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

Foxtrol

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Really? I can't imagine that not being super-offensive. Care to share a link?

This isn't the one I was think of but one of the first that pops up on a youtube seach

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l3GZUy1VAI

Sand

Sand wrote: »

I enjoy debates where people present different views and values and reach a common ground - if not conclusion - based on evidence and logic.

And then you have debates where people just ignore presented evidence and logic and say "Nuh-Uh".

Perhaps you would like to share something that links womens drinking and them being raped?

Because there actually is no link between being drunk and being raped.

Sand

bubblypop wrote: »

Perhaps you would like to share something that links womens drinking and them being raped?

Because there actually is no link between being drunk and being raped.

Well, look...make sure to ignore this post.

You definitely ignored the OP and the article under discussion. To remind you,

Director of Public Prosecutions Claire Loftus came out in 2014 to address the problem of such a low conviction rate in rape cases. She said that there were usually no other witnesses to the event, and memories may be impaired due to alcohol consumption and other factors. “Thus, it is often one person’s word against another’s,” she said.

The head of the Rape Crisis Centre also wants you to know about the risk of alcohol and rape.

Following the debate on Brendan O’Connor’s show — while reiterating that we must not blame the victim — Cliona Sadlier, of Rape Crisis Network Ireland, said: “Our position would be — because of the prevalence of sexual violence —we have to talk about alcohol’s role. It is unavoidable.”

And the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit in the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin wants you to know how big a role alcohol plays.

In 2012, more than seven in 10 alleged victims of sexual assault who attended the unit had consumed the equivalent of six pints of beer, or 12 units of alcohol, in the 12 hours before the attack.

The Department of Health says that women should not drink more than 11 units of alcohol over the course of a week.

So 70% of victims of sexual assault have consumed a weeks worth of alcohol in less than 12 hours, but that's just a coincidence. Ignore it. Don't address the evidence, don't attempt to build a view that complies with the evidence - ignore the evidence. Pretend its not there.

I know you ignored this next one as well, because it was posted by another user in this very thread. But WOAR (Women Organised Against Rape) are dedicated to ending sexual violence. They offer counselling, crisis services, community outreach work and .... 'How to Prevent Risk'? Wow, are they blaming victims by implying people can take precautions to reduce their risk of being victimised? And, oh my god, they have a section titled "Watch your beverages' and another section on 'Common Rape Drugs' where they list Alcohol! Those misogynistic monsters.

I know you ignored all easily discovered evidence because you didn't bother using Google to find studies establishing links between alcohol and victimisation (male and female) like this one which stated:

These findings indicate an association between alcohol and victimization independent of associations of both with physical aggression. Reducing intoxication may reduce victimisation without necessarily affecting violent behaviour. Violence reduction should focus as much on preventing alcohol misuse among victims or potential victims as among offenders.

How much evidence of a link do you want me to find so you can ignore it? Remember, just assert there is no link and its just as good as actually providing evidence.

El_Dangeroso

Foxtrol wrote: »

This isn't the one I was think of but one of the first that pops up on a youtube seach

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l3GZUy1VAI

Ahh, sorry but how was that situation caused by the woman getting too drunk?

If the woman was sober (or had less to drink) and sleeping in a bedroom on her own would that mean she would have been less likely to be raped by those four men?

Sand

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ahh, sorry but how was that situation caused by the woman getting too drunk?

If the woman was sober (or had less to drink) and sleeping in a bedroom on her own would that mean she would have been less likely to be raped by those four men?

Yes. Opportunity is a clear factor in the decision to commit any crime. Most policing and urban planning is based on reducing the opportunity or at least reducing the perception of opportunity to commit crime.

El_Dangeroso

Sand wrote: »

Yes. Opportunity is a clear factor in the decision to commit any crime. Most policing and urban planning is based on reducing the opportunity or at least reducing the perception of opportunity to commit crime.

I'm still not seeing how that women caused the opportunity for that sexual assault by drinking, her main crime seems to be being alone. As far as I can see the bigger issue was the man leaving the room.

So the real advice we can draw is 'Men, never leave your women alone at a party lest 4 men rape her'.

Widdershins

Surely being drunk puts you at a disadvantage. Common sense . Victim blamers will victim blame regardless . We shouldn't rubbish good advice because of a fear of that .

Sand

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I'm still not seeing how that women caused the opportunity for that sexual assault by drinking, her main crime seems to be being alone. As far as I can see the bigger issue was the man leaving the room.

So the real advice we can draw is 'Men, never leave your women alone at a party lest 4 men rape her'.

We saw two people - the man and the woman - drinking to the point where they were both incapacitated and vulnerable. The man puking his ring up and probably passing out to the amusement of the thugs, and the woman passed out unconscious in the bedroom.

Now, men are largely nice people and don't harm anyone. Women are also largely nice people and don't harm anyone. So most of the time you can afford to get incapacitated and leave yourself vulnerable.

But, plot twist, not all people - male or female - are nice people. Some are mean and nasty, some are .... well, they're very drunk. Leaving yourself vulnerable runs the risk that these people may happen along and spot an opportunity. The ad is a PSA so of course it doesn't run with the "And nothing bad happened..." conclusion.

El_Dangeroso

Sand wrote: »

We saw two people - the man and the woman - drinking to the point where they were both incapacitated and vulnerable. The man puking his ring up and probably passing out to the amusement of the thugs, and the woman passed out unconscious in the bedroom.

Now, men are largely nice people and don't harm anyone. Women are also largely nice people and don't harm anyone. So most of the time you can afford to get incapacitated and leave yourself vulnerable.

But, plot twist, not all people - male or female - are nice people. Some are mean and nasty, some are .... well, they're very drunk. Leaving yourself vulnerable runs the risk that these people may happen along and spot an opportunity. The ad is a PSA so of course it doesn't run with the "And nothing bad happened..." conclusion.

Yes but you are missing my point. There are numerous things that lead to an assault opportunity. Not one of those things is the fault of the victim. If advising on one is silly (never leave women alone in a room at a party) then the others are too.

Tell me one person who thinks getting drunk (men or women) to the point of incapacity is a good idea?

That's why I think this whole article is pointless. It's paternalistic judgement dressed up as faux concern for women's safety and I'm calling bull**** on it as a pointless exercise.

LorMal

This debate is a crock. Nobody listening - just repeating the same points over and over. Good luck with that.

El_Dangeroso

LorMal wrote: »

This debate is a crock. Nobody listening - just repeating the same points over and over. Good luck with that.

Is this your first time on the internet or something?

blue note

A few on this thread are willfully blind to evidence and common sense. There doesn't seem much point in discussing anything with them because it's not a real discussion. The answers have little to so with what was written before.

If I'm at home, drunk after a night out, & I don't hear someone breaking in to my house, is that my fault because I was home, Alone, in my own bed?
Am I in anyway at all to blame?

Should we tell women to never be alone, never walk anywhere alone, don't live alone, don't drink, all because some rapist or burglar may take advantage if them?

My point is, it shouldn't be an issue at all.
The victim is NEVER to blame. Never.

Be ' warning' women that they may be raped if they are drunk is completely ignoring the actual issue.
Which is that men shouldn't rape them.

Foxtrol

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Yes but you are missing my point. There are numerous things that lead to an assault opportunity. Not one of those things is the fault of the victim. If advising on one is silly (never leave women alone in a room at a party) then the others are too.

Tell me one person who thinks getting drunk (men or women) to the point of incapacity is a good idea?

That's why I think this whole article is pointless. It's paternalistic judgement dressed up as faux concern for women's safety and I'm calling bull**** on it as a pointless exercise.

How many times do we have to point out that no one is blaming or placing fault with victims? It would suit your argument so well if they were but posters like you are just strawmanning again and again.

Can someone please answer why is this is the one risk/danger where no one is allowed to give any warnings or advice about limiting risks? I can’t think of any other situation where providing a warning is met with such ridiculous defensiveness.

Decent Skin

bubblypop wrote: »

If I'm at home, drunk after a night out, & I don't hear someone breaking in to my house, is that my fault because I was home, Alone, in my own bed?
Am I in anyway at all to blame?

Should we tell women to never be alone, never walk anywhere alone, don't live alone, don't drink, all because some rapist or burglar may take advantage if them?

My point is, it shouldn't be an issue at all.
The victim is NEVER to blame. Never.

Be ' warning' women that they may be raped if they are drunk is completely ignoring the actual issue.
Which is that men shouldn't rape them.

All valid points. And the last line should never change.

But it applies to rape and mugging and general scumbaggery from feral sh1ts too.

I hate being told that "you can't walk that street after dark", for the reason you outline; unless said street has a "no trespassing" or "danger: open road works" sign then I should be entitled to.

But there is some personal responsibility too.

A drunk person may be unable to read said "open road works" sign and fall into the hole; a drunk person might ruin someone else's life by falling under a car and being killed.

So - leaving rape (or mugging or any criminal stuff aside) - drinking to the level some people do, where they puke or piss on themselves or fall off high heels or can't remember how they got home is crazy; it relies on someone else to get you home and probably ruins their night, not to mention whoever you puked on or staggered against in a stupor.

If you want to drink that much, have a house party (at an isolated spot) so the rest of us can enjoy nights out.

Yes, drinking to that extent is crazy, it's not good for our health & we can injure ourselves if intoxicated to that extent.

A pedestrian falling in front of a car, is the pedestrians fault, 100% , a drunk person getting mugged, assaulted or raped is not their fault.
They are the victim.

A drunk person that falls over and injures or kills themselves in the fall is 100% at fault.

BUT a drunk person is not in anyway at fault for someone else's actions.

Everyone is responsible for their OWN actions.

Do you see the difference?

Foxtrol

bubblypop wrote: »

Yes, drinking to that extent is crazy, it's not good for our health & we can injure ourselves if intoxicated to that extent.

A pedestrian falling in front of a car, is the pedestrians fault, 100% , a drunk person getting mugged, assaulted or raped is not their fault.
They are the victim.

A drunk person that falls over and injures or kills themselves in the fall is 100% at fault.

BUT a drunk person is not in anyway at fault for someone else's actions.

Everyone is responsible for their OWN actions.

Do you see the difference?

But we’re constantly advised to do things to lower risks to ourselves due to others harming us and nothing receives this kind of knee jerk defensiveness.

El_Dangeroso

Foxtrol wrote: »

But we’re constantly advised to do things to lower risks to ourselves due to others harming us and nothing receives this kind of knee jerk defensiveness.

No, no we're not constantly advised. All PSA's in Ireland are about harm we do to ourselves or potential harm to others (smoking, binge drinking, drink driving). I'm not aware of one that's aimed at preventing being a victim of crime. Maybe because they are not actually effective and just serve to shame victims.

LorMal

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Is this your first time on the internet or something?

I normally hang with the grown ups, schmuck.






Mod: banned

Sand

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Yes but you are missing my point.

No, I get your point. I disagree with your point but I do get it.

Decent Skin

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

No, no we're not constantly advised. All PSA's in Ireland are about harm we do to ourselves or potential harm to others (smoking, binge drinking, drink driving). I'm not aware of one that's aimed at preventing being a victim of crime. Maybe because they are not actually effective and just serve to shame victims.

Regular warnings to lock doors, not leave windows open, etc ?

This past weekend volunteers where I chip in got a warning not to park at one end of a car park because scumbags were firing golf balls at the parked cars.

In an ideal world those wouldn't be issues.

Unfortunately they are.

El_Duderino 09

bubblypop wrote:

Be ' warning' women that they may be raped if they are drunk is completely ignoring the actual issue. Which is that men shouldn't rape them.

'Men' don't rape. Rapists, rape. Rapists would love to see someone in a vulnerable position such as walking alone or being too drunk to defend themselves.

Publicising the status that in 7/10 cases the victim had consumed X units of alcohol in the Y hours before the attack, is like telling people that speeding is involved in X cases or alcohol slows driving reactions and you shouldn't drink and drive.

You can warn people about danger but it's more effective if you give them some context for the warning. It's not about blaming anyone, it's informing people so they can hake more informed decisions

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

'Men' don't rape. Rapists, rape. Rapists would love to see someone in a vulnerable position such as walking alone or being too drunk to defend themselves.

Publicising the status that in 7/10 cases the victim had consumed X units of alcohol in the Y hours before the attack, is like telling people that speeding is involved in X cases or alcohol slows driving reactions and you shouldn't drink and drive.

You can warn people about danger but it's more effective if you give them some context for the warning. It's not about blaming anyone, it's informing people so they can hake more informed decisions

No, the person that drinks and then drives a car is directly responsible for any injury or otherwise that befalls them.

If a drunk person is raped or assaulted by someone else, then it is that other person's actions that are wrong.
The only person responsible for someone's actions is that person themselves.

We are taking away some blame from rapists by warning women, would you warn women not to wear certain clothes, shoes?

kirving

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.

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.

Firstly, I'm not comparing the following with rape.

I have to agree on people not liking advice on risk whatsoever. Look at the discussion in the cycling forum on the use of hi-vis clothing and see the argument being made that it's the car drivers fault should they hit a dark clothes cyclist. Hi-vis clothing is not mandatory, but to even suggest that it may help (in addition to lights), you'll be berated and told you're victim blaming - because the car SHOULD have seen the legally dressed cyclist.

Well I'm sorry, but that's incredibly naive opinion to have.

Having been assaulted myself one night in town when I had drunk far too much, I can tell you that it almost certainly wouldn't have happened had I not been in a vulnerable state because I drank too much. It 100% wasn't my FAULT, but I do bear some responsibility in putting myself in that situation. (I was sitting down on my own and some scumbag punched me out of the blue and broke my nose and ran away, it wasn't a fight).

You can be damn sure that I cross the road when I see a group of lads in a quiet area rather than walk through them, and if I'm walking at night and see a girl, I'll cross the road out of the way rather than have her do it, because I understand how it can make her walk home that little bit less tense. I shouldn't have to do either, no one should, but it's about making sensible decisions to limit your risk in all situations.

El_Duderino 09

bubblypop wrote:

No, the person that drinks and then drives a car is directly responsible for any injury or otherwise that befalls them.

The drunk person might be driving fine in general but if someone else veers onto their side of the road, the drunks reactions are likely to be slower and more likely to result in a crash. The drunk person didn't cause the crash and they're not at fault but they put themselves in a more vulnerable position by being drunk.

bubblypop wrote:

We are taking away some blame from rapists by warning women, would you warn women not to wear certain clothes, shoes?

I never mentioned blame. Why do people equate informing people with blaming them? Are you suggesting it would be better to be blissfully ignorant than be informed that 7/10 rape victims have been drinking?

On the second point, I'm not going to tell anyone what to do. I'd suggest that if you have clothes that prevent you from moving quickly, then it'sprobably better to get a taxi than walking.

I'd also suggest avoiding blind alleys and stick to busy streets.

I can't help thinking you see that as blaming a person who is raped while walking in high heels or mugged while walking down a blind alley. It isn't blaming anyone, it's just informing people so they make decisions that are likely to keep them safe.

Samaris

I see no issue with bringing up that alcohol makes you more vulnerable to attack. It makes you more vulnerable to most types of crime, and probably more vulnerable to committing a few too, although that's beside the point.

As usual, there is a middle ground. If someone warned me "there's a guy down the alleyway that you're heading in that's following passing women", I'd be extremely grateful for the warning (and call the gardai), and would heed it. It's common sense. Admittedly, it's also common sense that excessive drinking makes one vulnerable, so it may not need too much emphasizing.

The onus is STILL on the rapist, it's he who committed the crime, and he who CHOSE to commit the crime. Just one is less likely to be attacked if they take some extra precautions when going out.

Where I start getting "ah will you feck off" is when people AFTER a rape has been committed start with "well, she shouldn't have been drunk" or "she shouldn't have been wearing those clothes". At that stage, it is directing disapproval to a specific person who has gone through a horrific ordeal. Although I don't believe that clothing should be the slightest mitigatable circumstance.

Edit: Although I would be cautious about being out alone at night in high heels, because I'm not used to them and they would very definitely hobble my speedy movement or ability to defend myself.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The drunk person might be driving fine in general but if someone else veers onto their side of the road, the drunks reactions are likely to be slower and more likely to result in a crash. The drunk person didn't cause the crash and they're not at fault but they put themselves in a more vulnerable position by being drunk.
.

Their reactions are slower because they are drunk.
Intoxicated that they cannot be in charge of an mpv.
Therefore their slowed reactions are entirely their own fault.

blue note

When we tell children to be wary of strangers are we victim blaming them? It seems like sound advice to me, but if you were to take what a lot of people are saying here as absolute truth there is no reason for children to be wary of strangers. And if someone tells their child not to talk to strange men they are attributing blame to the child if they are then abused.

I would have assumed that people could separate these two things, but from reading this thread I'm not sure everyone can.

blue note

blue note wrote: »

When we tell children to be wary of strangers are we victim blaming them? It seems like sound advice to me, but if you were to take what a lot of people are saying here as absolute truth there is no reason for children to be wary of strangers. And if someone tells their child not to talk to strange men they are attributing blame to the child if they are then abused.

I would have assumed that people could separate these two things, but from reading this thread I'm not sure everyone can.

Telling children to be wary of strangers is not the same thing as linking rape and drink.
Rapes happen, children are assaulted. Neither victim are in anyway responsible.

El_Duderino 09

bubblypop wrote:

Their reactions are slower because they are drunk. Intoxicated that they cannot be in charge of an mpv. Therefore their slowed reactions are entirely their own fault.

Look, I think you have your answer there. I keep saying that being drunk makes you vulnerable because our can't behave as effectively as when you're sober. That goes for all kinds of dangers.

I would never hold a rape victim responsible. The blame is 100% on the perpetrator. Informing people that being drunk increase the chances of bad things happening to hem is not the same as blaming them if someone assaults them.

bubblypop wrote:

Telling children to be wary of strangers is not the same thing as linking rape and drink. Rapes happen, children are assaulted. Neither victim are in anyway responsible.

AND it makes sense to tell children about the dangers and to avoid behaviours that make them vulnerable and susceptible to danger.

Rape isnt a special case.