"Women needs to face facts about the link between rape and drinking"

SVJKarate

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Then how about preach to men to change their behaviour and not women

Educating men to behave, and educating women to take precautions, are not mutually exclusive approaches to reducing the risk of a crime taking place.

But to be clear . . . "preaching" is not educating. I can only surmise that you may feel inclined to use the term because you feel it is "preachy" to advise women to be cautious about being drunk? It's unfortunate that you should feel that way about it. I have not seen too many posters here preach about the precautions that women could take.

Indeed even the devisive nature of offering separate advice to men and women is misguided. Simply put, a drunk person is more likely to be the victim of a crime than a sober person. Using rape as an example of such crimes merely emphasises the point that those crimes can be severe in nature. For men, being drunk increases the chances of being the victim of assault, including manslaughter.

The journalist's story is simply pointing out what is an unfortunate reality, albeit part of a wider reality, that in a world where evil people exist, they are more likely to commit evil acts when the chances of being caught are reduced.

Lollipop95 wrote: »

I'm also quite disappointed that Niamh didn't focus on more of the onus being on the man not to rape.

Really?? Did anyone need to have that pointed out?

There are some cultures where violence against women is a disturbing norm, but among the readership of the Irish Independent I doubt you'd find too many people who do not know that our societal values do not include physical violence of any sort.

SVJKarate

Maguined wrote: »

It's a terrible video clip. The men involved were actually actors and the producers chose not to let that be known . .

I did wonder how the sound quality was that good. Seemed a bit odd

Maguined

SVJKarate wrote: »

I did wonder how the sound quality was that good. Seemed a bit odd

Yeah the producers were real scumbags. The male actors all got harassed and so did the woman because stupid people thought she was one of the producers when she was only a paid actress herself. She got so stressed from the harassment she chain smoked her lung into collapsing while the real producers sat back safe and sound reaping in their viral fame.

El_Dangeroso

Phoebas wrote: »

I've found myself in plenty of dangerous situations over the years that I would have avoided if I hadn't had drink taken.
That doesn't make me in any way responsible for the dangerous situations, but the danger is the same even when someone else is responsible.

I did have a bike robbed once that I left unlocked outside a shop and I was told that I should've been more careful.
And I'm forever being told not to leave valuables in the car in clear view and to double lock the doors in the house to make it more difficult for thieves.

Practical stuff.

I often hear this comparison and I don't think people realise it's not comparable as:

1. People are not things, being raped can never be compared to being stolen from. Comparing the two is really insulting and diminishes the suffering of rape victims.

2. Rape victims already feel immense amounts of shame and stigma, they already blame themselves, to place even a iota of responsibility on the victim to prevent the crime is immoral.

3. It's deeply insulting to men to tell women that the only thing stopping men from raping you is a longer skirt or one less drink.

Men who rape are predators who will seek out the weakest victim, if you make yourself less 'rapeable', they will rape the next weaker victim. If you're promoting changes to women's behaviour to "prevent" rape, you're really saying "make sure he rapes the other girl".

arayess

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Then how about preach to men to change their behaviour and not women

because most men don't need to change their behaviour and behave quite well.

I'd think that those needing educating mightn't be too receptive but that said no harm in trying.

SVJKarate wrote: »

Educating men to behave, and educating women to take precautions, are not mutually exclusive approaches to reducing the risk of a crime taking place.

an excellent post

I just don't see why people aren't so against people taking precautions to minimise risk

She never victim blamed in the article ffs, she actually went out of her way to make sure was being clear she wasn't victim blaming. All she is saying is that drunk women make easier targets and it is important for women to make sure that they keep themselves safe and dont get drunk to the stage of passing out and they dont have their sense about them/ cant look after themselves. If a guy gets blind drunk and passes out he will get robbed/attacked possibly but with a girl worse can happen. It is important to try and make young girls aware that their is evil people out there that might have sinister motives. In the article she mentioned that a girl from Stanford was raped when alcohol was involved and the guy involved only got 6 months and she said that the sentence was ridiculous and he should have got a lot more. I don't see anywhere she was victim blaming?

SVJKarate

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

People are not things, being raped can never be compared to being stolen from. Comparing the two is really insulting and diminishes the suffering of rape victims.

Nobody has attempted to equate these. The fact that two risks of entirely different consequence might be affected by the same risk factor says nothing about the risks themselves. When you're drunk you run a higher risk of losing your mobile phone [FACT]. When you're drunk you run a higher risk of being involved in a life-changing accident [FACT]. The juxtaposition of these two risks in a thread post does not in any way suggest the risks are equivalent.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

If you're promoting changes to women's behaviour to "prevent" rape, you're really saying "make sure he rapes the other girl".

This is untrue, and it suggests rather simplistically that a rapist is destined to rape a fixed number of women. The reality is that a man with a predisposition to rape women will rape women wherever the circumstances which make rape easier (or make detection less easy) arise together. Consequently the effect of greater levels of precaution is to reduce the total number of rapes.

NONE OF THIS suggests that women are responsible for being raped, any more than a person is responsible for being mugged. There is not a one-to-one causal link. Even a woman who takes a lot of precautions to avoid risky situations can find herself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

El_Dangeroso

SVJKarate wrote: »

Nobody has attempted to equate these. The fact that two risks of entirely different consequence might be affected by the same risk factor says nothing about the risks themselves. When you're drunk you run a higher risk of losing your mobile phone [FACT]. When you're drunk you run a higher risk of being involved in a life-changing accident [FACT]. The juxtaposition of these two risks in a thread post does not in any way suggest the risks are equivalent.

You say you are not equating but you then two sentences later bring up the same analogy of material possesions. Stop doing that it's apples and oranges.

SVJKarate wrote: »

This is untrue, and it suggests rather simplistically that a rapist is destined to rape a fixed number of women. The reality is that a man with a predisposition to rape women will rape women wherever the circumstances which make rape easier (or make detection less easy) arise together. Consequently the effect of greater levels of precaution is to reduce the total number of rapes.

Now that's a ludicrous interpretation of what I said. Where did I say that a man must rape a fixed number of women? You seem to have very little understanding about how sex-offenders operate.

I'd simply LOVE to see some research showing that changing women's behaviour reduces rape. Because all the research I've seen shows it does not in fact reduce rape. ( e.g. Norris & Kaniasty 1992)

Awaiting your peer-reviewed research with bated breath..

Dyr

SVJKarate wrote: »

Nobody has attempted to equate these. The fact that two risks of entirely different consequence might be affected by the same risk factor says nothing about the risks themselves. When you're drunk you run a higher risk of losing your mobile phone [FACT]. When you're drunk you run a higher risk of being involved in a life-changing accident [FACT]. The juxtaposition of these two risks in a thread post does not in any way suggest the risks are equivalent.



This is untrue, and it suggests rather simplistically that a rapist is destined to rape a fixed number of women. The reality is that a man with a predisposition to rape women will rape women wherever the circumstances which make rape easier (or make detection less easy) arise together. Consequently the effect of greater levels of precaution is to reduce the total number of rapes.

NONE OF THIS suggests that women are responsible for being raped, any more than a person is responsible for being mugged. There is not a one-to-one causal link. Even a woman who takes a lot of precautions to avoid risky situations can find herself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Stop countering emotive knee jerk arguments with logic, its a fom of oppression

SVJKarate

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Now that's a ludicrous interpretation of what I said. Where did I say that a man must rape a fixed number of women? Y

When you said that preventing a rape simply means somebody else gets raped. That's a one-to-one correlation. It's untrue.

El_Dangeroso

SVJKarate wrote: »

When you said that preventing a rape simply means somebody else gets raped. That's a one-to-one correlation. It's untrue.

Oh look at the goalposts! They've moved way over there, far from the actual evidence you can't refute..

blue note

Kuhlschrank___ wrote: »

There are many risks in this world, it is advisable to be aware of these risks and to mitigate them if possible. If someone finds that advice offensive they should probably speak to a psychiatrist.

If I want to cross the road and there's a green Man I still look both ways first. If i don't and I get knocked down it's the drivers fault. But I still look.

SVJKarate

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Oh look at the goalposts! They've moved way over there, far from the actual evidence you can't refute..

?? Are you on drugs ??

I understand this is the AH forum, and people like to take the p**s on these threads, but this thread is clearly not one where humour is appropriate. Perhaps you should peddle your dangerous misconceptions elsewhere?

Sand

Maguined wrote: »

It's a terrible video clip. The men involved were actually actors and the producers chose not to let that be known as they wanted to make a viral video about how rapey random guys on the street are and they achieved exactly what they wanted with many of the actors invovled getting harassed in their real lives over it.

Yep, that entire video clip is dishonestly staged misandric propaganda to portray men as sleazy, rapey subhumans. The actress involved in it (Jennifo Box) came out last year to admit it was a fake, that all the male actors in the video were perfect gentlemen and to apologise for ever having participated in it.

That its still getting circulated as evidence of rape culture is disappointing but unsurprising. Its just odd people accept a video of such bizarre behaviour and think that it seems normal. What sort of men do these people know?

As for this argument, I see its still not got past the point where people are ready to accept that advising someone to take care of themselves is not the same as victim blaming. So the message to people is still to go out, get paralytically drunk and hope nothing bad happens. Seems responsible.

El_Dangeroso

SVJKarate wrote: »

?? Are you on drugs ??

I understand this is the AH forum, and people like to take the p**s on these threads, but this thread is clearly not one where humour is appropriate. Perhaps you should peddle your dangerous misconceptions elsewhere?

Ya just keep ducking the actual evidence I posted. Pathetic.

SVJKarate

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ya just keep ducking the actual evidence I posted. Pathetic.

What evidence????

You posted a statement:

If you're promoting changes to women's behaviour to "prevent" rape, you're really saying "make sure he rapes the other girl".

That's not evidence, it's stupidity.

Then you said you'd read evidence which supported that (Norris & Kaniasty 1992) - and I cannot find that study anywhere. In fact the only studies I can find from these authors are related to PTSD, which is based on post-incident studies and hence not relevant to preventionary measures.

If you have evidence which shows that every police department in the western world is wrong when offering advice then post it here and let us have a read of it.

The Garda Siochana website in Ireland offers advice about personal vulnerability:

Understanding your individual potential to becoming a
crime victim must be approached from the mindset of
the criminal. They will judge or rate your vulnerability in
a number of ways and some factors will outweigh others
for them depending on the type of crime being contemplated.

The study by Hanly, C., Healy, D. & Scriver, S. (2009) Rape and Justice in Ireland can be found on the Rape Crisis Network Ireland. It cites alcohol as the most common drug used to facilitate rapes. In 2011 RCNI published some of the findings as:

The facts suggest that alcohol is the most common drug used to facilitate sexual assaults and rape. Although drugs such as Rohypnol and GHB have received much attention internationally as ‘date-rape drugs’, in Ireland, there has been no evidence to suggest that they are used with regularity in incidents of sexual assault[ii]. The recent Rape and Justice in Ireland study did not identify conclusive evidence of the use of such substances in medical records of complainants of rape between 2000 and 2005.[iii] Alcohol, however, was found to be present in the majority of rape complaints in Ireland.[iv] While these facts do not discount the possibility that perpetrators of sexual assaults may use a variety of drugs to facilitate an assault, there is strong indication that alcohol is the most common date-rape drug. Furthermore, the social acceptance of alcohol consumption as a facilitator of sexual interaction reduces recognition of the substance as a potential ‘date-rape’ drug.

The inescapable conclusion of these and other studies is that the avoidance of risk factors such as alcohol reduces (but of course does not eliminate) an individual's risk of becoming a victim of assault including sexual assault.

So instead of muppeting here with ill-considered nonsense, post real evidence which states that preventative actions have no impact.

El_Dangeroso

SVJKarate wrote: »

What evidence????

You posted a statement:


That's not evidence, it's stupidity.

Then you said you'd read evidence which supported that (Norris & Kaniasty 1992) - and I cannot find that study anywhere. In fact the only studies I can find from these authors are related to PTSD, which is based on post-incident studies and hence not relevant to preventionary measures.

If you have evidence which shows that every police department in the western world is wrong when offering advice then post it here and let us have a read of it.

The Garda Siochana website in Ireland offers advice about personal vulnerability:



The study by Hanly, C., Healy, D. & Scriver, S. (2009) Rape and Justice in Ireland can be found on the Rape Crisis Network Ireland. It cites alcohol as the most common drug used to facilitate rapes. In 2011 RCNI published some of the findings as:



The inescapable conclusion of these and other studies is that the avoidance of risk factors such as alcohol reduces (but of course does not eliminate) an individual's risk of becoming a victim of assault including sexual assault.

So instead of muppeting here with ill-considered nonsense, post real evidence which states that preventative actions have no impact.

What your big long rambling wall of text fails to actually address is that giving women advice on to avoid rape does not reduce rape occurrence. Fact.

I don't really know how I can put it simpler for you.

SVJKarate

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

What your big long rambling wall of text fails to actually address is that giving women advice on to avoid rape does not reduce rape occurrence. Fact.

I don't really know how I can put it simpler for you.

You could post a link to the study you thought you were quoting?

Gambling Wolf

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

What your big long rambling wall of text fails to actually address is that giving women advice on to avoid rape does not reduce rape occurrence. Fact.

I don't really know how I can put it simpler for you.

What are you basing this statement on?

Dravokivich

Gambling Wolf wrote: »

What are you basing this statement on?

Typically a victim has little say in whether or not they'll be a victim.

El_Dangeroso

SVJKarate wrote: »

You could post a link to the study you thought you were quoting?

I already cited it. For a guy who's into Karate your google-fu is weak

There's a good few studies examining rape avoidance (teaching women how not to get raped) and there's no strong evidence to suggest it's effective. As always if you have something I'd simply LOVE to see it.

Otherwise it's just the usual AH ill-thought out bullshittery

Zen65

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I already cited it.

Did you? Where?

SVJKarate

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

There's a good few studies examining rape avoidance (teaching women how not to get raped) and there's no strong evidence to suggest it's effective.

The good people at RCNI will be shocked to learn of that!!!

Perhaps, just so they can enlighten themselves, and me too, you'd be kind enough to actually post a link? You know, a link that actually posts to the study or studies you're alleging to quote from?

Because it stands to reason that if strategies for reducing the risk of rape don't work, then strategies reducing other assaults don't work, and then, well maybe no crime risk reduction strategy works? That'll come as quite a blow to the people who sell locks, burglar alarms, etc.

osarusan

SVJKarate wrote: »

You know, a link that actually posts to the study or studies you're alleging to quote from?
.

I haven't read it and have no dog in this fight, but it took me literally 2 minutes to find.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1007/BF00941775/abstract

SVJKarate

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

As always if you have something I'd simply LOVE to see it.

Well, here's one. I've not read the details, just the abstract. It seems to contradict your assertions.

This next one is a more difficult read, but it agains closely links alcohol consumption to the risk of assault on women. Here's a frightening abstract from that paper:

Regardless of prior victimization status, alcohol consumption by the victim is a major risk factor for sexual assault. In the NCWSV, women who frequently drank enough to get drunk were at greater risk of sexual victimization than those who did not (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner,
2000). Mohler-Kuo et al. (2004) found that heavy episodic drinking was the strongest predictor of both rape when intoxicated and other types of rape (physically forced rape and rape due to threats of force); high school heavy episodic drinking patterns were also significantly associated with the risk of rape while in college. The Harvard College Alcohol Study also found that drug use was associated with an increased risk of rape (including rape when intoxicated and other types) (Mohler-Kuo, Dowdall, Koss, & Wechsler, 2004).
Similarly, Greene and Navarro (1998) showed that heavy alcohol use predicted later sexual assault over the course of an academic year among college women. Interestingly, the severity of the outcome also appears to be affected by alcohol and/or drug use by the victim and perpetrator. In the National College Women’s Study, victims who reported getting drunk more often also reported more severe sexual victimization than victims who got
drunk less often (Ullman, Karabatsos, & Koss, 1999).

This last one is slightly more sympathetic to your view, as it looks at the effectiveness of programs run in two universities. The findings show minimal differences in rates of victimisation within two months of training (which is not the same as having applied the risk reduction measures) but does find that there is a reduction in re-victimisation for the trained group after six months.

So in short - risk reduction strategies work. In fact they work far better than physical self-defence training for reducing the probability of an assault taking place.

SVJKarate

osarusan wrote: »

I haven't read it and have no dog in this fight, but it took me literally 2 minutes to find.

Thanks.

I had also found that study, but (1) I cannot access the full article, (2)it appears to deal more with the post-crime stress and subsequent fear of crime than an actual assessment of risk reduction strategies. In fact if you search other publications by the authors much of their work relates to PTSD, so the methodology of their study seems to focused on a different issue. After all, they are publishing the article in 1992 in the American Journal of Community Psychology. Also (3) the study I cited from 2012 (twenty years later) based on the Ohio University program showed different results, with positive outcomes for self-protection training.

Outlaw Pete

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

..giving women advice on to avoid rape does not reduce rape occurrence. Fact.

Politically correct nonsense.

Following advice on how to reduce your risk of being a victim of any crime is naturally going to reduce the occurrence of that crime. There is no reason why sexual assault should be an exception.

The one night I parked my car in a run down area, on an unlit street in Dublin (near the fruit market at the back of the four courts) I came back to a smashed window and my jacket nicked out of the boot. The person who is ultimately responsible for that crime is the thief, no question about that, as had he not been a cnut, my car would have been grand and I'd still have my jacket. However, when I reported it, and told the Garda where I had parked, he gave me a 'Well, that wasn't the wisest decision' look and he was right.

In an ideal world though, I should be able to park my car where I want. I shouldn't have to be worry about these scum bags. In fact, I would like the authorities to focus on stopping them, so that nobody ever has to worry about coming back to a vandalized car like as I did. But, we don't live in an ideal world. There will always be scumbags. It's a impossibility for authorities to totally prevent crimes from occurring, particularly those of an opportunistic nature.

I don't know what it is about sexual assaults which makes people so damn precious about any discussion regarding risk reduction. As a guy, if I am walking down a road alone late at night and I see a group of lads that seem drunk and unpredictable, I will take a detour as I know statistically there is a good chance I could get a hiding. If the Gardai release a five point plan on how men might best avoid becoming victims of assaults, I am going to heed it, I'm not going to say they are victim blaming.

Groups like the following are not giving advice for the craic.

http://www.woar.org/sexual-assault-resources/how-to-reduce-risk/

Zen65

Dravokivich wrote: »

Typically a victim has little say in whether or not they'll be a victim.

I have only a little say in who should be elected as a TD in my area, but for me that's not a reason to not vote.

SVJKarate

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I don't know what it is about sexual assaults which makes people so damn precious about any discussion regarding risk reduction.

There is a heightened sense of concern for victims of sexual assault that makes us not want to worsen their suffering by making even the vaguest suggestion that they may have contributed in any way to the assault (by not being careful enough).

This would not be so important were it not for the unforgivable approach which has so often been taken in court whereby a defendant is permitted to refer to the sexual history of the victim, and to their attire, in an attempt to lead the court / jury to believe that "they were asking for it".

In any reasoned, compassionate society, a defendant should face a doubled sentence if they have used any of the above as a defence. Courts in Ireland and elsewhere are far too ambiguous in the treatment of sexual assault cases*, and the overwhelming majority of decent law-abiding respectful people know that.

As a result, we can be overly sensitive to the idea that acknowledging the wisdom of taking precautions is a form of victim-blaming. Another poster here has explained that difference better than I can in the context of their car being broken into.



*An example of which we've seen recently where a man who sexually assault two nieces was given a suspended sentence.

dr.bollocko

What you guys are implying is that all that is needed for a rape to happen is the opportunity. An easy target. Which is a pretty dim view of males. Then on the other side there's an implication that if a woman gets drunk and raped that it's more deserved because they didn't think to, for example, drink less. Which is a pretty dim view of females.

A rapists is gonna rape. They create the easy targets. And no amount of exploding nuclear dick scissors hidden in sober vaginas is gonna change that.

Associating a rape crime with car damage is fine though. Because women are things right?

There's nothing "politically correct" about suggesting your point of view is wrong.