N.Irl rape survey - on news today

all the stars

Findings of North rape survey 'extremely disturbing'

Almost half of Northern Ireland students believe women who flirt have themselves to blame if they end up getting raped, a survey published today found.
Rape victims who flirted with their attacker are partially or totally responsible for what happened to them, according to 46 per cent of the young people interviewed for the Amnesty International research.
Nearly a third (30 per cent) of those polled said women who wear revealing clothing are also effectively inviting rapists to target them.
The statistics are significantly higher than the findings of a United Kingdom-wide poll of adults in 2005 which found 34 per cent of people felt women who flirt were to blame with 26 per cent of those asked claiming sexy clothes were a factor.
Amnesty said this was evidence of a worrying female "blame culture" in the region.
The study also found that domestic violence against female students is apparently widespread in Northern Ireland, with 40 per cent of students saying they know one who had been assaulted by her boyfriend or partner.
One in 10 local students considers violence acceptable against a girlfriend who nags, flirts with other men or refuses to have sex.
Amnesty International Northern Ireland programme director Patrick Corrigan said: “This survey shows that there are some extremely disturbing attitudes swirling around our campuses.
“It’s shocking that so many students lay the blame for being raped or assaulted at the feet of women themselves. If we are going to break a cycle of violence against women in Northern Ireland, we need to start by challenging attitudes amongst students and the population at large."
The poll - Violence against women: the perspective of students in Northern Ireland - surveyed the attitudes and experiences of over 700 students across University of Ulster campuses.






em....
"One in 10 local students considers violence acceptable against a girlfriend who nags, flirts with other men or refuses to have sex." :eek:


Time to start staying home ladies... seems even looking around you is now dangerous!

I for one would like to invite YORE MA (pl) for tea and bickies while we discuss this...

4zn76tysfajdxp

all the stars wrote: »

Almost half of Northern Ireland students believe women who flirt have themselves to blame if they end up getting raped, a survey published today found.

Idiots. Another reason never to go up there.

BTW, in yore ma's case, it's not rape.

Pighead

Pigheads always getting touched up by ladies.

Back in the 90's when Pighead was a regular bingo attendee, this old lady would pinch his arse each and every week without fail whenever he stood up to shout BINGO! After several months of this arse abuse something inside finally snapped. Just as the old perv was about to initiate the pinching in the arsial region, Pighead grabbed her wrinkly hand and shouted out to the packed bingo hall.

"Has anyone lost a hand? Have just found this one on my bum. Does it belong to anyone?"

Her weathered wrinkled face turned a reddish purple and then the old boiler shuffled off out the door never to be seen again. Pighead 1 Granny Pervypants 0.

Tawny

Crystal Scary Point wrote: »

Idiots. Another reason never to go up there.

Is this going to turn out to be another slag off Northerners session?

4zn76tysfajdxp

Pighead wrote: »

Pigheads always getting touched up by ladies.

*Derisive snort*

MIN2511

Saw that this morning, i don't agree with it.

It's interesting that it says that women who flirt with men are to blame for being raped...

How does flirting = rape????

Bendihorse

I cant say i agree with it on that level, women should be allowed to flirt within reason, and wear revealing clothes without a male presuming shes 'his' or game for sex. It is NEVER ok for a man to rape a woman under any circumstances - However, I do think that every woman has a responsibility for looking after themselves and using good judgement. They should not be absolved of responsibility as if they were a child and didn't know any better.

I find it hard to feel sorry for a woman who got herself into a bad situation out of bad judgment and lack of responsibility for her personal safety. Girls take drink induced chances and get into trouble.

Just to reiterate, rape is wrong no matter what the circumstances. My issue is with the females that allow themselves to be put in a situation where they could easily be raped or attacked. (i realise this is not every case, sometimes women are preyed upon and attacked etc, im referring to the girls that get plastered drunk and walk home alone, get into bed with a stranger etc) they are inviting the possibility of getting raped to their doorstep.

Blowfish

It depends completely on how the questions were worded and how they came to the conclusion.

If for example the question was "Do you think women who wear provocative clothing are more at risk of sexual assault/rape than those who don't", the resulting percentages don't suprise me. Given the tabloid nature of the article, it wouldn't suprise me if they were just jumping to conclusions from there.

Pighead

Crystal Scary Point wrote: »

*Derisive snort*

*Divisive retort*
What are ya snorting at ya spanner?

all the stars

Bendihorse wrote: »

I cant say i agree with it on that level, women should be allowed to flirt within reason, and wear revealing clothes without a male presuming shes 'his' or game for sex. It is NEVER ok for a man to rape a woman under any circumstances - However, I do think that every woman has a responsibility for looking after themselves and using good judgement. They should not be absolved of responsibility as if they were a child and didn't know any better.

I find it hard to feel sorry for a woman who got herself into a bad situation out of bad judgment and lack of responsibility for her personal safety. Girls take drink induced chances and get into trouble.

Just to reiterate, rape is wrong no matter what the circumstances. My issue is with the females that allow themselves to be put in a situation where they could easily be raped or attacked. (i realise this is not every case, sometimes women are preyed upon and attacked etc, im referring to the girls that get plastered drunk and walk home alone, get into bed with a stranger etc) they are inviting the possibility of getting raped to their doorstep.

i get what your sdaying, not to be taking silly chances and i agree as i generally dont walk alone down dark alleys just incase some menteller is there and might murder me or something....

But the whole thing of dressing revealing - thats very subject to question... thats kinda a cultural thing also (?) like in the arabic countries where you only see a woman eyes under that big gown, if those men who are only used to that were to move over here, every woman would possibly be considered flirting and inappropriatly dressed (?) therefore, ....

Also, whats considered flirting... see that is also interpritive...

4zn76tysfajdxp

Pighead wrote:

What are ya snorting at ya spanner?

Oh, this...

Pighead wrote: »

Pigheads always getting touched up by ladies.

Pighead

Crystal Scary Point wrote: »

Oh, this...

But it's true. Why wouldn't it be? Sure didn't you only last week leave a message for Pighead telling him that he was "looking lovely".

brianthebard

Blowfish wrote: »

It depends completely on how the questions were worded and how they came to the conclusion.

If for example the question was "Do you think women who wear provocative clothing are more at risk of sexual assault/rape than those who don't", the resulting percentages don't suprise me. Given the tabloid nature of the article, it wouldn't suprise me if they were just jumping to conclusions from there.

Amnesty international are a tabloid now?

Blowfish

brianthebard wrote: »

Amnesty international are a tabloid now?

Sometimes, I do wonder.

Delirium

I'd be amazed if any of the people who said the woman is to blame, would actually dare say that to the face of a rape victim. How can it be the womans fault that some guy decided to rape her? Surely its the guys fault!

I mean you don't blame house owners for being robbed. 'Well sir, you should have considered the chances of being robbed before you bought the house.':eek:

4zn76tysfajdxp

Pighead wrote: »

But it's true. Why wouldn't it be? Sure didn't you only last week leave a message for Pighead telling him that he was "looking lovely".

I did because you were. *blush*

However, at the risk of sounding overtly pendantic, I didn't touch you up nor am I a lady. My main target for derision, however, was the use of the word "always." The example you produced took place in the 1990s, which means it would've taken place at least nine years ago. That hardly warrants the use of the word "always" which implies it (in this case it being you touched up by the ladies) still happens on a regular basis.

Bendihorse

Its not about 'revealing' clothes as such, i have a friend who wears tiny short skirts but always manages to look classy not trashy... Partly because she doesn't cross the tarty looking line, but also because she doesn't drink herself to oblivion at which point small clothes usually start creeping up and down and all over the place!

Girls that look 'trashy' and 'easy' get that image by more than just the clothes they put on. They flirt and wind lads up cos they like the attention, so in effect they are again putting themselves up for or leaving themselves open to rape.

However, this still doesn't excuse rape in this case, men should still be able to exercise self restraint and should be held accountable for their actions.

Bendihorse

koth wrote: »

I'd be amazed if any of the people who said the woman is to blame, would actually dare say that to the face of a rape victim. How can it be the womans fault that some guy decided to rape her? Surely its the guys fault!

I mean you don't blame house owners for being robbed. 'Well sir, you should have considered the chances of being robbed before you bought the house.':eek:

No, but if that person had walked out and left their door open, you wouldn't blame the individual for being robbed, but you would say they weren't responsible enough to lock their door and try to prevent putting themselves in that situation in the first place. In effect, they left themselves open to being robbed. Made themselves an easy target in other words.

It does not make OK and the thief should still be punishable to the full extent of the law... But the person that left their door open is still slightly at fault for bringing about their own demise.

Pighead

Crystal Scary Point wrote: »

I did because you were. *blush*

However, at the risk of sounding overtly pendantic, I didn't touch you up nor am I a lady. My main target for derision, however, was the use of the word "always." The example you produced took place in the 1990s, which means it would've taken place at least nine years ago. That hardly warrants the use of the word "always" which implies it (in this case it being you touched up by the ladies) still happens on a regular basis.

Listen Crystal Scary Point, Pighead just picked that example at random. Could just have easily picked the arse pinch in Lahinch back in 02, the touched groin in Dunboyne in 06 or the slapped bum in Dundrum in 07. Point is, it's always happening.

Anyway back on topic, surveys are pants.

Delirium

Bendihorse wrote: »

No, but if that person had walked out and left their door open, you wouldn't blame the individual for being robbed, but you would say they weren't responsible enough to lock their door and try to prevent putting themselves in that situation in the first place. In effect, they left themselves open to being robbed. Made themselves an easy target in other words.

It does not make OK and the thief should still be punishable to the full extent of the law... But the person that left their door open is still slightly at fault for bringing about their own demise.

Take you point, but you could say the thief had already chosen the house to rob, and felt really lucky the door was unlocked. Doesn't mean that the thief would have been put off if the door was locked.

all the stars

Bendihorse wrote: »

No, but if that person had walked out and left their door open, you wouldn't blame the individual for being robbed, but you would say they weren't responsible enough to lock their door and try to prevent putting themselves in that situation in the first place. In effect, they left themselves open to being robbed. Made themselves an easy target in other words.

It does not make OK and the thief should still be punishable to the full extent of the law... But the person that left their door open is still slightly at fault for bringing about their own demise.

god i dunno... was only recently people started leaving their doors closed and locked round my way... til then you could actually just walk in, door was left open.

Also, i think its maybe a mans way of shirking responsibility "well, if she didn't look so hot i wouldn't have..."
I mean, once again, its all interpritive. no does mean no... and it really does.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Pighead wrote: »

Listen Frada, Pighead just picked that example at random. Could just have easily picked the arse pinch in Lahinch back in 02, the touched groin in Dunboyne in 06 or the slapped bum in Dundrum in 07. Point is, it's always happening.

It clearly isn't, four fondlings throughout your lifetime doesn't mean it's "always" happening. It just means that it's been known to happen or that there's a history of it happening. That is all.

Leeby

I was reading this this morning, am I the only one that thought that some people had to be just taking the piss when filling in the survey? I'm referring mainly to the part where it says one in ten think it's okay to use violence against a partner if they nag, flirt with other men, or refuse to have sex. One in ten seems VERY high.

The only way I can explain it would be a group of people sitting round, filling in this thing and reading that and making a joke of it with their mates/girlfriends. I know it's not funny but I could imagine most lads I know thinking it's hilarious, and ticking yes and sayin something stupid to their girlfriends like "see now If you don't put out tonight I'll batter ya!"

robinph

koth wrote: »

I'd be amazed if any of the people who said the woman is to blame, would actually dare say that to the face of a rape victim. How can it be the womans fault that some guy decided to rape her? Surely its the guys fault!

I'd be amazed if any of the questions that were asked in the survey actually mentioned rape and flirty behaviour or clothing in the same question.

Will have been a couple of questions about tarty looking women getting more noticed in pubs/ clubs, then some completely unrelated ones about house prices or something, and then something like do you think rape is bad or do you like jaffa cakes. They then get all the results back and jumble them up a bit into a way that makes a controversial set of results that they can sell off to some guillible "news" sources.

jackdaw

Crystal Scary Point wrote: »

Idiots. Another reason never to go up there.

BTW, in yore ma's case, it's not rape.

yeah ****ing nordies and scots .. can't stand em ....*

now i await my ban ...




*not to be taken seriously .. sure Billy Connolly, Sean Connery and eh eh ..... Gerry Adams are 3 of my favourite people ..

jesus_thats_gre

I am genuinely shocked by this report.

John Mason

we are all disgusted at what the nordies are saying but if the exact same survery was done in the free state, do you really think the results would be any different?

i dont

Bendihorse

Rape is wrong no matter what the circumstances, im just saying that wimmen should take more care and responsibility for their personal safety. In a lot of cases, rape could have been preventable if the girl was watching out for herself.

Zzippy

irishbird wrote: »

we are all disgusted at what the nordies are saying but if the exact same survery was done in the free state, do you really think the results would be any different?

i dont

Where?

king_of_inismac

A similar poll was taken in this state a few months back, and the results were similar. I looked into it at the time because a lot of news stations were talking about it.

It's easy to take the results out of context and say "Irish people believe that women who dress provocatively are responsible for getting raped". It grabs headlines and sells papers.

I teach self defense classes to both men and women every so often.
No one is responsible for being raped because of what they wear, say, etc

HOWEVER,
Everyone should BE responsible for their own personal safely. How many of us have heard of a woman being raped while she walked home with her friends from the niteclub? NONE why? because attackers are looking for an easy target.

How many of us have heard of someone being mugged while sober, and walking through a well lit safe area? NONE why? because attackers are looking for an easy target.

Learning to punch, kick, get out of holds etc is all bull****. If you're in a situation where you need to know this, you've already LOST!!

We all have friends, girlfriends, wives, etc so we all know we want them to feel and be safe, so I'd ask them to think responibly for their own benifit.

They're not responsible for being raped, but they are responsible for ensuring their own safety.

Kintarō Hattori

I'm afraid it looks more and more like we are living in a society full of 'animals'. It is simply never, EVER acceptable to rape a woman. She should be free to flirt and wear whatever she wants.

Anyone who says rape is justifiable on any level is pure scum.

javaboy

Blowfish wrote: »

It depends completely on how the questions were worded and how they came to the conclusion.

If for example the question was "Do you think women who wear provocative clothing are more at risk of sexual assault/rape than those who don't", the resulting percentages don't suprise me. Given the tabloid nature of the article, it wouldn't suprise me if they were just jumping to conclusions from there.

+1. I'd say the questions were loaded to a certain extent.

Do you think a woman dressed provocatively is more likely to be raped?

If you answered yes to that then you must accept that a woman could equally reduce the chances of being raped by dressing conservatively.

So if a woman could have done something to potentially reduce the chances of being raped, but didn't, it could be argued that she is partially responsible.


Obviously it's a big pile of balls since there's only one person responsible for a rape, but you can't argue with the logic above. I'd say some kind of similar logic was used to arrive at the conclusion they reached.

Plus Amnesty International benefits from being as high profile as possible. Sensationalist headlines like this keep them in the news.

Dinter

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I'm afraid it looks more and more like we are living in a society full of 'animals'. It is simply never, EVER acceptable to rape a woman. She should be free to flirt and wear whatever she wants.

Anyone who says rape is justifiable on any level is pure scum.

I'd find it hard to believe that anyone could even attempt to justify rape. There's no way you could logically say that a woman wearing certain clothes has somehow given up her say. By rape I mean a person going out and meeting someone with the intention of having sex with them without consent.

However you could definitely say that a woman who has gone out, gotten hideously drunk, blown off her friends to hook up with a bloke she met that night, gone home with him, slept with him and wakes up the next day with no recollection of any of it has placed herself in that position.

Is that girl justified in saying she was raped? She may not have had her full wits about her but she might have consented or, more importantly, not said no. I have woken up in bed entangled with women I have only the faintest recollection of inviting home. Sometimes not even that.

I don't think that the fact that I have no recollection of agreeing to sex means I was raped. Sometimes, as you recoil at what you've trawled home, you might wish to negate the responsibilty and part you had to play in the preceeding events.

luckat

Bendihorse wrote: »

I cant say i agree with it on that level, women should be allowed to flirt within reason, and wear revealing clothes without a male presuming shes 'his' or game for sex.

Who will police the allowed level of flirting, and what measurements are to be used? Just interested.

"Excuse me, miss, you've flipped your hair four times now; that means you've indicated you're game for sex."

"I did *not*. I flipped my hair only three times."

"I'm the rapist police, and I saw you flip it four times."

The_Minister

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

tbh

Nehaxak

Bendihorse wrote: »

It is NEVER ok for a man to rape a woman under any circumstances

Whoa, hold on there now, what if it's roleplay and no safe words were used when the rope was tied and gag applied ?

Anyway, seriously, wasn't rape invented by English protestants plantated into Ulster centuries ago ?

all the stars

Dinter wrote: »

However you could definitely say that a woman who has gone out, gotten hideously drunk, blown off her friends to hook up with a bloke she met that night, gone home with him, slept with him and wakes up the next day with no recollection of any of it has placed herself in that position.

Is that girl justified in saying she was raped? She may not have had her full wits about her but she might have consented or, more importantly, not said no. I have woken up in bed entangled with women I have only the faintest recollection of inviting home. Sometimes not even that.

I don't think that the fact that I have no recollection of agreeing to sex means I was raped. Sometimes, as you recoil at what you've trawled home, you might wish to negate the responsibilty and part you had to play in the preceeding events.

ok while i get this, have to say....
why would you want to have sex with someone who is so sloppy drunk they have no clue whats going on regardless of them being on for it ?
thats just lousy... & surely thats kinda desperate...

buckieburd

I read an artical a while back where a jornalist interviewed several rapists in prison, and asked them a few questions. One of them was did what the women were wearing make any difference and most of them said yes, that the picked the dowdyier non tarty dressed ones as they thought they wouldn't be as 'fiesty' and fight back....

I agree with what Bendihorse is saying, NO-ONE deserved to get raped but you have to use your cop on, never drink so much that you cant defend your self, avoid walking home on your own and always look out for your mates..

John Mason

buckieburd wrote: »

self, avoid walking home on your own

This is very good advice BB and how about not aguing with your friends as they try to get you in a taxi ;)

buckieburd

irishbird wrote: »

This is very good advice BB and how about not aguing with your friends as they try to get you in a taxi ;)

God damn you woman, dont ruin my 'I'm a responible adult act'

robinph

all the stars wrote: »

why would you want to have sex with someone who is so sloppy drunk they have no clue whats going on regardless of them being on for it ?

all the stars = someone who has never got drunk before.

Dinter

all the stars wrote: »

ok while i get this, have to say....
why would you want to have sex with someone who is so sloppy drunk they have no clue whats going on regardless of them being on for it ?
thats just lousy... & surely thats kinda desperate...

No, it's called early twenties!

Seriously though I don't mean I'd be sober either.

all the stars

robinph wrote: »

all the stars = someone who has never got drunk before.

been jarred many a night, but always aware of whats going on. never ever drank soooo much that i black-out and lose a whole night.

Macha

Leeby wrote: »

The only way I can explain it would be a group of people sitting round, filling in this thing and reading that and making a joke of it with their mates/girlfriends. I know it's not funny but I could imagine most lads I know thinking it's hilarious, and ticking yes and sayin something stupid to their girlfriends like "see now If you don't put out tonight I'll batter ya!"

Yes because God forbid we actually recognize that we have a serious problem in our society concerning attitudes towards women and rape.

king_of_inismac wrote: »

How many of us have heard of someone being mugged while sober, and walking through a well lit safe area? NONE why? because attackers are looking for an easy target.

Good advice but unfortunately, the sort of anecdotal advice you present above is very misleading. There is a taboo in our society over rape. A tiny fraction of rape cases are reported and even less go to trial (and even less are convicted). I really don't think going on "how many of us have heard of..." is a good idea. Fortunately, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has stats and they state that over half of rapes are committed by a person known to the victim...how does a woman protect herself against that?

Many women protect themselves against strangers but when half of rapes are committed by someone you know, what are you supposed to do? (And how the bloody hell is it your fault??!)

all the stars

Dinter wrote: »

No, it's called early twenties!

Seriously though I don't mean I'd be sober either.

well, thats my age range, and nope, never happened... and they say us young ones dont have any sense :P

all the stars

taconnol wrote: »

Good advice but unfortunately, the sort of anecdotal advice you present above is very misleading. There is a taboo in our society over rape. A tiny fraction of rape cases are reported and even less go to trial (and even less are convicted). I really don't think going on "how many of us have heard of..." is a good idea. Fortunately, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has stats and they state that over half of rapes are committed by a person known to the victim...how does a woman protect herself against that?

Many women protect themselves against strangers but when half of rapes are committed by someone you know, what are you supposed to do? (And how the bloody hell is it your fault??!)

yup, and generally when rape goes to trial its the womans sexual history that is under scrutiny, goes one of these ways
1) your a slut and you just changed your mind or something to that effect
2) your a virgin type who now doesn't want to look like a slut or something like that...

anyway, generally the woman winds up having to explain all her sexual history and all that.

And, i know 2 women who were raped, both totally differant ages and people.
lady A told her O/H who called her a liar and nasty things did follow and was never believed
lady B told her family many years later and they didn't believe her

on both occasions all these people knew eachother, and neither reported it

robinph

all the stars wrote: »

been jarred many a night, but always aware of whats going on. never ever drank soooo much that i black-out and lose a whole night.

That's what I said wasn't it?

daveharnett

As many others have said, I think it's quite possible that this survey has confused lack of precaution and blame.

Dinter wrote: »

However you could definitely say that a woman who has gone out, gotten hideously drunk, blown off her friends to hook up with a bloke she met that night, gone home with him, slept with him and wakes up the next day with no recollection of any of it has placed herself in that position.

Is that girl justified in saying she was raped? She may not have had her full wits about her but she might have consented or, more importantly, not said no.

It doesn't work like that. Not saying no does NOT equal consent.

I'm not sure how intoxication works in this situation. AFAIK you are legally responsible for what you do while under the influence (provided that you consume voluntarily). In other words, you can be bound by a contract you sign while you're drunk. I don't know if this applies to consent for sex too.

SV

They consider themselves English, It was already clear they're lacking a lot of intelligence.

robinph

ClioV6 wrote: »

They consider themselves English, ...

Since when?

Dinter

daveharnett wrote: »

It doesn't work like that. Not saying no does NOT equal consent.

Does that not mean a woman can be raped after the fact purely by changing her mind.

If you're capable of saying no and don't then I think it is safe to assume you're giving consent. Even if you were charged I wouldn't think you could be convicted of raping someone without the intent to do so.

Obviously I don't mean this would be the case if someone was threatening you or tricking you or any of the other ways a person might be raped or if you were underage.