a lot of women choose to be silent over coming forward and making a complaint.

Yes, guys are educated all the time about these things - frequently in ways that imply men are necessarily sexual predators who can't control themselves, just as you're doing here.

I am not, and I would thank you to not strawman my argument. In the same way I don't think a victim should be criticised for whatever behaviour she engaged in before becoming a victim, I also don't think men should be tarred with the one brush. Nevertheless, the OP is about a survey which states 1 in 6 women are the victims of a sexual assault. That's a staggeringly large number of people, including their victimisers who aren't all going to be the same person.

Girls are educated that way because any of them could be a vicitim of the few guys who are rapists, but all guys are treated as rapists whether they are or not in any sort of class I was ever subjected to. In fact, that is part of the problem - there is way too much focus on changing attitudes and a shotgun approach that assumes all men are rapists, and "rape myths" which aren't all as mythical as people like to think and on supposed societal attitudes that are a good 25-30 years out of date. It's not effective and it creates this attitude that going out and acting like an idiot shouldn't be cricticized if you become a rape victim. Would we say this about someone who went out partying drunk and was robbed? I think not.

Really? Because I sure as hell wouldn't criticise the victim of a mugging just because earlier he was flashing cash, or was partying and got drunk and was later robbed. Like I said before, everyone has the right to go to a party and have fun without worrying about becoming the victim of a crime.

I mean wow. I'm sorry that the education you received seems to imply all men are sexual predators-in-waiting, because that has certainly not been my experience. In my experience, nobody is fucking taught anything. I had to learn what consent means by my own initiative, and from what I've observed there is a general cluelessness in what it means from a lot of guys. I don't recall anything in sex ed classes during high school that went into what were appropriate attitudes for guys to have, what things they should and should not do etc. But then my experiences are anecdotal, as are yours.

Furthermore, of those one in six, quote a few are going to be women who consented and then changed their minds later. I've seen one of these cases go down just like this. Once the story started not adding up the victim was questioned a little more closely, and sure enough.. her best friend didn't approve of her sleeping with 4 guys in one night and viola! she made a rape complaint to not look like a slut.

I don't see how that single case you were involved in (or knew about) bears any relation to the statistics we're talking about, unless your argument is that the survey in the OP included cases of false allegations. Admittedly the article in the OP was vague, but I don't find your position reasonable as only 3% of cases were even reported to the university and only 2% of cases were reported to the police. I don't see how you can imply or even outright state 'quite a few' of those cases are going to be of the character you describe. To me the survey is reporting on women's experiences and an overwhelming reluctance to make a complaint. It seems to me that the number of true victims is pretty high, but a false accusation wouldn't really enter into this if only a tiny amount of cases get reported anyway. Indeed, I would suggest that the whole question of 'is she telling the truth, did she engage in behaviour that could be construed as inviting an assault, will she be believed' are all part of the reasons why there is a tiny percentage of reports being made.

We look down on rape victims who engaged in risky behavior for the same reason we point out the foolishness of anyone else who is a victim because they did not take basic precautions- to educate the victim and others. As I pointed out, it is not to revel in their misery.

Educating them is fine, but it is not the only issue here to be frank.

Finally, there needs to be a lot less assumption that perpetrators are male and victims female. Yes, this is the most common event, but same-sex rape can and does happen, with both sexes, and female-on-male rape does happen.

Certainly. That does need to be talked about as well.

[Big Phil]

You see in this thread several of the major problems with the topic that prevent healthy and important discussion. I pointed out a situation where someone didn't learn from their behavior, and the same bad thing happened to her twice more, and rather than a logical, well thought out discussion, that post elicited several people screaming about how I was "blaming the victim." Like many other issues, it's a lot easier to simply shout down people who say vaguely controversial things than to actually have a conversation. That being said, I'm going to try to continue the discussion.

I don't know the exact statistics, but I don't think most rape scenarios are like The Accused, where a woman "acting slutty" gets raped by random dudes. I suspect most rape scenarios are date rapes or being raped/molested by a family member. Assuming that that assumption is correct, things like Slutwalk and people losing their minds whenever the topic comes up and someone doesn't adhere to the party line that "you're never allowed to say that a victim might have been able to take steps to prevent his/her rape" might not be all that helpful. If most rapes are committed by family members or friends/acquaintances, then what we really out to be doing is addressing those scenarios.

The issue of false accusations of rape is also a worthwhile conversation, but if we're not allowed to actually discuss the issue without people screaming stupid shit like "you're blaming the victim!" then we're never going to get anywhere.

[Big Phil]

Look if someone is told 'do x, y, z as prevention for this' that says that you are at least partially responsible for what happens to you based on your conduct and that if you act stupidly then this leads to predictable results. This presumes some level of responsibility on the part of a potential victim. I don't think this is a very difficult concept to grasp.

No, it doesn't presume some level of responsibility.

To use an analogy, there are increasing levels of security that I can select to protect my home from burglary. I can use deadbolts, I can put bars on windows, I can get a security system, I can have a guard dog, etc. Even if I walk out of my house and leave the door flagged open, that doesn't mean that I'm responsible for someone robbing my house. I could have made it more difficult for them (by locking the door, setting an alarm, having a mastiff guarding the house, etc.), but regardless I'm not responsible; the burglar is responsible.

The same is true of rape victims - remember the woman who was raped by Mike Tyson? It's not unreasonable to say that if she hadn't gone up to his hotel room, she probably wouldn't have been raped. That she elected to go up, and that he then raped her, doesn't make it her fault. Clearly it wasn't the best decision (in hindsight), but her decision to go up there doesn't excuse Tyson for raping her, or make her responsible.

Capiche?

[Simon_Jester]

Look if someone is told 'do x, y, z as prevention for this' that says that you are at least partially responsible for what happens to you based on your conduct and that if you act stupidly then this leads to predictable results. This presumes some level of responsibility on the part of a potential victim. I don't think this is a very difficult concept to grasp.

There seems to be some miscommunication going on here. The point of receiving those tips is so that girls can have some power in preventing them from becoming victims of a sexual assault. That's great. What I'm saying is, that's only one aspect of this issue. The attitude of a guy who decides to go become a rapist because an opportunity presents itself is another aspect of this issue. It can apply to other crimes, not just sexual assault. If someone flashes cash around then gets mugged. The flashing the cash around doesn't mean that the victim deserved to be mugged, but there is an attitude here that well, maybe he shouldn't have been flashing cash around. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have been mugged. At least that's what it sounds like to me, but I don't buy it. Someone can get mugged without being extravagant with regards to what they have in their wallet. Similarly someone can become a victim of sexual assault without engaging in risky behaviour like getting drunk at a party.

Hmm.

I'm seeing an endless back and forth here: "But X is important!" "But Y is important!" "But X is important!" "But Y is important!" And it's easy for either side to read into the argument "He's saying X is important, so he must think Y isn't important!"

Looking at positions that have been expressed here, I see:

1) There is something very bad which must end about the idea that rape victims should be treated as having brought on their own suffering, or assumed to have brought it on unless they can prove otherwise.
2) There are behaviors which greatly increase the risk of being raped, and it is a bad idea to do those things.

Now, it seems to me that those positions are not mutually exclusive- they can both be true, and that any intelligent effort to deal with the crime of rape has to at least know that all these things are true.

So, what do we conclude bearing in mind that these things are true? That on the one hand, it's sick to pin some kind of accusation on the victim of a crime and tell her that it is somehow her fault that she's been violated and degraded unless she can prove otherwise... but at the same time, yes there are still things which a wise woman will avoid doing, in order to reduce the risk of being raped.

That's not a statement of blame, or doesn't have to be. I mean, a swimmer shouldn't jump into shark-infested waters with ten kilos of raw steak tied to their body; whether or not we blame anyone for anything, that is just flat out a bad idea.

Meanwhile, the whole issue also needs to be tackled from the other end of the scale: the percentage of men who commit rape is low, there is something unusual going on there, and how do you make that thing stop happening? Plainly, step one is "no means no" social conditioning, getting rid of the myth that men have a right to decide for themselves whether a given woman wants to have sex or not.

What's step two? Three? Four?

[Crown]

Oh for fucks sake, I think we can all agree that getting so drunk that you literally pass the fuck out in public, and doing so on numerous occasions makes you a fucking retard. Whether you get raped or not, it's moronic behavior.

And then you add to the fact that you get sexually assaulted on each instance you do this, then it makes you a fucking retarded moronic victim. Yes, still a victim, with all that entails, but a fucking retarded moronic one. It doesn't mean that she doesn't deserve all the measures of support, help and legal aid that can be afforded to her. All it means is that rape happens to retarded morons as well to others.

[Big Phil]

Oh for fucks sake, I think we can all agree that getting so drunk that you literally pass the fuck out in public, and doing so on numerous occasions makes you a fucking retard. Whether you get raped or not, it's moronic behavior.

And then you add to the fact that you get sexually assaulted on each instance you do this, then it makes you a fucking retarded moronic victim. Yes, still a victim, with all that entails, but a fucking retarded moronic one. It doesn't mean that she doesn't deserve all the measures of support, help and legal aid that can be afforded to her. All it means is that rape happens to retarded morons as well to others.

FUCK YOU!!! YOU'RE BLAMING THE VICTIM!!! YOU MUST SUPPORT THE HOLOCAUST AS WELL!!!

[SVPD]

Look if someone is told 'do x, y, z as prevention for this' that says that you are at least partially responsible for what happens to you based on your conduct and that if you act stupidly then this leads to predictable results. This presumes some level of responsibility on the part of a potential victim. I don't think this is a very difficult concept to grasp.

Responsibility for the event, yes. For the crime, no. That's the point. The victim is still not being blamed for the crime even though the sequence of events is partially due to their actions.

That is not a difficult concept to grasp. The victim is, indeed, responsible for their own actions, and trying to deny this is essentially saying we should simply ignore the facts because they're not nice. It serves no purpose at all, except to encourage this conflating of responsibility for actions and responsibility for the actual rape that leads to this nonsense in the first palce..

There seems to be some miscommunication going on here. The point of receiving those tips is so that girls can have some power in preventing them from becoming victims of a sexual assault. That's great. What I'm saying is, that's only one aspect of this issue. The attitude of a guy who decides to go become a rapist because an opportunity presents itself is another aspect of this issue. It can apply to other crimes, not just sexual assault. If someone flashes cash around then gets mugged. The flashing the cash around doesn't mean that the victim deserved to be mugged, but there is an attitude here that well, maybe he shouldn't have been flashing cash around. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have been mugged. At least that's what it sounds like to me, but I don't buy it. Someone can get mugged without being extravagant with regards to what they have in their wallet. Similarly someone can become a victim of sexual assault without engaging in risky behaviour like getting drunk at a party.

No one is disputing that it is only one aspect of the issue. What's being pointed out is that it is a legitimate aspect of the issue, and that bringing it up is not "blaming the victim".

Criminals exist. This is just a fact of life. Pointing out that someone has foolishly engaged in behavior that increased their vulnerability to them is not blaming the victim for the actions of the criminal. If it looks like that to you, you need to re-examine your basic thought process, because it does not imply in any way that because any crime victim, rape or otherwise, behaved foolishly, that the actions of the criminal are in any way excused.

The blame for the rape falls 100% on the rapist, regardless. The victim doesn't get any blame because "blame" is not an appropriate term for simply being foolish. What the victim receives is simply admonishment.

As for "one can become a victim even without getting drunk at a party" yes. One can also be robbed without flashing cash. This does not, in any way, mean that telling people to stop getting drunk at parties or stop flashing cash is inappropriate.

I'm not even sure what you're saying here. You say that the stupidity of the girl is a large part of the issue, then you fail to explain why. You say that her being stupid in no way inhibits combating the mentality of the offenders, when I and others in this thread, you as well, have pointed out that ultimately the rapist is the one responsible; if he's the one responsible, then what difference does her stupidity make? As for what the victim goes through on the stand, I would say that it is very relevant and a large part of the reason why a lot of women choose to be silent over coming forward and making a complaint.

I should no have to explain why the stupidity of a crime victim is a large part of the issue of becoming a victim of crime. It is possible to vastly reduce the chances of becoming a victim by not being stupid.

Again, you are conflating responsibility for the rape with responsibility for making yourself a target. We don't "blame" the victim, because it is not a crime or a moral wrong to make yourself a target but it does contribute to the overall situation. The rape itself is the culmination of the events, and from the point it occurs, the rapist bears 100% of the blame.

Let me put it another way. Let's pretend no rape occurs. Is it still bad to point out to the foolish potential victim that s/he could have been raped? No, of course not. There is no victim, therefore there is no way they are being blamed. Just because that person becomes a victim if the rape does occur does not mean they are now somehow being blamed when their foolishness is illustrated.

I am not, and I would thank you to not strawman my argument. In the same way I don't think a victim should be criticised for whatever behaviour she engaged in before becoming a victim, I also don't think men should be tarred with the one brush. Nevertheless, the OP is about a survey which states 1 in 6 women are the victims of a sexual assault. That's a staggeringly large number of people, including their victimisers who aren't all going to be the same person.

Your suggestion that "guys" need to be educated strongly implies that you are tarring them with one brush. I apologize for appearing to strawman, but that's how it looked.

As for the numbers, I regard any such numebrs with extreme suspicion. I have yet to see a rape study not conducted by someone who takes all rape claims as credible, and at least one person here has pointed out the dishonesty of the agency conducting this study. I'm not familiar with the agency, but there is certainly room for doubt.

Really? Because I sure as hell wouldn't criticise the victim of a mugging just because earlier he was flashing cash, or was partying and got drunk and was later robbed. Like I said before, everyone has the right to go to a party and have fun without worrying about becoming the victim of a crime.

Obviously they do. However, I sure as hell would cricticize them because criminals, by definition, do not respect the rights of others. Sure he should have a right to flash cash as a party but if everyone respected everyone else's rights we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

I mean wow. I'm sorry that the education you received seems to imply all men are sexual predators-in-waiting, because that has certainly not been my experience. In my experience, nobody is fucking taught anything. I had to learn what consent means by my own initiative, and from what I've observed there is a general cluelessness in what it means from a lot of guys. I don't recall anything in sex ed classes during high school that went into what were appropriate attitudes for guys to have, what things they should and should not do etc. But then my experiences are anecdotal, as are yours.

I can't speak to your education since IIRC you're Australian whereas I lived in Philadelphia for the years when I heard the most about this. However, I can say that the education I received was a ham-handed shotgun blast that implied females never want sex and any male who so much as attempts to hold hands with a female without her explicit invitation is a potential rapist. The message was exceedingly unhealthy for both males (who were simply denigrated as knuckle-dragging thoughtless cretins, and that any expression of attraction whatsoever towards a female was dangerous harrassment) and females (who were basically taught that female sexuality was ok as long as it was someone else's, and that they were expected to reject any overture from a male as a probable threat). I could go on about this in more detail but it would become a rant. Suffice to say, rape education, both as a teen and in law enforcement has turned out to be far more about promoting certain people's political ideas than the realities of the situation.

I don't see how that single case you were involved in (or knew about) bears any relation to the statistics we're talking about, unless your argument is that the survey in the OP included cases of false allegations. Admittedly the article in the OP was vague, but I don't find your position reasonable as only 3% of cases were even reported to the university and only 2% of cases were reported to the police. I don't see how you can imply or even outright state 'quite a few' of those cases are going to be of the character you describe. To me the survey is reporting on women's experiences and an overwhelming reluctance to make a complaint. It seems to me that the number of true victims is pretty high, but a false accusation wouldn't really enter into this if only a tiny amount of cases get reported anyway. Indeed, I would suggest that the whole question of 'is she telling the truth, did she engage in behaviour that could be construed as inviting an assault, will she be believed' are all part of the reasons why there is a tiny percentage of reports being made.

I'd really like to know how they know what percent of cases were reported. I'd also say that, in my experience, false allegations are almost certainly in there as well as those where no determination was ever made. In fact, without an explanation of how they removed such allegations, it's wise to assume they're there in spades.

I'd also point out that, again, it's a good thing that rape complaints are not automatically believed. They are a very serious allegation and should be investigated thoroughly, not simply accepted at face value. If this is contributing to a reluctance to report, then rape education for females (hell, for everyone, since once again, male-on-female rape is far from the exclusive occurance) needs to emphasize that just because your complaint is not treated as automatic truth is not a claim you are lying, and that making a claim of rape is a very serious charge and deserves the same treatment as any other serious crime.

I'm sorry if this is hard on victims, but I am not in favor of treating rape as a special case that ends up watering down the rights of the accused.

Educating them is fine, but it is not the only issue here to be frank.

No one has said that it is. However, it is a legitimate part of the issue, a significant part, and should not be ignored in order to avoid appearing to "blame the victim".

Certainly. That does need to be talked about as well.

At length. The supposed "stigma" of being a rape victim is pretty insignificant to what's likely to happen if you are a male and atempt to report rape by a female. As for same-sex rape, there's the spectre of homophobia on top of whatever else the victim must deal with.

[Losonti Tokash]

The supposed "stigma" of being a rape victim is pretty insignificant to what's likely to happen if you are a male and atempt to report rape by a female.

What the fuck?

[hongi]

At length. The supposed "stigma" of being a rape victim is pretty insignificant to what's likely to happen if you are a male and atempt to report rape by a female. As for same-sex rape, there's the spectre of homophobia on top of whatever else the victim must deal with.

There's something about the attitude of this post, aside from what Losonti Tokash just pointed out, that puts me off. It's like you're using male rape as a weapon to beat women over the heads with. "Boohoo, men get the worse deal! Men are oppressed". That's what I'm hearing.

[Big Phil]

At length. The supposed "stigma" of being a rape victim is pretty insignificant to what's likely to happen if you are a male and atempt to report rape by a female. As for same-sex rape, there's the spectre of homophobia on top of whatever else the victim must deal with.

There's something about the attitude of this post, aside from what Losonti Tokash just pointed out, that puts me off. It's like you're using male rape as a weapon to beat women over the heads with. "Boohoo, men get the worse deal! Men are oppressed". That's what I'm hearing.

You're making the same mistake Wee man and Serafina did earlier - you're leaping to a conclusion because you don't like the tone. SVPD did not say "men get the worse deal! Men are oppressed." Those are your words, and you're putting them in someone else's mouth.

[Duckie]

Sanchez, answer me one question. Do you disavow the following words:

"The supposed "stigma" of being a rape victim"

[Todeswind]

Are we seriously digressing to the point where we're trying to compare who has a worse deal when they get raped? Seriously? All of you who are getting huffy about men or women having it worse after they get raped need to seriously look at what you're saying. Rape is a terrible act that lives, do we really need to get into a pissing match over which sex feels worse after they've been violated? Come back when you're ready to discuss this like adults.

Even if one side has it worse how does that affect a damn thing? Even if 1 in six (or whatever) women and 1 in six (or whatever) men are both getting raped that is still 1 in 6 too many people. I don't think that anyone is on here going "rape, rape, rah, rah, rah, sis-bomb-bah."

We need to help foster an environment wherein there is less opportunity and less probability for rape to occur. We need do what we can to de-stigmatize the victims. We need to create a framework to assist people in avoiding false accusations of rape. We all seem to agree on at least these three things, so the question then follows what can be done to improve the situation?

[weemadando]

As many people have mentioned, one of the big problems in Australia is that rape is not seen as rape in many cases.

Because those who are doing the raping are often in higher social positions (not necessarily class, but things like sportsmen) it's automatically assumed that the girl was just some groupie who's regretful.

I understand that SVPD and Sanchez will hop on me here for thinking that this is some continuation of "blaming the victim", but expose yourself to the Australian media for a while - and especially go back a few years to when the biggest sports organisation in the country had to release an educational DVD for their players addressing such issues as: "Is it OK to have sex with a passed out woman?" and "Should you have sex with your mate's wife?" and you can begin to see that there are massive cultural problems on the male side of the coin here.

Destigmatisation isn't the real issue. Stigmatisation of the assault/assaulter is.

[Duckie]

I don't think 'stigmatisation' means what you think it means

[JointStrikeFighter]

As many people have mentioned, one of the big problems in Australia is that rape is not seen as rape in many cases.

Because those who are doing the raping are often in higher social positions (not necessarily class, but things like sportsmen) it's automatically assumed that the girl was just some groupie who's regretful.

I understand that SVPD and Sanchez will hop on me here for thinking that this is some continuation of "blaming the victim", but expose yourself to the Australian media for a while - and especially go back a few years to when the biggest sports organisation in the country had to release an educational DVD for their players addressing such issues as: "Is it OK to have sex with a passed out woman?" and "Should you have sex with your mate's wife?" and you can begin to see that there are massive cultural problems on the male side of the coin here.

Destigmatisation isn't the real issue. Stigmatisation of the assault/assaulter is.

At least the NRL has been more or less destroyed as a business and as a respectable sporting organisation following the string of constant, successive sex scandals.

[weemadando]

I don't think 'stigmatisation' means what you think it means

Eh. Words aren't with me today.

But you understand my intent I hope.

[weemadando]

At least the NRL has been more or less destroyed as a business and as a respectable sporting organisation following the string of constant, successive sex scandals.

Maybe the AFL can do a v2 of their DVD with new questions like:

"Should I pass around a minor who I picked up at a school publicity event and who claims that I've impregnated her to my team-mates/manager and supply her with cocaine?"

"Should I continue to do the above after she's already gone to the media?"

How does anyone in the AFL have a job anymore?

Honestly, the NRL took a salary cap breach more seriously than any of the codes have taken massive sexual misconduct.