Digs wrote: » Yeah my point went completely over your head.
eviltwin wrote: » It was Chrissie Hynde. It's total bs. Men don't rape women because they wear revealing clothing. I think we do men a disservice by implying they are little more than animals who can't control themselves. She was gang raped so I doubt her footwear would have made much difference one way or another. It's not being a snowflake whatever the fcuk that is to point that out.
stoplooklisten wrote: » Why not sleep with your house door unlocked? In fact, why have a door at all? Having a door on your house is basically instilling an irrational fear and paranoia in people, well, those people who are going to take that crap seriously
scream wrote: » She was a rape victim, are you? If not stop insulting her experiences with your silly special snowflake crap.
bubblypop wrote: » Tell me how this doesn't blame the victim in some way? Something YOU did most certainly led to YOU being raped. So not something the rapist did then? Or maybe that passed out drunk girl may have been raped anyway, if she was sober, by the same passing rapist.
One eyed Jack wrote: » We should all live in cardboard boxes then so we don't increase our risk of our houses being burgled. And we should never leave our cardboard boxes because doing so increases our risk of being raped. It's our responsibility then if anything happens to us because we just weren't being careful enough.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You read that arseways.
Phoebas wrote: » Reading this thread I can't believe that some people would prefer that we didn't talk about the precautions women can take to protect themselves from rapists just in case that message is misconstrued as blaming the victim. You are throwing your sisters under the bus.
ceadaoin. wrote: » Sure, we'll just put all the onus on women to "protect themselves" from being raped. We'll never talk about what causes some men to think they are entitled to a persons body if they dress or behave a certain way, and even if they don't. Nope, that's not the real issue at all.
scream wrote: » About a year or so ago some famous woman, I think it may have been Blondie, was reminiscing about being a wild child and what she felt were some of the stupid and dangerous things that she'd done in her youth, anyway she made a comment along the lines of ''if you're gonna go somewhere dangerous wearing fcuk me clothes and get drunk make sure you're wearing shoes you can run in''.
bluewolf wrote: » Woman victim drinks a lot: it's her fault, she was drunk Rapist drinks a lot: it's not his fault, sure he was drunk
stoplooklisten wrote: » or, you know, we could just take sensible, common sense precautions, without screaming we're being victimized for doing it I never said live in fear.
Take someone passed out on the side of the road. Are you saying that if they were sober, in their right sense, they would choose to lie down and have a little rest in the same spot?
Bambi wrote: » its acknowledging that my behavior made me a victim. I would rather not be a victim so maybe I should learn from that
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » Funnily enough (actually , it's not funny at all), the law provides that a drunk woman may be so awfully drunk, that she cannot know what she is doing, therefore she is a rape victim. Yet even if a man becomes so drunk that he doesn't know she hasn;t consented, he has no available defence. A woman being too drunk is effectively grounds for prosecuting, but is not available to an EQUALLY drunk man. I'm not being sexist, by the way, we can say the same about two gay men or two lesbians. Both out-of-their-tree drunk, but one being drunk becomes a victim, and the other has no defence of intoxication. Basically, the current situation is exactly the opposite of what you are saying. And I think there are serious questions about that policy.
bluewolf wrote: » Woman victim drinks a lot: it's her fault, she was drunk
Zen65 wrote: » That was Chrissie Hynde (lead singer of The Pretenders) and it was not great advice, insofar as it was her state of mind (drugged up by her own choice) rather than her clothes which was the issue that made her vulnerable. People vilified her for saying it, understandably, because she actually did make make her point in such a manner as to partially blame herself for the rape. It's easy to miss the fact that her sense of guilt probably stems from the fact that the events she referred to happened in (I think) the 70's when victims of rape were often made feel guilty for a range of reasons which today we would dismiss as nonsense.
scream wrote: » What? She's speaking from experience, her experience of having put herself in a dangerous situation that worked out extremely badly for her. There's a lesson to be learned there and you do a disservice to people if you tell them that they should be able to do as they please without there being potential repercussions for those actions. It would be a wonderful world if everyone was lovely all of the time but this is the real world with plenty of predators and instead of filling people's heads with an attitude of entitlement people should prepare others for the fact that there is no Safe Space in the real world and that they do need to protect themselves. I could probably argue the point all day here but the reality is that some posters think we all live in a special little safe bubble where nobody is expected to take any personal responsibility and everything is always somebody else's fault. Rape is never the victims fault.
One eyed Jack wrote: » And you know it's not that simple at all.
darkpagandeath wrote: » I have no idea how this thread has gone from good advice of looking after yourself in public to ... Your blaming the victim. I have another bit of good advice Don't leave your drink unattended in a bar or club either.
Wanderer78 wrote: » this story may have already been mentioned on this thread. apologies if so:http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0613/795167-qatar-doha-rape/
Zen65 wrote: » You're pointing out, correctly, the error of a defence made by those accused of raping somebody. However, the courts have not deemed such a defence to be valid per se, so it's not worthy of our time to entertain such positions.