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

swervring wrote: »

And I agree that this is a valid warning to make, I just think there needs to be some better way of warning people to look out for themselves without there being a possibility of making a victim feel it was their fault.

I don't think that was Lazygal's point. It is more effective to make sure people don't rape than making sure that a particular person won't be raped because they will be just replaced by another victim.

I hate the discussion about drink less and you won't be raped. I was assaulted and reacted way too slowly even just by being very tired and confused. That still doesn't make me responsible for what happened. And this is where the drink argument comes in. We do a lot of things that put us in danger but that doesn't make us responsible for malicious actions of others.

swervring wrote: »

Would someone who was beaten up, or robbed, when they were drunk, be told that they should have drank less? No matter what way you try to spin it, the effect of linking alcohol consumption to becoming a victim of rape is clearly placing responsibility on the victim for what has happened to them, and that is simply not acceptable. It is never ever the victim's fault and people should think twice about the impact this type of conversation has on those people who have already been victims - they don't deserve to be made to feel responsible for what has happened to them.

If you left the keys in your car and it was subsequently stolen I think the Guards would at least raise an eyebrow when you told them. When traveling abroad we are often given advice on avoiding pickpockets or scam artists. This is so that we can behave in a manner that can keep us safer in a world where there are a great many scumbags. Someone who is so drunk that they pass out or is unaware of their surroundings is an easy target for such a scumbag. I think that in trying to prevent these scumbags from committing their reprehensible crimes that it does no harm to inform people of their modus operandi. This should of course be done in a sensitive manner that places absolutely no blame on victims and not in clickbait type articles such as in the OP.

It's actually quite handy seeing the name 'Niamh Horan' at the top of any article. Saves time. You can skip it, knowing you won't miss anything. Of any substance. Whatsoever.

swervring wrote: »

Would someone who was beaten up, or robbed, when they were drunk, be told that they should have drank less?

That's what I was told.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

The guards advise you to lock your front door to avoid being burgled. There's no point in advising burglars not to rob houses because they're hardly likely to listen. In much the same way rapists aren't going to listen to anyone telling them not to rape so it makes sense to tell their potential victims to be vigilant and to keep their wits about them.

That's just not true. In quite a few cases the defence is that rapist was drunk and made stupid decision or mistake. People who might behave themselves otherwise often become violent and get into the fights or commit other assaults when drunk. So telling them not to drink might be a better option.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It does not matter if a woman is passed out on the street, wearing absolutely nothing, there is NO DEFENCE at all for raping her. She is not responsible for anyone else's actions. When she drinks, it doesn't mean she's fair game to be raped. When she dresses provocatively she is not inviting men to rape her.

If a man has sex with a woman without her consent then he is 100% a rapist and should be treated as such. If at any time after consenting she tells him to stop and he doesn't, he is a rapist.

I don't think I saw a single post that would contradict that.

Reduce your risk of being raped by never venturing outside your own front door. The statistics say you're more likely to be raped by someone close to you.

So a person is neither safe in their own home, nor are they safe outdoors.

Moral panic can be a wonderful tool in controlling people's behaviour and having them impose restrictions on themselves out of fear for their own safety, and even then they're not guaranteed they are safe.

This sort of backwards rationalisation and correlation in the article to link excessive drinking to the increased risk of being raped, is a way of trying to control people's drinking and socialising habits. There's absolutely no way of predicting that someone who is completely ossified is at any more risk of being raped than someone who hasn't touched a drop of alcohol all night. The only factor that increases someone's risk of being raped, is if there is a person in their vicinity who chooses to rape them.

Be as hypervigilant as you like, you're trying to think for thousands of potential possibilities, a rapist only has one single minded possibility on their mind - how to avoid getting caught after raping you.

bubblypop wrote: »

So being drunk increases the risk of being raped?? The risk of being drunk is increased by men somehow thinking OK to rape a female who is out of her mind drunk.
It totally takes away blame from the rapist.
Basically your point is, don't get drunk because men just can't help themselves raping girls that can't defend themselves.
It doesn't matter how drunk someone is, its never their fault that they were raped . Never

Not getting hammered is just good advice. Health wise, mental health wise etc

I don't think anyone here is talking about confusion over consent. That's another discussion. Here we're talking about clear rapes where an opportunistic rapist sees a girl perhaps drunk and on her own and might think she'll be easy to trick to cone down a dark alley, mightnt be able to remember much so won't be able to identify me. If I'm lucky she won't even remember what happened. That sort of thing.

Again, not her fault, but I think most people if they hear of their sister or daughter or friend walked home drunk and on their own we'd tell them they're mad think of who you could have met. If something actually happened to them that's obviously not an area you'd approach.

When my mother warned me to look both ways before crossing the road or warned me not to accept sweets from strangers or indeed warned me not to drink too much, was she by implication suggesting that I would be to blame if disaster did befall me? Or was she giving sound common sense evidence based advice in order to help me be safer?