So, I went to a rape prevention talk

Rabies

Hey girls and guys,

Last week I went to a rape prevention talk from the city council. Their aim is to reduce the number of rape/sexual harassment incidents in bar/club scene (and nation wide too of course).

Brief history of me. I've been in the bar/club scene for almost 6 years. Of course everyone from my doormen, porters, bar staff and managers are always looking our for customer safety.

We keep an eye on lone guys eyeing up girls, rowdy guys, lone emotional girls, intoxication levels.

Anyway, at the presentation there was city council representatives, police and rape counsellors.

Loads of managers of the city bars attended the talk and we were asked to make sure we are aware of customers , there was a Q & A session and a video at the end.

Now its the video that still was in my head a few days later.
This is it in a nut shell.

Girl is out with her friends, they go to a house party and start drinking. She exchanges eye contact with a guy. Everyone goes to a club and drinks some more. The girl goes to the bathroom and knocks back some alcohol she brought in with her hidden in her bag. Guy and girl meet again, seem to get along and start to dance, get some drinks in, end up hooking up on the floor. Girl is getting pretty drunk, they go to the bar and have shots. While after they both leave hand in hand for a cab. They get home, start making out, the flat mate is up, hears them get back and closes her bedroom door. They move to the bedroom, both drunk, but she is more so. Door closes and the scene ends.

We were asked who's fault was it "if" she was raped.

Everyone blamed the guy, and I completely agree. The action is done by the guy. One of the worst crimes out there.

The presenter said part of the blame is with her friend for not stepping in when she seen her hooking up with a "stranger" on the dance floor, the bar man for serving them both when they had enough and not asking her if she was here with her friends and not the guy, when they walked outside she passed a friend outside the club, it was also his fault for not stopping her leaving hand in hand with the guy, back at the house it was her flat mate's fault for closing the door and not stopping her.

Where my little problem issue stands is why should her friends have stopped her going back with the guy? Most guys and girl have one night stands and thankfully with no issues.

This girl did what many people boast about on Boards and brought in her own alcohol. How are bar staff and a venue team supposed to properly monitor intox levels when people bring in their own booze. The bar man could have denied her service, but she already had a bottle anyway.

Once again I'll repeat myself and say the act of rape is terrible and anyone that does should never be let out of prison ever.

I'm wondering why was everyone blamed along with "possible" culprit. Is it everyone's fault too? Is it not just the guy's actions that led to it?

The police said venues legally should not have intoxicated people on premise (that is true), so therefore we should step in and not serve people when they reach that point and in this instance the barman should have been aware who she came in with and called her friends over. When people bring it in their own alcohol it doesn't make our job any easier.

Before the video was show they said that when people drink their decision makings skills and reasoning can be greatly impaired. Now this effects both guys and girls. Once again, to get drunk and commit rape is no excuse.

Everyone has a moral compass, no matter how drunk you are, you know something is right or wrong. What swings the drunken mind to do something is the "can I get away with it" thinking.

We asked the cops what is the reported number of date rapes in the city each year. She didn't give a number, but said it is less than 5. Most reported cases come from over intoxication and binge drinking and the girl getting so drunk and remembering having sex or only having flash backs. Why any guy would want to have sex with a comatose girl is beyond me, its supposed to be a fun act for both.

I really don't know where I'm going with this, but I think people should be held more accountable for their actions. The person that commits the rape shouldn't blame alcohol or drugs.

Can two very drunk people have consensual sex? Is that possible? What happens if they did on the night but the next day the girl doesn't remember, how does that effect things?

This is prob the longest post I've done on Boards in many a year, but because it effects my work I have to think about it, not that we never do in this industry.


Thoughts?

edit: ignore my terrible spelling and grammatical errors

bradknowell

Men can get drunk and raped also.
The person that commits it should not blame alcohol or drugs the same way as a victim should not blame alcohol or drugs once they figure out what happened .
Good post rabies.

Rabies

bradknowell wrote: »

Men can get drunk and raped also.
The person that commits it should not blame alcohol or drugs the same way as a victim should not blame alcohol or drugs once they figure out what happened .
Good post rabies.

I can't remember the exact stats and figures quoted but was something like this

9/10 women have been a victim of some sort of unwanted sexual contact. Lower number for men.

During the rugby world cup the police had geared themselves up for an increase of sex assaults, but got something like 4 reports over the 6-8 weeks of the tournament and they were very happy with that.

In the talk they asked us all various questions, answer yes and go to one side of the room, answer no and go to the other.

Some of the question were like these

Would you have sex with someone you met for the first time that night?
If someone was buying you drinks all night would you have sex with them?
You met someone in bar and got talking for a few hours and had a few drinks, would you sleep with them that night?
Is it ok to sleep with someone that is very drunk?
Would you get your mates very drunk on a night out?


Now some of these and others I had a problem with and let them know. I had to put my professional hat on for some and night off hat for others.

bradknowell

Never thought about rugby, or any big deal occasion bringing the "stats" up. Sorry for using crude words, I'm not very good at explaining things.

My brother is a guard and the stuff he told me, Jesus, its sickening. Obviously he wouldn't go into full details but feck, rape seems to be an extremely common thing to happen. It's sickening.
I know a girl who does be on call for the rape crisis centre. She never gives names or details at all at all but jokes about rape . Can't fathom that myself.
Personally I know 1 man who was raped by a woman and a family member of mine was almost a victim of rape but she went berserk and fought him off.
Luckily the person who tried that on my sister years ago, died a few years ago of a heroin overdose.
The man I mentioned it happened to, male friends laughed and female friends understood I was upset . Won't go into it .

Handsome Bob

Rabies wrote: »

Would you have sex with someone you met for the first time that night?
If someone was buying you drinks all night would you have sex with them?
You met someone in bar and got talking for a few hours and had a few drinks, would you sleep with them that night?
Is it ok to sleep with someone that is very drunk?
Would you get your mates very drunk on a night out?

Wow, I hope you were given a heads up at the start of the talk that you would be asked to take part in such exercises.

Rabies

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Wow, I hope you were given a heads up at the start of the talk that you would be asked to take part in such exercises.

No heads up with the questions, but its ok. You get a more honest answer with quick fire questions.

Thankfully we all agreed to have sex with someone that is severely intoxicated or comatose is wrong. The rest of the questions had a mixed response.

mikemac1

bradknowell wrote: »

I know a girl who does be on call for the rape crisis centre. She never gives names or details at all at all but jokes about rape . Can't fathom that myself.

I don't find the joking strange, just a way of coping and letting off pressure

If you go to a funeral you'll find people laughing outside

I wrote off a car and was trying to make jokes with the man who came to tow it away.

When dealing with a stressful issue, some get upset, some let off the pressure, some bury it inside, everyone is different

Sorry, maybe offtopic

retroactive

Rabies wrote: »

Would you have sex with someone you met for the first time that night?
If someone was buying you drinks all night would you have sex with them?
You met someone in bar and got talking for a few hours and had a few drinks, would you sleep with them that night?
Is it ok to sleep with someone that is very drunk?
Would you get your mates very drunk on a night out?

I have to take issue with some of these questions and on the overall theme of the talk you attended. They assume a black and white reality. Or even a homogenious reality where everyone is the same and social values and opinions on right and wrong are uniform.

Pointing the blame at bar owners is lazy but directing the blame at 'her' friends to bar owners seems almost useless. Would raising awareness among the 'at risk' group be more beneficial?

Cutting to black as she gets into the taxi and posing the question 'who is to blame?' is a of an assumption. How many Irish romances blossom from drunken flashbacks and awkward morning afters? Is anyone to blame for a one night stand? This maybe a little of point but furthers my contention that shades of grey exist. Taking all of this into account, how could her friends be liable? "Letting her get into the taxi" sure, ask if shes o.k but preventing someone from making a choice isn't o.k either. It isn't like it's a case of him forcing her into the taxi.

You cite the law, a topic very close to my heart (Practice civil rather than criminal). Yes, it is an offence to serve a visibly intoxicated person more alcohol, although i'm sure the number of prosecutions related to this are very very low. A bar owner has a duty of care towards their patrons - Generally, liability will be imposed on bar owners for any injuries that occur on the premise. But how can that duty extend to drunken decisions made on foot of smuggled alcohol? No one really knows what went on between the two people concerned or what is going through their minds. The only thing we know is she got drunk and got in a taxi with a boy. It would be impractical to force that kind of liability on publicans. So why would it be practical to force that liability on her friends? No one is a mind reader but sometimes people have a one night stand.

So know we move onto the question of the couple. Two consenting adults having injested alcohol. No problem there. Where a problem occurs is when she's too drunk to consent or even decline - I direct you to the offence concerning serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated people. She brought in her own booze? Well then if shes too drunk to consent (and this also applies to the above), it becomes the boys issue. If he presses, he could end up being summoned for rape.

Now moving onto the statistics question - A complainant (Not victim, victims of alleged rapes are called complainants) will invariably be called to give evidence in a trial. The complainant is open to any questions about her sexual
history and past. Given our adversarial justice system and the seriousness of the charge and her evidence, she will be cross examined quite rigourisly. victims know this. They also know everything that follows from making a complaint - people staring and pointing, rumours etc. The system is stacked in favour of the accused but quite rightly so. The old adage about rape is instructive here "Rape is an accusation quite easily made and difficult to defend". Taking this and the shades of grey mentioned earlier, I believe the system balances out quite fairly. (Although I believe the sentences are too leniant)

So there it is from the publican, the couple and the friend's perspective. You asked should people be held accountable for their actions? Yes. But they should not be held accountable for other peoples actions - the publican and friends accountable for the girls state, the boy being held accontable for what was at the time consentual. If it wasn't consentual, then our justice system intervenes.

Just some of my thoughts.

bradknowell

mikemac1 wrote: »

I don't find the joking strange, just a way of coping and letting off pressure

If you go to a funeral you'll find people laughing outside

I wrote off a car and was trying to make jokes with the man who came to tow it away.

When dealing with a stressful issue, some get upset, some let off the pressure, some bury it inside, everyone is different

Sorry, maybe offtopic

I know this girl well. She does get upset sometimes after coming back from a call, which is understandable but in everday talking she takes the piss.
I know what you mean though. Im brutal for laughing at funerals

Victor

Rabies, I think what you may be struggling with is the concepts of contributory factors and enablers against proximate causes.

There is a difference between needing to take personal responsibility (for yourself and to a degree your friends / colleagues) and victim blaming.

Parking your Porsche in the ghetto and not locking it / leaving the doors open and your wallet on the dashboard are enablers, not justifications, for committing crime. The thief wasn't forced to steal your wallet - they chose to. You didn't deserve to lose your wallet - but it was a reasonable expectation.

Being in a bar, kissing someone or dressing sexy are in no way enablers for rape. Being drunk, engaging in lewd behaviour in public, etc. are. Alcohol is both a dis-inhibitor and an enabler - while some dis-inhibition is good for dinner conversation or a comedy gig, excessive dis-inhibition can lead to raucousness, inappropriate behaviour and violence. On top of that, alcohol blurs judgement, impairs our senses and self-awareness.

So, if people regularly start shouting and singing inappropriately at 3am or wander into traffic when they drink, then they shouldn't drink that much. Someday, it might catch up on them.

If people start fisticuffs when they drink, then they shouldn't drink that much.

If people engage in lewd behaviour when they drink, then they shouldn't drink that much.

If people get grabby with strangers / get felt-up by strangers when they drink, then they shouldn't drink that much. Someday, it might catch up on them.

Rabies

retroactive wrote: »

I have to take issue with some of these questions and on the overall theme of the talk you attended. They assume a black and white reality. Or even a homogenious reality where everyone is the same and social values and opinions on right and wrong are uniform.

Pointing the blame at bar owners is lazy but directing the blame at 'her' friends to bar owners seems almost useless. Would raising awareness among the 'at risk' group be more beneficial?

Cutting to black as she gets into the taxi and posing the question 'who is to blame?' is a of an assumption. How many Irish romances blossom from drunken flashbacks and awkward morning afters? Is anyone to blame for a one night stand? This maybe a little of point but furthers my contention that shades of grey exist. Taking all of this into account, how could her friends be liable? "Letting her get into the taxi" sure, ask if shes o.k but preventing someone from making a choice isn't o.k either. It isn't like it's a case of him forcing her into the taxi.

You cite the law, a topic very close to my heart (Practice civil rather than criminal). Yes, it is an offence to serve a visibly intoxicated person more alcohol, although i'm sure the number of prosecutions related to this are very very low. A bar owner has a duty of care towards their patrons - Generally, liability will be imposed on bar owners for any injuries that occur on the premise. But how can that duty extend to drunken decisions made on foot of smuggled alcohol? No one really knows what went on between the two people concerned or what is going through their minds. The only thing we know is she got drunk and got in a taxi with a boy. It would be impractical to force that kind of liability on publicans. So why would it be practical to force that liability on her friends? No one is a mind reader but sometimes people have a one night stand.

So know we move onto the question of the couple. Two consenting adults having injested alcohol. No problem there. Where a problem occurs is when she's too drunk to consent or even decline - I direct you to the offence concerning serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated people. She brought in her own booze? Well then if shes too drunk to consent (and this also applies to the above), it becomes the boys issue. If he presses, he could end up being summoned for rape.

Now moving onto the statistics question - A complainant (Not victim, victims of alleged rapes are called complainants) will invariably be called to give evidence in a trial. The complainant is open to any questions about her sexual
history and past. Given our adversarial justice system and the seriousness of the charge and her evidence, she will be cross examined quite rigourisly. victims know this. They also know everything that follows from making a complaint - people staring and pointing, rumours etc. The system is stacked in favour of the accused but quite rightly so. The old adage about rape is instructive here "Rape is an accusation quite easily made and difficult to defend". Taking this and the shades of grey mentioned earlier, I believe the system balances out quite fairly. (Although I believe the sentences are too leniant)

So there it is from the publican, the couple and the friend's perspective. You asked should people be held accountable for their actions? Yes. But they should not be held accountable for other peoples actions - the publican and friends accountable for the girls state, the boy being held accontable for what was at the time consentual. If it wasn't consentual, then our justice system intervenes.

Just some of my thoughts.

Good post retroactive, more clear than mine I like to ramble at times.

I should have pointed out that i'm not in Ireland and the alcohol laws are enforced here. We get random checks by cops, city council and the district licensing authority (DLA).

A guy that was there made a valid point when one of the counsellors made a comment along the lines of "In an ideal world it would be great if there was a chill out or sobering up room for people to be sent to by if identified as overly drunk". That drunk person would still on our premise, therefore opening us up to a potential fine of up to $5k or $10k along with a blemish on your personal and the venue's licence. So we have to ask them to leave the venue.

I felt like organisers of this talk were pushing more onus on us to, sorry to use the word, but 'babysit' customers.

Not sure how would sit if a girl accused a guy of rape (or the other way around) if neither of them remember the night. This is the problem, no one knows what goes on in the room.

The examples I'm talking about are all where people meet in a bar and end up going home and one or both sides have the intention of some sort of sexual activity. Not a dark alley way scenario.

I've given my opinion on the talk to other people that were there and some of my seniors, personally I think it was a waste of time.

Lyaiera

Victor wrote: »

If people get grabby with strangers / get felt-up by strangers when they drink, then they shouldn't drink that much. Someday, it might catch up on them.

Hang on a bit on that one now. I've been felt up when I was working and when I was drinking. Does that mean it was my drinking that was at fault in the latter example and the other persons fault in the prior example?

Rabies wrote: »

Would you have sex with someone you met for the first time that night?
If someone was buying you drinks all night would you have sex with them?
You met someone in bar and got talking for a few hours and had a few drinks, would you sleep with them that night?
Is it ok to sleep with someone that is very drunk?
Would you get your mates very drunk on a night out?

I'd have told them it was none of their business if they asked me these questions. But then again I have very little time for a lot of these training exercises and conferences where someone is pushing an agenda rather than being an expert in the field with real world experience giving practical advice. Or even worse, they're box-ticking to make sure someone has been on the appropriate number of courses. I have yet to meet someone who thinks this stuff is worthwhile. There's far more valuable things that can be done.

retroactive

Rabies wrote: »

Good post retroactive, more clear than mine ...

personally I think the talk was a waste of time.

Thank you

I suspect you're thoughts are correct.

I quite like Victor's post below mine. The distinction between contributory factors and enablers is a fine but important one and one he dealt with quite well.

Leaving the law out of my post, I hope you found the analysis of the situation each party finds themselves in helpful.

It can be a tentative area that some people find it difficult to wrap their head around and understandably so. Glad I could help.




Victor, I have a business proposal - Rape prevention seminars to publican. you in?

Rabies

Lyaiera wrote: »

Hang on a bit on that one now. I've been felt up when I was working and when I was drinking. Does that mean it was my drinking that was at fault in the latter example and the other persons fault in the prior example?

Same, and as recently as a few weeks ago. A group of older woman out for birthday drinks. I'm talking to them and doing my "host" thing. One of them reaches around, puts her hand on my ass and has a grope. Leans in and says "if my husband wasn't in the city tonight, I'd be taking you home tonight".
Cheers for the compliment, but the ass grab wasn't needed. I wasn't offended, but it must be worse for a girl when guys do it.

Wibbs

Lyaiera wrote: »

Hang on a bit on that one now. I've been felt up when I was working and when I was drinking. Does that mean it was my drinking that was at fault in the latter example and the other persons fault in the prior example?

Very good point L.

Victor

Lyaiera wrote: »

Hang on a bit on that one now. I've been felt up when I was working and when I was drinking. Does that mean it was my drinking that was at fault in the latter example and the other persons fault in the prior example?

No, not your fault, but if one finds themselves regularly endangered due to their drinking, then would it not be sensible to reduce or cut out the drinking? We are much more capable of extricating ourselves from dangerous situations when we aren't compromised by drink or other drugs.

If someone is sober and sees a bunch of boisterous / inappropriate drunks in a bar, at least one can decide "Hmmm, I'll avoid them". When one is drunk, that is a much harder assessment to make.

Ask yourself, would anyone advocate getting drunk as a rape prevention strategy?

If there is a pattern that I get sick when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I fall out with my friends when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I fall down when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I get abusive when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I crash my car when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I get blackouts when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I get molested when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I engage is risky behaviour on the roads, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I get in fights when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I lose / have stolen my phone / jacket / bag when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I molest / inappropriately proposition people when I drink, I should drink less.

People need to stop looking at getting drunk as a right and more as a social, economic and medical/psychological problem.

I'd have told them it was none of their business if they asked me these questions. But then again I have very little time for a lot of these training exercises and conferences where someone is pushing an agenda rather than being an expert in the field with real world experience giving practical advice. Or even worse, they're box-ticking to make sure someone has been on the appropriate number of courses. I have yet to meet someone who thinks this stuff is worthwhile. There's far more valuable things that can be done.

It is one measure amongst many. The problem isn't with such exercises, but the lack of other and follow-up exercises.

Also, these exercises are a two-way thing for organisers and audience. It is for the organisers to inform and challenge the audience and it is for the audience to give feedback to the organisers and each other.

Lyaiera

Victor wrote: »

No, not your fault, but if one finds themselves regularly endangered due to their drinking, then would it not be sensible to reduce or cut out the drinking? We are much more capable of extricating ourselves from dangerous situations when we aren't compromised by drink or other drugs.

If someone is sober and sees a bunch of boisterous / inappropriate drunks in a bar, at least one can decide "Hmmm, I'll avoid them". When one is drunk, that is a much harder assessment to make.

To quote the Americans, "That's letting the terrorists win." If someone is falling over drunk they're going to have problems. But that's a matter of scale. It's quite another thing to say that you have to cut out drink to safely be in a bar. If you're going to avoid "boisterous" drunks then there's pretty much no energetic bar in Ireland you could go to. Finding out who the innapropriate drunks are is something you're not going to manage even sober. There's plenty of stories of someone being groped, someone being punched, someone having their stuff stolen, someone being on the end of inappropriate comments, etc. And the vast majority of the times it's impossible to see who that's going to come from.

It is one measure amongst many. The problem isn't with such exercises, but the lack of other and follow-up exercises.

Also, these exercises are a two-way thing for organisers and audience. It is for the organisers to inform and challenge the audience and it is for the audience to give feedback to the organisers and each other.

Maybe the exercise should less be about telling bar owners, bar staff, and a victim's friends they're awful people for letting someone go home with someone they picked up in a bar (someone they were happy to go home with) and more about telling bar owners that they should tolerate "boisterous" behaviour in their bars. And letting the staff act on stopping these people causing trouble for the majority who just want a grand aul night.

I've been in a couple of bars across the world that were in busy cities and had no security, even on Saturday nights. These would be in places that the other bars were packed with security. Admittedly they were small to medium size bars and not megapubs or clubs. I've asked a few of those bartenders how they managed without bouncers. They all said one simple thing, "We're not the kind of place that needs them." And when you push them on that they go onto reveal that they don't tolerate people shouting and yelling, they don't tolerate people getting blotto, they don't tolerate people being pushy, they don't tolerate their regulars (and women) getting hassled. They've built a reputation for being a good bar where people can enjoy a hassle free drink.

Maybe the exercise should be about how to grow a bar that accommodates people rather than how barmen need to intervene because someone has been downing naggins in the jacks and some asshole is intent on violating them.

newport2

Victor wrote: »

If there is a pattern that I get sick when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I fall out with my friends when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I fall down when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I get abusive when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I crash my car when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I get blackouts when I drink, I should drink less.

If there is a pattern that I get molested when I drink, I should drink less.

The first six are things you do yourself whereas the last one listed is something someone else did to you. An important difference surely?

Kooli

newport2 wrote: »

The first six are things you do yourself whereas the last one listed is something someone else did to you. An important difference surely?

Abso-frickin-lutely!

The only way you can avoid rape is to never be alone with a rapist.

And there's no real way to know who is a rapist, so even that's a useless piece of advice.

Rape prevention campaigns really need to focus on the people who rape, or the people around the people who rape. Not the potential victims.

Here's an interesting take on the old 'well if I leave my car unlocked I can't be surprised if it's nicked' analogy:

http://glosswatch.com/2012/07/27/its-not-victim-blaming-just-common-sense/

Victor

newport2 wrote: »

The first six are things you do yourself whereas the last one listed is something someone else did to you. An important difference surely?

A difference certainly, so I've added to the list.

Can you agree that not getting "off yer face" drunk is a sensible preventative measure? From a whole range of safety and security points of view. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/alcohol-factor-in-60pc-of-pedestrian-fatalities-2475706.html (note that some of these people would be primarily described as hardcore substance abusers (alcos and junkies) as opposed to recreational users)

mitosis

At what point does self responsibility kick in? In the original example both persons had been drinking heavily - given the girl is not competent to consent, how is the man competent to consider that?

Lyaiera

mitosis wrote: »

At what point does self responsibility kick in? In the original example both persons had been drinking heavily - given the girl is not competent to consent, how is the man competent to consider that?

Someone taking the action and imposing themselves has responsibility over someone taking no action and acquiescing.

mitosis

Lyaiera wrote: »

Someone taking the action and imposing themselves has responsibility over someone taking no action and acquiescing.

I agree absolutely. I just question the stupefication of both and the point at which ability to make a correct and responsible decision disipates.

Victor

mitosis wrote: »

At what point does self responsibility kick in? In the original example both persons had been drinking heavily - given the girl is not competent to consent, how is the man competent to consider that?

It is not acceptable to be so drunk as to not understand "no" or similar sentiments. If you actively do something (or in some cases not do something) when intoxicated, it is no defence that you were intoxicated.* Otherwise, every drunk that punched someone / stole stuff / caused a scene / didn't feed the kids would get off. Having something done to you is another matter.

Now, sometimes when we are drunk, we end up doing things that are out of the norm for what happens when we are drunk - I was only ever once so drunk as to be projectile vomiting, but it 'cured' me of alcohol completely for a good 6 months and it never happened again. If I did it every weekend, nobody would want to be my friend.

Once or twice for small stuff can be forgiven. Big stuff and serial small-medium stuff can't - if someone is regularly violent or molesting people when they are drunk, it will come as no surprise to them when they do something worse.



* It is one thing to be under the influence from medication where there isn't any real choice but to take it (but note the warnings on medication - don't drive or use machinery, etc. when using the medication), another to be under the influence from recreational drugs where there is a choice. Some dental painkillers contain adrenelin (it reduces blood flow on the periphery). However, this possibly wasn't the best choice when the dental nurse repeatedly stabbed my jaw with the suction tube and I got a bit mouthy. Being mouthy was inappropriate (and I apologised) to someone who was ultimately there to help me.

Millicent

newport2 wrote: »

The first six are things you do yourself whereas the last one listed is something someone else did to you. An important difference surely?

And to add to this, being molested (in a bedroom, in a sitting room, on the street) never made me want to drink less. In fact, it was the catalyst for some heavy drinking in my early 20s to deal with the resultant depression. I'd wager other victims react in much the same way. It's insensitive, therefore, to put the onus for any subsequent assaults onto the innocent party.

whatdoicare

I have to say, as a woman, after reading the story I felt very uneasy about the blame game question.

They sound like any other stupid young couple you would see on a night out - I don't think anyone is to blame there, it was just a situation of pure stupidity, where a girl drank in secret and the guy thought he was in there with a chance and was also probably blind drunk.

How could anyone who encountered them possibly see that as a scenario which could lead to a possible rape? You couldn't!

You see that nonsense going on most nights outside nightclubs at 2 or 3am, what are you supposed to do? Run around making sure everyone's relationships are legit before letting them off? That's crazy!

You have to be responsible for yourself - control your drinking, make sure you're with a group and everyone is looking out for each other, don't go home or anywhere really alone with a guy you've just met, if you are separated outside the club, contact your friends and wait near a bouncer or inside the club, stay inside the ladies until your friends find you. If your friends are being idiots, bite the bullet and call your folks or a trusted relative to get you home - don't walk anywhere or take a taxi alone.

You can't go away and act like a complete idiot and expect everyone else to look after you - that's not realistic!

yawha

Victor wrote: »

Being in a bar, kissing someone or dressing sexy are in no way enablers for rape. Being drunk, engaging in lewd behaviour in public, etc. are.

Who decides what's an enabler and what's not?

Why is being in a bar not an enabler, whereas getting drunk is?

Chuck Stone

Victor wrote: »

If there is a pattern that I get molested when I drink, I should drink less.

A pattern of being molested?

Princess Peach

One thing I think about this is a girl could go out, not get drunk and choose to go home with a stranger. And could be raped.

A drunk girl could be taken home by a friend she has known her whole life, friends see them leave and think its fine, and she could be taken advantage of then.

It's something I don't think you can predict.

I've been out and met creepy guys, and met guys who seem normal. Never once have I met someone who looked genuinely like a rapist, cause that doesn't mean anything! I really think the only person to blame is the rapist.

I don't know if a girl being drunk makes it "easier" for the attacker. I am in no way an expert on the subject or the psychology behind it, but surely if a man is into having that power over women, he will find a way to exert it, be she drunk or not? Just my thought on it! Be it using drugs or physical strength.

lazygal

There was a support thread for sexual assault in TLL recently. The main thing I took from it was that in most cases the person committing the assault was a friend, boyfriend, close relative or person otherwise known to the victim. I recall few, if any, 'stranger in a dark alleyway' experiences, most took place in a person's home or other 'safe' place.

I'm actually growing weary of the 'rape prevention' method. I'm not told I should carry a cheap handbag to avoid being robbed, yet its somehow acceptable to tell me to curtail where I go, when I go, what I drink and take when I'm there and who I hang around with, when the message that should go out is to tell people not to be raping or sexually assaulting people, because its a crime to do so and they will be prosecuted. We seem to be able to have massive campaigns telling drivers to obey the law, how about a campaign telling people to obey the sexual assault and rape laws?

Princess Peach

lazygal wrote: »

I'm actually growing weary of the 'rape prevention' method. I'm not told I should carry a cheap handbag to avoid being robbed, yet its somehow acceptable to tell me to curtail where I go, when I go, what I drink and take when I'm there and who I hang around with, when the message that should go out is to tell people not to be raping or sexually assaulting people, because its a crime to do so and they will be prosecuted. We seem to be able to have massive campaigns telling drivers to obey the law, how about a campaign telling people to obey the sexual assault and rape laws?

Again, stressing I am no psychologist here, just saying things I think based on stuff I've read and seen! But rape is the kind of crime that is in the rapists nature. Drunk driving is more of a silly choice, and the campaigns make people aware of the consequences.

But rape is something that is inherent in the person, and that need probably won't go away from seeing an ad campaign.

It's a sad way to think about it, but I think the only real way to improve it is for a victim to report an assault, the attacker get charged and get them some help.

Millicent

Princess Peach wrote: »

Again, stressing I am no psychologist here, just saying things I think based on stuff I've read and seen! But rape is the kind of crime that is in the rapists nature. Drunk driving is more of a silly choice, and the campaigns make people aware of the consequences.

But rape is something that is inherent in the person, and that need probably won't go away from seeing an ad campaign.

I don't know that that's true. Is there evidence that rapists can't help themselves? I think that's a dangerous myth, tbh.

Princess Peach

I honestly don't know much about rapists, but I am quite fascinated by serial killers, many of whom rape or have other weird sex addictions. So I have read a lot of psychological profiles on that and was just applying the same theory :pac:

Made sense to me anyway! Rape isn't so much about having sex. It's about exerting power and getting sexual pleasure from that. Seems like a psychological thing to me, which is why I doubt an ad campaign would deter someone who was willing to act in such a way. Just my severely uneducated opinion!

Millicent

Princess Peach wrote: »

I honestly don't know much about rapists, but I am quite fascinated by serial killers, many of whom rape or have other weird sex addictions. So I have read a lot of psychological profiles on that and was just applying the same theory :pac:

Made sense to me anyway! Rape isn't so much about having sex. It's about exerting power and getting sexual pleasure from that. Seems like a psychological thing to me, which is why I doubt an ad campaign would deter someone who was willing to act in such a way. Just my severely uneducated opinion!

That's the worst ones though. I think the ones who apply a sort of twisted morality when opportunity presents itself are the ones that could be reached. I've interacted with a few guys who seem surprised that if a girl is less than sober, there could be a chance that them having sex with her is rape. Hopefully, people like that could be reached by stronger messages.

yawha

Princess Peach wrote: »

Rape isn't so much about having sex. It's about exerting power and getting sexual pleasure from that.

Where does this idea come from? I see it mentioned a lot, but don't recall ever seeing a source.

I think rape can occur for a variety or reasons. Of course, there is the psychologically messed up rapist, who does it for reasons of power, but I don't believe these are the only people who rape.

We must remember that rape is simply sex without consent, there need not be any ****ed up "serial killer" psychology going on. I think that a lack of awareness as to what consent consists of, and how to assert your consent or lack of it, is a factor in many rapes. This is what the ad campaigns are trying to promote, I think.

Princess Peach

Millicent wrote: »

That's the worst ones though. I think the ones who apply a sort of twisted morality when opportunity presents itself are the ones that could be reached. I've interacted with a few guys who seem surprised that if a girl is less than sober, there could be a chance that them having sex with her is rape. Hopefully, people like that could be reached by stronger messages.

Yah I was being a bit dramatic there I see

I think the problem here is, maybe an ad campaign about "taking advantage" of girls may be appropriate for these types of situations. But what would the ads say? The campaings about driving laws have strict guidelines to the consequences of breaking them, but if you look at the track record of the convictions of these incidents, its not really a whole lot to deter

Millicent

Princess Peach wrote: »

Yah I was being a bit dramatic there I see

I think the problem here is, maybe an ad campaign about "taking advantage" of girls may be appropriate for these types of situations. But what would the ads say? The campaings about driving laws have strict guidelines to the consequences of breaking them, but if you look at the track record of the convictions of these incidents, its not really a whole lot to deter

Some of the American ones have been pretty good: "If she hasn't said yes, she's said no" or ones that state that if a girl is too drunk to participate, it's rape -- they're the ones that could be effective. Just ones that break the rape myths.

The convictions are a whole other kettle of fish though. We need to have a serious look at our judicial system and the process of reporting rape in this country. That's a whole other rant for another day though.

yawha

IMO ads like these need to convey the message that people need to learn exactly what consent entails. If they come across as accusatory of men in general, there is invariably a backlash, and the men that the campaign is intended to reach end up ultimately not being reached because of this.

Millicent

yawha wrote: »

IMO ads like these need to convey the message that people need to learn exactly what consent entails. If they come across as accusatory of men in general, there is invariably a backlash, and the men that the campaign is intended to reach end up ultimately not being reached because of this.

That's a fair point. There's no point throwing the baby out with the bathwater for such ads. However, those teenage domestic violence ones tread the line well, I think.

But explicitly setting out what consent looks like would be a fantastic starting point.

Princess Peach

Maybe it would be a good campaign to run. Be good to see some surveys from Americans who saw those campaigns and see if it changed anything in their way for thinking, or see if there was any noticeable change in the figures for those kind of attacks. I don't think it would do any harm anyway, would be really good to run in secondary schools! And I think any campaign like this that puts more blame on the attacker is good, as it may result in more reporting from the victim.

I always wished I had done psychology, these things fascinate me

Victor

Millicent wrote: »

I don't know that that's true. Is there evidence that rapists can't help themselves? I think that's a dangerous myth, tbh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_rape#Groth_typology

http://www1.csbsju.edu/uspp/crimpsych/CPSG-5.htm

There is more than one profile for rapists and within each profile, there will be a scale of what they do.

Psychopaths are people who just don't understand or care that they are hurting people. The only real way to discourage them is to appeal to their sense of self benefit, i.e. if you aren't violent, society will be nicer to you and won't put you in prison. Otherwise, it is medication or incarceration.

However, not every rapist will be a psychopath - I imagine a considerable portion of rapists are people who are simply disinhibited (typically drunk) or desensitised to rape (where rape is a societal 'norm', e.g. South Africa or during war).

Millicent

Victor wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_rape#Groth_typology

http://www1.csbsju.edu/uspp/crimpsych/CPSG-5.htm

There is more than one profile for rapists and within each profile, there will be a scale of what they do.

Psychopaths are people who just don't understand or care that they are hurting people. The only real way to discourage them is to appeal to their sense of self benefit, i.e. if you aren't violent, society will be nicer to you and won't put you in prison. Otherwise, it is medication or incarceration.

However, not every rapist will be a psychopath - I imagine a considerable portion of rapists are people who are simply disinhibited (typically drunk) or desensitised to rape (where rape is a societal 'norm', e.g. South Africa or during war).

That would have been my interpretation of it too. That's why I think ad campaigns with effective consent messages are important. Cheers for the links.

lazygal

There was a campaign, in Canada I think, with the message 'Don't be that guy' over a picture of a passed out drunk woman, and it reduced the incidence of rape by 11%. I think its time we stopped pussy footing around with rape and sexual assault crime, and treating it like its somehow in a category of its own. I mean, we have the driving campaigns, the campaigns to tell people false insurance claims are wrong, drink campaigns to reinforce the limits. What's wrong with having a straightforward campaign about the rape and sexual assault of men and women? With a simple message, that if you don't know if someone is consenting, don't try to have sex with him or her. And if he or she is drunk, or high, or asleep, its against the law to try to have sex with him or her.

There's far too much tiptoeing around sexual offenses in Ireland. Loads of 'ah she was stupid, going home with that guy when she was drunk', or 'what did she expect, of course any man would chance his arm when she's in that state'. When we should be telling men and women that no, its not okay to commit any offence within the seuxal assault and rape 'range' of actions and if you do, you'll be in trouble. I'm really tired of the message that potential victims are the ones who have to curtail their lives to avoid rapists, rather that telling rapists to, you know, NOT RAPE PEOPLE.

I'd also like a campaign with the lines that you're more like to be assaulted by your husband, friend, lover, uncle, cousin, workmate or relative than the ould dirty fella in an alleyway. And that if your husband forces you to have sex, that is rape, or if your friend feels you up and you're feeling violated, that's an assault, not the natural behavior of someone chancing his arm.

PrincessLola

Victor wrote: »

If people get grabby with strangers / get felt-up by strangers when they drink, then they shouldn't drink that much. Someday, it might catch up on them.

I really don't like that tone. My eyes are narrowed at the bolded part.
I would never tell a rape victim: "well, it looks like all your days of drinking have finally caught up with you".
Women (and men) are not cars or possesions.

Victor

PrincessLola wrote: »

I really don't like that tone. My eyes are narrowed at the bolded part.
I would never tell a rape victim: "well, it looks like all your days of drinking have finally caught up with you".
Women (and men) are not cars or possesions.

I'm not seeking to victim blame, although I think there might be the risk that I am skirting it.

Why are people defending being drunk and incapable?

Millicent

Victor wrote: »

I'm not seeking to victim blame, although I think there might be the risk that I am skirting it.

Why are people defending being drunk and incapable?

Because capable and sober people are raped too. People incapacitated by illness, drugs -- prescription or illegal -- are raped too.

People aren't defending others getting drunk. They're pointing out that such a response is diversionary and in no way the cause of rapes.

YellowPencil

Often when people are advising others in relation to their safety, they will misplace blame in order to get the recipient of the advice to be more proactive and take steps to avoid a problem that is actually someone elses fault.

"It's her own fault she got burgled. She left the windows side open while she was out." - No, it's the burglars fault, but she might have stopped him.

"It's your own fault you were late when that train was cancelled. You should have got an earlier one." - No. The train company didn't provide the service they were supposed to. It's their fault, but you could reduce the risk by leaving earlier.

"If you go out dressed like that and get attacked you can't complain" - It's always the attackers fault, but acting and dressing certain ways will make one person more of a target to them. You can choose to make yourself less attractive to them, but that doesn't give them a right to attack of you don't.

Millicent

YellowPencil wrote: »

"If you go out dressed like that and get attacked you can't complain" - It's always the attackers fault, but acting and dressing certain ways will make one person more of a target to them. You can choose to make yourself less attractive to them, but that doesn't give them a right to attack of you don't.

I would like to see some statistics or empirical evidence for that, please.

YellowPencil

Millicent wrote: »

I would like to see some statistics or empirical evidence for that, please.

Go research then.

Princess Peach

YellowPencil wrote: »

"If you go out dressed like that and get attacked you can't complain" - It's always the attackers fault, but acting and dressing certain ways will make one person more of a target to them. You can choose to make yourself less attractive to them, but that doesn't give them a right to attack of you don't.

What if she is just a beautiful girl, wearing a pair of jeans and a top, but anything looks attractive on her cause she has an amazing body. What should she do?

What if an attacker has a preference for curvy girls, for red-heads, for tall girls, for people wearing the colour blue? You can't know what these guys are looking for. Of course a girl can avoid walking alone in a bad area at night, but she should be able to wear what she wants to a party or bar and feel safe.

I just did a quick search myself there and couldn't find any studies to say girls wearing mini skirts and low cut tops were attacked more, or testimonies from attackers to say that is why they did it. Have you read some?

Millicent

YellowPencil wrote: »

Go research then.

I have, in depth, and the evidence shows you're wrong so I would suggest that you go and research it for yourself.