New UK Rape Crises Centre Posters

Morag

Saw this and wanted to share, have to say it's the best poster I have seen in a long time and they have launched it just in the run up to Christmas and new years.

krudler

Its a mixed message to send tbh, are women who get so sh1tfaced drunk they have sex with a guy just allowed to cry rape? thats a dangerous precedent to set. not every guy who has drunken sex with a girl is a rapist. I get what the ad is trying to say, but its alleviating women from their own repsonsibility as well to control their drinking habits so as not to wind up in a situation where consent is an issue to begin with, that goes for both men and women.

mikom

The cameraman must have had the beer goggles on as well because they all look decent.

Morag

krudler wrote: »

Its a mixed message to send tbh, are women who get so sh1tfaced drunk they have sex with a guy just allowed to cry rape? thats a dangerous precedent to set. not every guy who has drunken sex with a girl is a rapist. I get what the ad is trying to say, but its alleviating women from their own repsonsibility as well to control their drinking habits so as not to wind up in a situation where consent is an issue to begin with, that goes for both men and women.

The poster is pretty clear if you read all of it.

Abi

I think what is said is bang on, though something about the picture is irking me.


It's the message about drinking itself I think thats bugging me, and the picture. So they're is a group of young girls out drinking, but it says nothing about drinking to access, or watching their drinks.

Young women need to be encouraged not to drink to excess or leave their drink unattended.


I suppose if this is being advertised publicly, like at a bus stop or whatever, the next one will show the flip side of the coin. The poster in the OP is being directed at males. But the next at the women about being drink aware, watching the quantities and not to leave drink unattended or something.


Am I alone in this thinking?


Edit: took me so long to word the post Krundler got in before me!

Morag

Even if a person is passed out drunk or from being spiked, it doesn't make a difference, it is no reason/excuse to rape them.

That line of thinking is judging their behaviour and then finding them at fault for being raped. The point is it doesn't matter, either you have clear and coherent consent from some or else you are raping them.

Abi

Abi wrote: »

I think what is said is bang on, though something about the picture is irking me.


It's the message about drinking itself I think thats bugging me, and the picture. So they're is a group of young girls out drinking, but it says nothing about drinking to access, or watching their drinks.

Young women need to be encouraged not to drink to excess or leave their drink unattended.


I suppose if this is being advertised publicly, like at a bus stop or whatever, the next one will show the flip side of the coin. The poster in the OP is being directed at males. But the next at the women about being drink aware, watching the quantities and not to leave drink unattended or something.


Am I alone in this thinking?


Edit: took me so long to word the post Krundler got in before me!

I think you missed the point of the ad, tbh. An ad which advises women not to drink to excess or to watch their drinks is still implying that it's somehow the woman's fault if she gets raped and that if the woman behaves herself and is a responsible person, she won't become a victim. Victim blaming is so common and so widespread that most people don't even seem to realise they're doing it. I don't think this ad is just for men, I think it's also for the many women who have been brainwashed into thinking they deserved to be sexually assaulted because they turned around for a second and had their drink spiked or because they went out in a miniskirt. I doubt there's a single poster on here who has never drunk too much on a night out, walked home from the bus stop after dark or kissed a stranger on a dancefloor, but for some reason, when a lot of women hear about someone being raped, they're all, 'well wasn't it silly of her to do that?' I suppose it's easier to think like that than to face the truth that some people have just been luckier than others.

Obviously there should be advice given to women about personal safety, but IMO, it doesn't belong on ads for the rape crisis centre.

krudler

Sharrow wrote: »

Even if a person is passed out drunk or from being spiked, it doesn't make a difference, it is no reason/excuse to rape them.

nobodies saying it is, what irks me is the notion than if a girl gets drunk enough to have sex with a guy then she can claim rape if she doesnt remember the exact situation. that poster doesnt portray a girl passed out on the floor or a bed from drinking, its a bunch of girls in a pub,out for a laugh and clearly pissed. its not always guys who initiate drunk sex either.

ted1

It can give the wrong message saying its ok to het very drunk. If the girl is so drunk she doesn't know what she is doing odds are the guy is the same.

amdublin

I don't like this ad and it's connotations.

I completely agree that if a gril is drunk and says No it means No.

But it does raise the issue, well what if the girl is so drunk she can't really remember what she said.....

To be honest I think it gives women the message that binge drinking is okay....I really don't think it was the wisest theme to choose on part of the RCC.

Morag

It is up to everyone to make the call and check if the other person they are fumbling with is coherent enough to consent and if they aren't and are a messy drunk, then don't have sex with them. It's that simple.

amdublin

Sharrow wrote: »

It is up to everyone to make the call and check if the other person they are fumbling with is coherent enough to consent and if they aren't and are a messy drunk, then don't have sex with them. It's that simple.

What defines a messy drunk though?

What if you've both had a bit to drink....what if everything seems okay and both parties agree to sex.....what if it turns out next day that one party can't actually remember whether they agreed or not?

strobe

'If there's any doubt about whether a woman has drunk too much to give consent, assume she hasn't given it'.

I'm just wondering what people take the bolded part to mean? To me 'drunk too much to give consent' would mean the person is non-communicative and not actively engaging in the act. Is that how everyone else understands the term?

getz

girls you are all missing the point,the rape crisis centre,is a charity that is set up to help those who have been raped or sexually abused,its not some goverment body that can tell adults that they should not drink ect ,its just warning girls/woman of the dangers they may get themselves into over christmass.

tiny_penguin

Sharrow wrote: »

It is up to everyone to make the call and check if the other person they are fumbling with is coherent enough to consent and if they aren't and are a messy drunk, then don't have sex with them. It's that simple.

This always implies it is the guys responsibility to ensure that the yes is actually a yes and one she will remember - if it is ok for a girl to get so drunk she cant remember consenting but a man always has to stay coherent enough to be aware of his actions? It is a slight double standard there.

Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning rape, or date rape of any form. But this ad does imply that its ok for a girl to get so drunk she cant remember what she is doing, and if she cant remember consent then its ok to cry rape. But clearly it is never ok for a man to get to this state as the woman will always be the victim and the man the attacker.

Women and Men both need to take responsibility for their drinking. So that neither can become a victim of this, it is dangerous to get so drunk that you have no idea what has happened and it should not be deemed acceptable.

amdublin

strobe wrote: »

'If there's any doubt about whether a woman has drunk too much to give consent, assume she hasn't given it'.

I'm just wondering what people take the bolded part to mean? To me 'drunk too much to give consent' would mean the person is non-communicative and not actively engaging in the act. Is that how everyone else understands the term?

Yes.

So that means if a guy and a girl go to a house and she is practically comatose don't have sex with her as she cannot consent.

I would not have thought we needed a poster for that

What if a guy and a giggly drunk girl have sex and the next day the girl cannot remember if she consented or not....? That guy could be in big trouble...

Should the poster not have a tagline saying have a drink by all means but don't get so wasted that you make bad choices and then cannot really clearly remember what happened?

I think the poster is insulting to both men and women tbh

getz

tiny_penguin wrote: »

This always implies it is the guys responsibility to ensure that the yes is actually a yes and one she will remember - if it is ok for a girl to get so drunk she cant remember consenting but a man always has to stay coherent enough to be aware of his actions? It is a slight double standard there.

Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning rape, or date rape of any form. But this ad does imply that its ok for a girl to get so drunk she cant remember what she is doing, and if she cant remember consent then its ok to cry rape. But clearly it is never ok for a man to get to this state as the woman will always be the victim and the man the attacker.

Women and Men both need to take responsibility for their drinking. So that neither can become a victim of this, it is dangerous to get so drunk that you have no idea what has happened and it should not be deemed acceptable.

its a charity its not their job to dictate to girls that they are not drink to much,[thats up to the goverment] if a girl wants to drink themselves into a state,so what,havent we all,its only warning them that their are some men[mainly] out their who would take advantage of them.

goose2005

tiny_penguin wrote: »

This always implies it is the guys responsibility to ensure that the yes is actually a yes and one she will remember - if it is ok for a girl to get so drunk she cant remember consenting but a man always has to stay coherent enough to be aware of his actions? It is a slight double standard there.

Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning rape, or date rape of any form. But this ad does imply that its ok for a girl to get so drunk she cant remember what she is doing, and if she cant remember consent then its ok to cry rape. But clearly it is never ok for a man to get to this state as the woman will always be the victim and the man the attacker.

Women and Men both need to take responsibility for their drinking. So that neither can become a victim of this, it is dangerous to get so drunk that you have no idea what has happened and it should not be deemed acceptable.

Exactly; haven't the rape crisis centre dealt with women who say they were drunk and think they were raped, and an examination shows that they haven't even had sex? It's just strange that a drunk man who has sex is responsible for his actions, or someone who gets drunk and drives, but a drunk woman isn't responsible, and even if she says yes, if she doesn't remember it you're in trouble.

LittleBook

amdublin wrote: »

So that means if a guy and a girl go to a house and she is practically comatose don't have sex with her as she cannot consent.

I would not have thought we needed a poster for that

A group called Saoirse came to my daughter's school a couple of weeks ago to give a presentation on consent, abusive relationships, sexual violence, etc.

They went to great lengths to keep the presentation gender neutral and even the video dramatisations they showed represented the victim as both male and female.

When they came to the subject of consent in relation to alcohol, there was exactly the discussion that is happening here. The class were asked ... if someone is passed out (even if you'd been kissing them) and you have sex with them while they're unconscious, is it rape? One of the boys in her class (aged @ 16/17) said no, it was not rape. When others in the class disagreed with him, he actually said, "it's her own fault for getting drunk".

I don't think these posters are aimed at men, I don't even think they're aimed at women. They're aimed at the very small number of people who still need to be educated that if a someone passes out from drink, you should not go on to have sex with them.

Most people don't need to be told this so the poster may seem inappropriate to some people, but unfortunately there are still some people who need to learn this and I think the part about "if there's any doubt" is to remove all margin for error on the part of the person who might still consider this a grey area.

tiny_penguin

LittleBook wrote: »

I don't think these posters are aimed at men, I don't even think they're aimed at women. They're aimed at the very small number of people who still need to be educated that if a someone passes out from drink, you should not go on to have sex with them.

But the poster does not highlight 'passed out' - it just says drunk. That is the issue. If the poster emphasized that then it would be understandable, in fact it doesnt even really hint at it. But for a lot of people this implies that if a woman is drunk she can claim she was raped no matter what actually happened.

LittleBook

tiny_penguin wrote: »

But for a lot of people this implies that if a woman is drunk she can claim she was raped no matter what actually happened.

Not to me and not to anyone I know. It depends on who you think the poster is aimed at and, as I said, I believe the target is the type of person who would claim there was no rape no matter what actually happened.

saa

Where is this coming from,

If I posted saying I was mugged last night would half the posters say oh how do we know what actually happened, you were probably drunk and its your own fault.

Kind of a shameful ya dirty slut thing in there somewhere, some kind of vemon when it comes to other people casting doubt on attacks.

Anywho no the add is not perfect but its just is to get people talking and thinking, and for me these adds could go into dangerous territory being too thought provoking or using too much of an emotional approach like some charities.

amdublin

saa wrote: »

Where is this coming from,

If I posted saying I was mugged last night would half the posters say oh how do we know what actually happened, you were probably drunk and its your own fault.
.

What if you said I can't really remember, I was locked but Ive no purse and cuts and grazes on my arm so I know I was mugged?

tiny_penguin

LittleBook wrote: »

Not to me and not to anyone I know. It depends on who you think the poster is aimed at and, as I said, I believe the target is the type of person who would claim there was no rape no matter what actually happened.

It doesn't matter who the poster is aimed at - the fact the implication is there for anyone at all means it is sending a bad message.

There was another poster that was being based as it was to discourage binge drinking and it showed a picture of a females legs with underwear around her ankles - and the tag line was don't let your friends get so drunk that she makes bad choice (not word for word but the general idea) - and this was being slated for putting the blame back on the girl.

Both campaigns are irresponsible - they have implications of the wrong message being sent and there needs to be some sort of medium between the two. Even thought the RCC is a charity and does not have a place telling people to drink or not to drink - whether we like it or not alcohol can play a large part in attacks like this, and teaching responsible drinking and responsibility for your own safety can only help reduce these numbers of incidents.

The message can create a dangerous situation for 2 equally drunk people who have consensual sex but dont remember the details - according to this ad, the man is to blame and that is not right or fair.

saa

amdublin wrote: »

What if you said I can't really remember, I was locked but Ive no purse and cuts and grazes on my arm so I know I was mugged?

amdublin wrote: »

Opposed to forgetting it and falling over?..

Well lets say you're drunk something happens to you
even if you didn't remember it you would still be in shock and trauma, just because you can't recall something doesnt mean you're not affected by it or there are not signs of it

The marks from an attack would be usually different from a fall

If a child is abused before the age of 3 they will most likely not have any memory of it but will show symptoms of abuse in a similar way as the child who does hold memories of the incident(s)

seenitall

tiny_penguin wrote: »

The message can create a dangerous situation for 2 drunk people who have sex but dont remember the details - according to this ad, the man is to blame and that is not right or fair.

My feeling is that this is down to biology, i.e. the fact that the most usual form of sexual intercourse involves the vaginal penetration by an erect penis. A passed out blind drunk woman can be raped by a man. A passed out blind drunk man cannot be raped by a woman. Therefore more onus on the man to be careful what he is doing with/to someone who is, say, semi-conscious and thus in a very vulnerable position.

EDIT TO YOUR EDIT: again, a woman is more vulnerable when equally blind drunk than a man in the same state (if talking about sex, not mugging).

strobe

seenitall wrote: »

My feeling is that this is down to biology, i.e. the fact that the most usual form of sexual intercourse involves the vaginal penetration by an erect penis. A passed out blind drunk woman can be raped by a man. A passed out blind drunk man cannot be raped by a woman. Therefore more onus on the man to be careful what he is doing with/to someone who is, say, semi-conscious and thus in a very vulnerable position.

:pac: I take it you're a woman then?

Just to fill you in, the above is not true... biologically speaking. Every man on here will tell you they have woken up with an erection quite a few times. Men in comas and persistent vegetative states can and do get erections as well. Being passed out drunk does not mean a man can't get an erection either.

tiny_penguin

seenitall wrote: »

My feeling is that this is down to biology, i.e. the fact that the most usual form of sexual intercourse involves the vaginal penetration by an erect penis. A passed out blind drunk woman can be raped by a man. A passed out blind drunk man cannot be raped by a woman. Therefore more onus on the man to be careful what he is doing with/to someone who is, say, semi-conscious and thus in a very vulnerable position.

EDIT TO YOUR EDIT: again, a woman is more vulnerable when equally blind drunk than a man in the same state (if talking about sex, not mugging).

Again you are talking passed out drunk - the ad does not specify this and it is not the issue. If you are drunk and say yes to or even initiate sex but then forget what happened in the morning, by the logic of the ad then it was rape as you were not in a fit state to consent - regardless of the state of the man.

And if a woman is more vulnerable in that situation is it not partly her responsibility to not put herself in the situation. Not saying she deserves what happens or the other party has no blame - but if you get blind drunk and fall off a building it is your responsibility for getting so drunk. Or if you leave your house or car unlocked you are not covered by insurance as you are leaving it in a vulnerable position to be burgled.

All parties need to take responsibility for their own actions. It is ok to tell a woman to watch her drink doesn't get spiked so she does not make herself vulnerable, but it is not ok to tell that same woman not to drink as much to protect herself. The first situation protects against real predators while the second seems to protect from real predators but also from regretful situations where lack of memory which can not only ruin her life but also the life of a man accused of rape.

Morag

It is to make the point that some guys make think they are just being an opportunist when in fact they are not they are considering rape.

Most people can clearly tell when a person is worse for wear with drink, long before they fall over and pass out. If you see someone in that condition and they are not your partner then they are not going to be able to consent. It's that simple.

Oh and women can rape being who have had to much drink, even those who have passed out and if there is no clear and coherent consent then it's rape.

tiny_penguin

Sharrow wrote: »

Most people can clearly tell when a person is worse for wear with drink, long before they fall over and pass out. If you see someone in that condition and they are not your partner then they are not going to be able to consent. It's that simple.

But I still don't understand why the onus is on the man - if he is in the same inebriated state. The ad is saying that he has to be coherent enough to judge whether the consent is acceptable but she can just go and get as sh*tfaced as she wants and whatever happens is not her fault as drinking is not illegal. Surely the ad can be giving the message to both parties - women should be taking responsibility for their own safety, from all possible dangers not just rape by controlling how much they drink and the same goes for men - they should not be getting so drunk that they end up in a situation where any confusion can occur.

LittleBook

krudler wrote: »

not to wind up in a situation where consent is an issue to begin with, that goes for both men and women.

tiny_penguin wrote: »

if you get blind drunk and fall off a building it is your responsibility for getting so drunk. Or if you leave your house or car unlocked you are not covered by insurance as you are leaving it in a vulnerable position to be burgled.

A situation where consent is an issue can be falling asleep at a house party and waking up with someone you don't know on top of you. It can be going back to someone's place for coffee and getting more than you bargained for.

tiny_penguin wrote: »

It doesn't matter who the poster is aimed at - the fact the implication is there for anyone at all means it is sending a bad message.

Of course it matters. The ad is clearly aimed at the kind of person who, when in doubt, will go ahead anyway, whether the victim is passed out or not. That's not a lot of guys, but they're out there.

Just like the "this is not an invitation to rape me" and "just because she isn't saying no, doesn't mean she's saying yes" ad campaigns, this ad is trying to take away the last straw that this kind of person will clutch at.

The example I used of a person who thinks it's OK to have sex with someone they've been kissing and who has passed out should be the easiest scenario to realise there is no consent given. But this kid had to be told that.

tiny_penguin wrote: »

But I still don't understand why the onus is on the man - if he is in the same inebriated state. The ad is saying that he has to be coherent enough to judge whether the consent is acceptable but she can just go and get as sh*tfaced as she wants and whatever happens is not her fault as drinking is not illegal.

No, it's saying "the responsibility for rape lies with the rapist" ... doesn't matter how much she's drunk, what she's wearing or if you've already kissed her, no means no.

But people are reading this as "girls, if you get shít faced and wake up beside a minger, don't worry about it, he probably raped you, so you can cry rape"? Really?

Morag

So you don't think that men should be responsible about in whom he puts his penis and if they have consented?

Often people can go out and end up more messily drunk then they expect, from over doing it during the festive season to being stressed or not having eaten enough, it happens, if it does happen it does not give some opportunistic person the right to rape them or people to say it was their fault.

krudler

seenitall wrote: »

My feeling is that this is down to biology, i.e. the fact that the most usual form of sexual intercourse involves the vaginal penetration by an erect penis. A passed out blind drunk woman can be raped by a man. A passed out blind drunk man cannot be raped by a woman. Therefore more onus on the man to be careful what he is doing with/to someone who is, say, semi-conscious and thus in a very vulnerable position.

EDIT TO YOUR EDIT: again, a woman is more vulnerable when equally blind drunk than a man in the same state (if talking about sex, not mugging).

wrong. its that thinking that means men who are raped rarely ever report it.

Gauge

krudler wrote: »

wrong. its that thinking that means men who are raped rarely ever report it.

Women rarely ever report it either, and a lot of the posts in this thread illustrate exactly why that is.

krudler

Sharrow wrote: »

So you don't think that men should be responsible about in whom he puts his penis and if they have consented?

Often people can go out and end up more messily drunk then they expect, from over doing it during the festive season to being stressed or not having eaten enough, it happens, if it does happen it does not give some opportunistic person the right to rape them or people to say it was their fault.

yes, but the ad is implying that its only the man who should be repsonsible, not both parties. if that poster was a woman passed out on a bed or floor with a guy standing over her, that'd be getting across the message in the context the ad means.

Giselle

A man who rapes a woman is responsible for the rape, and no one else. No matter how drunk or flirty the girl is.

But...

I'm having difficulty with the concept that a man has to take responsibility for hearing the word 'yes' but a woman doesn't have to take responsibilty for saying the word 'no'.

Of course being so drunk that you can't consent is dangerous, and I don't like how the ad absolves all responsibilty from the girl to protect herself by not getting so drunk that she has no clear memory of events.

I think the ad would be more useful if it promoted more personal responsibility in terms of drinking and consent for both genders.

Rape is always the responsibility of the rapist, but both parties should be clear on what constitutes rape if either or both of them have their judgement impaired.

I'm glad I don't drink.

Riskymove

Sharrow wrote: »

So you don't think that men should be responsible about in whom he puts his penis and if they have consented?

.

This issue has been discussed here before and I have the same issue with an apparant double standard

If two people have sex while drunk, why should more be expected from one of them?

On this logic, I could just as easily ask 'dont you think women should be responsible for making sure they give consent or not, clearly, regardless of how drunk they are?'

Often people can go out and end up more messily drunk then they expect, from over doing it during the festive season to being stressed or not having eaten enough, it happens, if it does happen it does not give some opportunistic person the right to rape them or people to say it was their fault

I dont think anyone is suggesting that anyone has the right to rape someone

all we are saying is that it also doesn't allow someone to accuse someone of rape simply becuase they cannot remember what happened

Malari

krudler wrote: »

yes, but the ad is implying that its only the man who should be repsonsible, not both parties. if that poster was a woman passed out on a bed or floor with a guy standing over her, that'd be getting across the message in the context the ad means.

I think the ad is trying to get people to identify with a social situation in which they frequently find themselves. The picture you describe...I don't think most people will say they've been there. Nearly every young person is familiar with the scene depicted.

I think it's the time of night a guy would go back to if he was accused of raping a girl - but she was drinking with me/kissing me/wearing next to nothing in the club. It's taking away the association of any of that with consent.

I also know that the Rape Crisis Centre is supposed to deal with assault of both sexes, but I guess they are responding to the kind of thing they see most of? Young girls who have got so drunk they can't consent and guys who don't know that means rape.

you're really trying to turn this around? really? (you @ the detractors on this thread)
good lord

it says sex without consent is rape
trying to turn it around "well stop getting drunk and you wont get raped" is seriously pushing it
we have enough posters in a certain forum going "i was raped but maybe it was my fault because maybe i was drunkenly giving out signals without realising it" without the need for any more of this attitude

we do need to educate women people that drinking yourself stupid to the point of being incapacitated is not cool. in general. and separately.

it does not mean we need to start but-but-but-ing very good ads like this one to stop victim blaming

:mad:

Morag

krudler wrote: »

yes, but the ad is implying that its only the man who should be repsonsible, not both parties.

So if someone is to drunk to properly consent it's thier fault/responsibility?

krudler wrote: »

if that poster was a woman passed out on a bed or floor with a guy standing over her, that'd be getting across the message in the context the ad means.

The poster is not about the horror of rape, it is about women being able to go out and have fun, exercising the same right a man has and that they should be able to do so with out someone trying to take advantage.

A win for me re the poster would be for more people to intervene if they see someone who is clearly worse for wear being honed in on by an opportunist.
I've seen it happen and the girl couldn't get him away from her and he knew well what he was at and that means what he thought was prolly an easy lay was in fact him planning on raping her.

Morag

Riskymove wrote: »

If two people have sex while drunk, why should more be expected from one of them?

If two people are that drunk then it's on both of them, I am not talking about that situation and I would hope that they would have friends who'd intervene.

Riskymove wrote: »

On this logic, I could just as easily ask 'dont you think women should be responsible for making sure they give consent or not, clearly, regardless of how drunk they are?'

I think everyone should learn that no means no, the lack of a no does not mean yes and if someone is worse for wear with drink then they can't properly consent. (They are prolly going to be a crap shag anyway but still that doesn't stop some arseholes).

Riskymove wrote: »

I dont think anyone is suggesting that anyone has the right to rape someone
all we are saying is that it also doesn't allow someone to accuse someone of rape simply becuase they cannot remember what happened

And all the bleating in the thread from guys now worried they might get accused of rape after a drunken one night stand. Good, if it makes people stop and think and consider and be more careful on a night out.

The same way you are saying women should be responsible not to get so hammered that they can't consent properly, men should not get so hammered that they for get to make sure that they person they are getting on with is co coherent enough to consent.

How hard it is to just accept the message of
Don't **** Drunk Women Who Can't Consent, It May Be Rape.
If you think you've not got coherent consent, then give it a miss.

seenitall

strobe wrote: »

:pac: I take it you're a woman then?

Just to fill you in, the above is not true... biologically speaking. Every man on here will tell you they have woken up with an erection quite a few times. Men in comas and persistent vegetative states can and do get erections as well. Being passed out drunk does not mean a man can't get an erection either.

Oops, apologies. Yes, I am a woman and I haven't done my homework, obviously.:o I do know of, and have profitted from, early morning erections (with both parties awake and of sound mind by the time of penetration, I hasten to add), for example, but wouldn't have been aware of the coma-related fact. Must have been blinded by the fact I have never heard of a man being vaginally raped while passed out drunk (alcohol having such a bad rep regarding erection as well). What can I say... at least I know better now.

Anyway, I still like this campaign, and given the stats of male-on-female rape v. the female-on-male one, I still think the right gender is being targeted with the message, overall.

Fear Uladh

Sharrow wrote: »

If two people are that drunk then it's on both of them, I am not talking about that situation and I would hope that they would have friends who'd intervene.




I think everyone should learn that no means no, the lack of a no does not mean yes and if someone is worse for wear with drink then they can't properly consent. (They are prolly going to be a crap shag anyway but still that doesn't stop some arseholes).




And all the bleating in the thread from guys now worried they might get accused of rape after a drunken one night stand. Good, if it makes people stop and think and consider and be more careful on a night out.

The same way you are saying women should be responsible not to get so hammered that they can't consent properly, men should not get so hammered that they for get to make sure that they person they are getting on with is co coherent enough to consent.

How hard it is to just accept the message of
Don't **** Drunk Women Who Can't Consent, It May Be Rape.
If you think you've not got coherent consent, then give it a miss.

The fact is, that the word 'woman' is peppered throughout the entire ad, implying that it is 100% men that are responsible for rape when the woman is inebriated.

Surely if the Rape crisis centre cater to ALL victims of sexual abuse or rape, then it shouldn't be described as "when the woman is drunk etc etc" it should be "when a person is drunk etc etc".

Again this is another "equality...only when it suits" situation.

Fear Uladh

Fear Uladh wrote: »

The fact is, that the word 'woman' is peppered throughout the entire ad, implying that it is 100% men that are responsible for rape when the woman is inebriated.

Surely if the Rape crisis centre cater to ALL victims of sexual abuse or rape, then it shouldn't be described as "when the woman is drunk etc etc" it should be "when a person is drunk etc etc".

Again this is another "equality...only when it suits" situation.

are you serious.
yes, we just love the rape statistics being skewed in our "favour" so much that ads are often about female rape. it's the pinnacle of female supremacy.

Fear Uladh

bluewolf wrote: »

are you serious.
yes, we just love the rape statistics being skewed in our "favour" so much that ads are often about female rape. it's the pinnacle of female supremacy.

Did I say they were skewed in any way?

Keep up the condescending bull**** though.

Fear Uladh

Fear Uladh wrote: »

Did I say they were skewed in any way?
.

the statistics are that women get raped more, so the ads are targeted more at women. that's why it's "peppered with the word 'woman' "
of course they have a skew.

Riskymove

Sharrow wrote: »

If you think you've not got coherent consent, then give it a miss.

you seem to both agree and disagree with me!

Noone can argue that a man deliberately taking advantage of an extremely drunk or passed out woman is committing rape....only the man is responsible in such situations

But this element of your quote is still the point of contention for me, in the circumstances I am talking about (i.e. two drunken people)

The man is expected to be able to judge what exactly is consent and what is not, regardless of how drunk he is, regardless of what has happened up to that point

This, imo, is wrong and comes back to what you said here

If two people are that drunk then it's on both of them, I am not talking about that situation and I would hope that they would have friends who'd intervene.

Delirium

Fear Uladh wrote: »

The fact is, that the word 'woman' is peppered throughout the entire ad, implying that it is 100% men that are responsible for rape when the woman is inebriated.

Not necessarily. It's saying women are the victim. It doesn't, from what I can see on the poster, make any statement about the gender of the rapist. It could be a woman raped by another woman.

The underlying message is good, that people should be sure that both parties have consented to any sexual act.

Morag

Fear Uladh wrote: »

The fact is, that the word 'woman' is peppered throughout the entire ad, implying that it is 100% men that are responsible for rape when the woman is inebriated.

Surely if the Rape crisis centre cater to ALL victims of sexual abuse or rape, then it shouldn't be described as "when the woman is drunk etc etc" it should be "when a person is drunk etc etc".

Again this is another "equality...only when it suits" situation.

OK first off this is not a poster by the RCC here in Ireland, it is from a completely separate group in the UK.

Secondly the vast majority of rapes which happen it happens to women.
So really I think you are nit picking to just find some fault as you don't like the message.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Man, this thread like other threads like it makes for sad reading.

I don't know is it a case of sexual inequality swinging one way or another on certain issues or a case of that dreaded "Catholic guilt".

My girlfriend is only 24 (so hasn't left 2nd level education that long) was told as part of sex education in her secondary school that they must reject male advances as boys can't control themselves.

tiny_penguin

Sharrow wrote: »

The same way you are saying women should be responsible not to get so hammered that they can't consent properly, men should not get so hammered that they for get to make sure that they person they are getting on with is co coherent enough to consent.

If you read my posts this is what im saying - that the ads should be instilling a responsibility for ones actions on both parties. Neither party should be getting so drunk that consent could ever be considered a grey area. (and by that i mean where a woman says yes when drunk but does not remember saying yes, may have appeared coherent at the time but was not.)