nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Lollipop95

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/niamh-horan-women-need-to-face-facts-about-the-link-between-rape-and-drinking-34794279.html

What do people make of this? Having read the article in full, I actually agree with SOME of the points she makes but I find the RSA comparison absurd. Car accidents ARE accidents, rape is anything BUT. I'm also quite disappointed that Niamh didn't focus on more of the onus being on the man not to rape. But it seems like she's trying to get across in the article that that side has already been discussed and she wants to open up another part of the debate

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sand

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What we're talking about in this thread is a journalist (who's only qualification is that she is a professional wind-up merchant), suggesting that women are responsible for the behaviour of someone else who chose to rape them.

Given you accuse her of being a WUM, where exactly did she suggest women are responsible for the behaviour of rapists? Less spittle and foaming at the mouth, and a little more thought might make this a less divisive topic.

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This old post here is useful when people start talking on this subject

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

I agree, little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that post is full of suppositions and things taken for granted and assumptions, so I'm really not sure why you thought to include it or what point it actually makes tbh.

storker

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What we're talking about in this thread is a journalist (who's only qualification is that she is a professional wind-up merchant), suggesting that women are responsible for the behaviour of someone else who chose to rape them.

What you're talking about, maybe, but not what people who haven't missed the point are talking about.

Dyr

bubblypop wrote: »

Thereby automatically diminishing some of the blame from the rapist.

There's that completely illogical addendum you keep adding when there is no grounds for it.

bubblypop wrote: »

If I'm hammered & get kicked in the face, am I partly at fault for being so drunk ?

If you weren't sitting at the side of the road hammered drunk would you have been kicked in the face? If someone tells you that it wasn't your fault will that unbreak your jaw for you? You are responsible for you, no one else is. It is in your own self interest not to jeopardize your own safety.

There's a phrase that I don't agree with because its too glib for me but I think it has a lot of validity in forcing people to take responsibility for their own safety.

"There are no victims, only volunteers"

One eyed Jack

Sand wrote: »

Given you accuse her of being a WUM, where exactly did she suggest women are responsible for the behaviour of rapists? Less spittle and foaming at the mouth, and a little more thought might make this a less divisive topic.

To be absolutely clear, I didn't just accuse her of being a wind up merchant, I know she's a wind-up merchant, from having had the displeasure of reading her previous, ehh, musings. By linking women's consumption of alcohol to their increased risk of being raped, she is suggesting that women are responsible for the behaviour of rapists. If only women didn't drink, apparently they would reduce their chances of being raped. What does that say for the thousands of women who don't drink, yet they are still raped? Her argument is both a non-sequitur, and a correlation/causation fallacy. I suspect she knows this, but she wants "a conversation" about it. What she really wants, is attention.

I'm neither spittling nor foaming at the mouth btw, and I've had plenty of time to think about the subject, and nothing she has written will make any sense to a lot of people who still question what was it about them that made another person choose to rape them. It's not me who's being divisive at all, it's a journalist who needs to "start a conversation" who needs to be divisive, and the topic of rape is clickbait gold right now.

Sand

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be absolutely clear, I didn't just accuse her of being a wind up merchant, I know she's a wind-up merchant, from having had the displeasure of reading her previous, ehh, musings. By linking women's consumption of alcohol to their increased risk of being raped, she is suggesting that women are responsible for the behaviour of rapists. If only women didn't drink, apparently they would reduce their chances of being raped. What does that say for the thousands of women who don't drink, yet they are still raped? Her argument is both a non-sequitur, and a correlation/causation fallacy. I suspect she knows this, but she wants "a conversation" about it. What she really wants, is attention.

I'm neither spittling nor foaming at the mouth btw, and I've had plenty of time to think about the subject, and nothing she has written will make any sense to a lot of people who still question what was it about them that made another person choose to rape them. It's not me who's being divisive at all, it's a journalist who needs to "start a conversation" who needs to be divisive, and the topic of rape is clickbait gold right now.

To be absolutely clear, you're angry about something she didn't say.

One eyed Jack

Sand wrote: »

To be absolutely clear, you're angry about something she didn't say.

To be even clearer - I'm not angry at all, your characterisations just don't fit, at all. I couldn't really give a tuppeny fcuk tbh for what she has to say on the subject, because that article is simply a paranoid, fearmongering piece designed to suggest to women that if they drink too much, they're likely to be raped, and then because they drank too much, they won't remember the details of being raped, and then they won't make a very good witness in court, and it will be all their fault because they drank too much.

freshpopcorn

i do think both men and women can drink to much on a night out and put themselves in a dangerous position later on in the night. From being attacked, to being mugged, getting arrested and people taking there own lives. Of course these situations rarely happen to most of us. The only thing I do think is people should look out for one another and if they see somebody might be a bit vunrable they should try and make sure there friend get home safely or at least get them a taxi!

AbusesToilets

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be even clearer - I'm not angry at all, your characterisations just don't fit, at all. I couldn't really give a tuppeny fcuk tbh for what she has to say on the subject, because that article is simply a paranoid, fearmongering piece designed to suggest to women that if they drink too much, they're likely to be raped, and then because they drank too much, they won't remember the details of being raped, and then they won't make a very good witness in court, and it will be all their fault because they drank too much.

Or perhaps it's an article saying that women should be careful about putting themselves in vulnerable positions. What an outlandish suggestion.

SeantheMan

Digs wrote: »

Even a whiff of suggesting women are responsible due to drink is sending a message that rape is justifiable. It's not, ever.

How about less victim blaming and more just don't rape someone??? Novel idea I know.

She's an awful twit imo.

What ? It doesn't give a message that it's justifiable at all.

Women’s drinking and the role it plays in putting them at risk of rape.

Alcohol is a factor in eight out of every 10 rapes and sexual assaults in Ireland. As part of the battle, we need to arm women — the most at-risk category — with the facts. If they drink alcohol to the point of oblivion they are putting themselves at risk of an attack — and it makes getting justice afterwards even more difficult.

She's saying the more you drink the more at risk you are of it occuring ,which is true.
Not that she condones it or that it's justifiable.
Can you please quote and explain how you came to that conclusion ?

stefanovich

Lollipop95 wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/niamh-horan-women-need-to-face-facts-about-the-link-between-rape-and-drinking-34794279.html

What do people make of this? Having read the article in full, I actually agree with SOME of the points she makes but I find the RSA comparison absurd. Car accidents ARE accidents, rape is anything BUT. I'm also quite disappointed that Niamh didn't focus on more of the onus being on the man not to rape. But it seems like she's trying to get across in the article that that side has already been discussed and she wants to open up another part of the debate

Perfectly reasonable article and I would argue common sense. Seems, based on the outrage, that a lot of people lack common sense. Getting obliterated drunk puts you at risk of lots of things, including rape. Doesn't mean the rapist is not at fault, just means you need to face up to the fact that the world is not a perfect place and you need to be smart.

Story Bud? wrote: »

Ireland's answer to Katie Hopkins.

She's an attention starved excuse for a "journalist".

Best off ignored. As is almost everything printed in that paper.

Why? What's so offensive about what she said?

Digs wrote: »

Even a whiff of suggesting women are responsible due to drink is sending a message that rape is justifiable. It's not, ever.

How about less victim blaming and more just don't rape someone??? Novel idea I know.

She's an awful twit imo.

How in any way is she suggesting it is justifiable? Seems being a realistic and sensible is a negative things these days.

One eyed Jack

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Or perhaps it's an article saying that women should be careful about putting themselves in vulnerable positions. What an outlandish suggestion.

Teblon wrote: »

In all aspects of life there are actions you can take or not take that reduce unneccessary risk.

Every adult actually knows this already. Niamh Horan, nor you, aren't telling anyone anything they don't know already.

tritium

There's a few different points here. Firstly, and I realise it's difficult given how the defence has in the past been allowed to question victims, we need to separate good precautions from responsibilityfor the act.

Maybe we need to frame it differently- "avoid getting too drunk boys and girls, bad things happen and you need to be alert.: Assault, rape, robbery, you're more vulnerable when you can't think clearly"

Secondly, as others have noted, we do currently tend to sermonise when something bad happens while someone is drunk. I've had friends pretty badly hurt in assaults in nights out that were completely out if their control but, especially in court, the level of drinking is always referenced

Thirdly, we need to have a more mature discussion around consent, especially where alcohol is involved. This needs to be led by legal and medical professionals not the groups currently pushing it. In particular we need to look at the tendency every weekend in Ireland for two parties to get blinded drunk and go and have sex. What does this mean for both parties consent?

Jack Killian

tritium wrote: »

There's a few different points here. Firstly, and I realise it's difficult given how the defence has in the past been allowed to question victims, we need to separate good precautions from responsibilityfor the act.

Maybe we need to frame it differently- "avoid getting too drunk boys and girls, bad things happen and you need to be alert.: Assault, rape, robbery, you're more vulnerable when you can't think clearly"

Secondly, as others have noted, we do currently tend to sermonise when something bad happens while someone is drunk. I've had friends pretty badly hurt in assaults in nights out that were completely out if their control but, especially in court, the level of drinking is always referenced

Thirdly, we need to have a more mature discussion around consent, especially where alcohol is involved. This needs to be led by legal and medical professionals not the groups currently pushing it. In particular we need to look at the tendency every weekend in Ireland for two parties to get blinded drunk and go and have sex. What does this mean for both parties consent?

This.

For some reason the only opportunity to advise/lecture someone about not drinking is WHEN something bad happens.

I'm all for having two or three every second weekend or so, or the odd one at home during the week, but the culture of getting wasted to the point of puking and barely being able to walk is astonishing.

And rape or no rape there is no way I'd leave myself in a position of being unable to walk in a city centre. And I'm male!

Yes the attacker is responsible, but people need to cop themselves on. I know people aged 30 with the livers of 90 year olds from the 70s or 80s.

If writing about rape is what gets it through their thick skulls then it's needs must; misguided, but worth a try.

VinLieger

Shes definitely right about generation snowflake, its becoming all to common in the states where college professors are having internal reviews brought about of their courses cus students complain about the content of the course. In most cases the problems the students have is the course is simply challenging their view of the world and how they think but they arent able to cope with that and instead of trying to learn are instead trying to censor those who have differing opinions than them.

One eyed Jack

SeantheMan wrote: »

She's saying the more you drink the more at risk you are of it occuring ,which is true.

How is it true though? It's a correlation after the fact, where in a very specific set of circumstances a woman was raped, and the only thing we know for a fact that increased her risk of being raped, is that someone wanted to rape her. There is no link whatsoever other than the suggestion that the woman had drank too much as the reason for her being raped. That is literally leading the reader to her conclusion, which is that women are raped because they drank too much. It's very convenient for her that she uses phrases like "the point of oblivion", and nobody knowing where that is exactly, and is there a point just before the point of oblivion where a woman isn't putting herself at risk of being raped, or is it that once she has a drink at all, she's increasing her risk of being raped?

I'm no "Generation Snowflake" as she likes to call it in the article, I'm just tired of journalists churning out this shìte as if it has any legitimacy whatsoever, and anyone who disagrees with them is spittling and divisive and "trying to shut down the conversation"? Nope, I'm just disagreeing with her assertions, because it's fuelling the idea that women are responsible for someone else's behaviour. That's not telling women to take personal responsibility for their own behaviour, it's making them responsible for someone else's behaviour!

Having a conversation about people's drinking habits - good idea.

Having a conversation about women being responsible for being raped because they drank too much - bad idea.

(or at least it's a good idea if you're a clickbait journalist)

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

This.

For some reason the only opportunity to advise/lecture someone about not drinking is WHEN something bad happens.

I'm all for having two or three every second weekend or so, or the odd one at home during the week, but the culture of getting wasted to the point of puking and barely being able to walk is astonishing.

And rape or no rape there is no way I'd leave myself in a position of being unable to walk in a city centre. And I'm male!

Yes the attacker is responsible, but people need to cop themselves on. I know people aged 30 with the livers of 90 year olds from the 70s or 80s.

If writing about rape is what gets it through their thick skulls then it's needs must; misguided, but worth a try.

I was agreeing with you right up until the end there. Trying to use rape to make a point about drinking is misguided. There was never any need to link excessive drinking to rape at all. The conversation Niamh Horan wants, is one that starts when people are children, not when they're grown adults, because by then it's far too late to be having that conversation.

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was agreeing with you right up until the end there. Trying to use rape to make a point about drinking is misguided. There was never any need to link excessive drinking to rape at all. The conversation Niamh Horan wants, is one that starts when people are children, not when they're grown adults, because by then it's far too late to be having that conversation.

Fair point, and that would be my preference too.

But the attempted shock factor is better than doing SFA; the current generation of alcoholics are no longer children to have that discussion with.

AudreyHepburn

This reminds of an article I posted about here where an English judge made the point that getting legless on nights greatly decreases the number of successful rape convictions, because how can a jury reasonably convict some-one if the victim can't remember what happened.

The judge too was vilified because people refused point blank to think logically about what she was saying, just like they are doing now.

Of course we should all be able to go out and get drunk without the fear of being raped but the reality is there are predatory individuals out there who look for easy targets and I see nothing wrong with warning women, and men for that matter, against making themselves vulnerable.

Getting blind drunk isn't a good idea any way and again what's wrong with reminding people of that.

It's not victim blaming, it's common sense.

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

Fair point, and that would be my preference too.

But the attempted shock factor is better than doing SFA; the current generation of alcoholics are no longer children to have that discussion with.

Then tackle the problem of people's excessive drinking habits without the scaremongering, because scaremongering doesn't work with adults. Hell it doesn't even work with children once they become teenagers and want to experiment for themselves. By the time they get to be adults, if nothing adverse has happened to them, the idea is ingrained in them that bad things happen to other people.

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then tackle the problem of people's excessive drinking habits without the scaremongering, because scaremongering doesn't work with adults. Hell it doesn't even work with children once they become teenagers and want to experiment for themselves. By the time they get to be adults, if nothing adverse has happened to them, the idea is ingrained in them that bad things happen to other people.

Anyone who gets that paralyticly pissed is arguably not an adult.

But you're right. What we do need to do is start saying to people "you're a moron" it if you can't walk home.

Maybe even cells to keep them in overnight and for the third strike of polluting our sidewalks with puke and piss and impacting on decent folks' nights out, a free taxi service emblazoned with "bringing an idiot home" complete with flashing lights and Tellytubby music blaring.

[Deleted User]

Conall Cernach wrote: »

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.

Your insurance will almost definitely refuse to pay out if they find out you left the keys in the car. In other words they apportion a considerable amount of the blame on the person who has had the car stolen from them......

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

Anyone who gets that paralyticly pissed is arguably not an adult.

But you're right. What we do need to do is start saying to people "you're a moron" it if you can't walk home.

Maybe even cells to keep them in overnight and for the third strike of polluting our sidewalks with puke and piss and impacting on decent folks' nights out, a free taxi service emblazoned with "bringing an idiot home" complete with flashing lights and Tellytubby music blaring.

Now you're talking!! :pac:

Although now I think of it, you're still going to have idiots who are proud of the fact that they got a ride home in a Tellytubby themed paddywagon after yet another "mad night out on the lash"...

razorblunt

I stopped reading at "Niamh Horan".
She craves attention, I can imagine her sitting at her desk watching the hit count on the article rise and rise.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How is it true though? It's a correlation after the fact, where in a very specific set of circumstances a woman was raped, and the only thing we know for a fact that increased her risk of being raped, is that someone wanted to rape her. There is no link whatsoever other than the suggestion that the woman had drank too much as the reason for her being raped

OK. Let us take the currently in the news Stanford sexual assault case in the US of A. Guy out of his head on drink, takes woman wasted on drink to the point of incoherence outside from a party and sexually assaults/rapes her when she passes out beside a dumpster. The lax sentence for the crime is another day's work, but simple question; remove alcohol from that scenario, how would her risks of sexual assault change? Would she have gone outside with him in the first place? Would she have lost all memory of the attack? Would he have seen her as more or less vulnerable? Hell, would he have been more or less of a rapey creep minus "dutch courage"? Anyone that answers "drink made no difference" is being either wilfully blind or dishonest.

Yes she is the victim of an assault on her person. Yes he is the perpetrator of that assault on her person. There is no mistake there. However to suggest there is no link between alcohol and the increased risk of rape or assault of any kind is beyond idiotic. It is not "correlation after the fact".

Nope, I'm just disagreeing with her assertions, because it's fuelling the idea that women are responsible for someone else's behaviour.

Actually, when it comes to drink sex and consent that's the message put out to men. The usual takeaway is women have little or no agency, need constant protection and it's always men's fault.

sunshine and showers

Why is it that alcohol is used as a blame factor for the victim of rape ("she was so drunk she were probably asking for it!") and a mitigating factor for the rapist ("he was hammered! he can't have known what he was doing")?

blue note

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Why is it that alcohol is used as a blame factor for the victim of rape ("she was so drunk she were probably asking for it!") and a mitigating factor for the rapist ("he was hammered! he can't have known what he was doing")?

The thread is nearly 20 pages long and I don't think I've read any post that says or suggests either of those things. You can quote one back if you can find one.

Dyr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

d people will still get raped. So then we have to include more common sense reasonable precautions, and people are still getting raped, and so on and so on, until women are leaving the house in hazmat suits in groups, and are back indoors before sundown...

Let me give you some advice, when you're reduced to making thin edge of the wedge arguments its time to admit you may not actually have a point

Crime has been around as long as humans and two millienia on we aren't all living in panic rooms.

One eyed Jack

Wibbs wrote: »

OK. Let us take the currently in the news Stanford sexual assault case in the US of A. Guy out of his head on drink, takes woman wasted on drink to the point of incoherence outside from a party and sexually assaults/rapes her when she passes out beside a dumpster. The lax sentence for the crime is another day's work, but simple question; remove alcohol from that scenario, how would her risks of sexual assault change? Would she have gone outside with him in the first place? Would she have lost all memory of the attack? Would he have seen her as more or less vulnerable? Hell, would he have been more or less of a rapey creep minus "dutch courage"? Anyone that answers "drink made no difference" is being either wilfully blind or dishonest.

But you can't just remove drink from the equation of an instance that has already happened? How is that not correlation after the fact? If drink is removed and it still happened, what else should we remove? I'm not saying drink made no difference, I can't, because all I would be doing is rationalising a scenario after it has already taken place. I'm not being wilfully blind about it either, my hindsight is fantastic! But, what I am saying, is that the victim in that case could not have had the foresight to see that she would be sexually assaulted later on that night. I have to use the term "sexual assault" and not rape, because he was found guilty of sexual assault, not rape, a fact that also seems to have gone over Niamh Horan's head. She needs to use the term "rape" though, so she can use the Stanford case in her conversation.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes she is the victim of an assault on her person. Yes he is the perpetrator of that assault on her person. There is no mistake there. However to suggest there is no link between alcohol and the increased risk of rape or assault of any kind is beyond idiotic. It is not "correlation after the fact".

It is correlation after the fact though because it doesn't explain the vast majority of people who drink to excess every weekend and they are never raped. It's one thing to claim there is a link, and we could do the same with women wearing barely there dresses and bambi heels, and we whittle down an extensive list that we have put together based on all the circumstances we know of in cases of rape, and we would still never be able to predict with any degree of accuracy who is and isn't more likely to be raped. You could literally draw up an extensive list of everything you can think of, get it out to every woman in the country, and hell even every girl in primary and secondary school too, and you're still not factoring in the one single cause of rape, the 100% guaranteed factor in all cases of rape, and why women are raped - because someone chooses to rape them.

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually, when it comes to drink sex and consent that's the message put out to men. The usual takeaway is women have little or no agency, need constant protection and it's always men's fault.

By whom though Wibbs? Another journalist on a wind-up mission to hold all men responsible for women being raped simply by virtue of the fact that they are men -

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-o39neill-20-minutes-is-an-awfully-long-time-when-youre-the-one-being-raped-404258.html

You wouldn't expect anyone to take that crap seriously either, and neither would I. Thankfully, anyone I know at least, doesn't take either journalist seriously.

One eyed Jack

Bambi wrote: »

Let me give you some advice, when you're reduced to making thin edge of the wedge arguments its time to admit you may not actually have a point

Crime has been around as long as humans and two millienia on we aren't all living in panic rooms.

But the "excessive alcohol intake increases your risk of being raped" is the original thin end of the wedge argument, and I was demonstrating that if we start going down that road, the logical conclusion is that we will end up no different to a State in the Middle East. And women will still be raped. Rape has been around since humans existed, and in spite of all our best efforts to eliminate rape from society, it still happens, in every society! We used to be able to use the excuse of "drink culture", now some wingnuts are pushing "rape culture", and we're falling back to arguing against "rape culture" by blaming "drink culture"? There is no one single solution that would prevent a person from being raped, but there is a single cause - someone chose to rape them.