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

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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"...

Probably. But not too many if they were hit with the shopkeeper's bill for cleaning up the puke along with wages for lost time and lost custom due to the stink.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

I would suggest you are. You've tied yourself to this string of thought and by god you're hanging on for dear life.

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.

I don't think correlation after the fact means what you think it means. The vast majority of people who drink to excess every weekend never get assaulted, fall over, or end up in A&E either. However ask anyone who works in such places what are the common factors involved and drink and drugs are right up there top of the list. Hell look at all the panic around drink spiking with "rape drugs". When the Irish stats and hospital reports were examined not a single case of a "rape drug" was detected in the last decade. Not one. Well, yeah, there was one; plain old alcohol.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Only if one is in possession of an incredibly linear and simplistic black and white mindset.

armaghlad

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm nearly 20 years in a job dealing with victims of crimes.
I have seen and stamped many insurance forms & spoke with many insurance companies.
Trust me, if your in your house & some fecker steals from you, your insurance will pay out.
And if they chance their arm not to, argue because you will win.

Off topic tho, we will leave this here!

Maybe things are different in the north but relatIves of mine had their Toyota Rav4 stolen in a creeper burglary and insurance didn't pay out because entry was gained via an unlocked door.

blue note

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

There are many things we can do to prevent many people from being raped. The rapists could just choose not to rape, but even though it is entirely their fault, I wouldn't rely solely on that. But there are other things we can do ;

Make the streets safer with increased lighting, police presence, cctv.
Work on how to get more convictions
Increase the sentences
Tackling issues of privilege is part of it

There are lots of things we can do but what we can't do for some reason is talk about how to stay safe. None of these solutions are going to work 100%. Because of that we need to use them all. Except for staying safe.

Now again, I will say that's there's stigma attached to sexual crimes and talk of staying safe is a problem for this. But surly we could talk about it like adults and understand that there's a gulf between advising people to mind themselves and it's their fault they were raped.

meeeeh

This is very good opinion piece on the subject.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/kathy-sheridan-drinking-is-never-an-excuse-for-rape-1.2684664

There is a massive need for conversation about attitudes to drinking but you don't hear every time someone gets smashed in the face with a pint glass or similar that they should be much more able to avoid attack if they weren't drinking. It's one thing pointing out that excessive drinking puts you in a lot more danger to be a victim or a perpetrator of something and another thing saying what did the victim expect, they were drunk as monkey...

Jayop

No harm Jack but I have to agree with Wibbs. It looks now like you posted an angle of discussion and despite multiple people using basic logic to show you are wrong you're sticking to it to save face.

Jack Killian

Jayop wrote: »

No harm Jack but I have to agree with Wibbs. It looks now like you posted an angle of discussion and despite multiple people using basic logic to show you are wrong you're sticking to it to save face.

I'm guessing the other Jack - clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Jayop

Yeah the other one.

meeeeh

armaghlad wrote: »

Maybe things are different in the north but relatIves of mine had their Toyota Rav4 stolen in a creeper burglary and insurance didn't pay out because entry was gained via an unlocked door.

But was it any less of a crime? We're the gang any less guilty?

Jayop

meeeeh wrote: »

This is very good opinion piece on the subject.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/kathy-sheridan-drinking-is-never-an-excuse-for-rape-1.2684664

There is a massive need for conversation about attitudes to drinking but you don't hear every time someone gets smashed in the face with a pint glass or similar that they should be much more able to avoid attack if they weren't drinking. It's one thing pointing out that excessive drinking puts you in a lot more danger to be a victim or a perpetrator of something and another thing saying what did the victim expect, they were drunk as monkey...

You don't hear it every time someone is smashed in the face because you don't known if they were drunk or not. I know for a fact that every time someone I know got assaulted on the way home whilst drunk, their drinking was always regarded as a factor in the discussion and it was never used to blame them.

Jayop

meeeeh wrote: »

But was it any less of a crime? We're the gang any less guilty?

Ah ffs it's become tiresome having to repeat against and again and again that I no one in the thread assigned any less than full blame on the person perpetrating the crime.

GT_TDI_150

If a woman out cycling hits a pothole, crashes and passes out and were to get raped .... are we saying she shouldnt have been riding a bike?

As a side thought ...... someone should invent a concent app....both parties signed in...all good.
One part hasnt ... no consent was given. And before you say cant expect fellas to go sign in to an app before having sex....consider the consequences when they havent. It would take a few cases where someone can point to the app and say i never gave concent for poeple to cop on and start using some thing like it.

Im off to the patent office

conorhal

meeeeh wrote: »

This is very good opinion piece on the subject.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/kathy-sheridan-drinking-is-never-an-excuse-for-rape-1.2684664

There is a massive need for conversation about attitudes to drinking but you don't hear every time someone gets smashed in the face with a pint glass or similar that they should be much more able to avoid attack if they weren't drinking. It's one thing pointing out that excessive drinking puts you in a lot more danger to be a victim or a perpetrator of something and another thing saying what did the victim expect, they were drunk as monkey...

Which literally nobody has said.

Maguined

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

If a woman out cycling hits a pothole, crashes and passes out and were to get raped .... are we saying she shouldnt have been riding a bike?

As a side thought ...... someone should invent a concent app....both parties signed in...all good.
One part hasnt ... no consent was given. And before you say cant expect fellas to go sign in to an app before having sex....consider the consequences when they havent. It would take a few cases where someone can point to the app and say i never gave concent for poeple to cop on and start using some thing like it.

Im off to the patent office

There already is just such an app but it is entirely pointless as how do you know someone was sober enough when using the app to consent?

meeeeh

Jayop wrote: »

You don't hear it every time someone is smashed in the face because you don't known if they were drunk or not. I know for a fact that every time someone I know got assaulted on the way home whilst drunk, their drinking was always regarded as a factor in the discussion and it was never used to blame them.

Ok, so quote me a similar article as the one in op, when this is pointed out for someone being assaulted and beaten when going home or similar? If it is so common it shouldn't be that hard.

[Deleted User]

I'm caught between two stools on this one.

On one hand, it's perfectly reasonable to be aware that if you lock your car, make sure your hall door is bolted, turn off the iron, and not be so incapacitated that you're not completely aware of what's happening to you, are all actions that enhance your general safety. That's all common sense.

On the other, if someone does happen to get drunk and is mugged, stabbed, raped or otherwise violated, I would hate to hear the conversation turn into "Everyone knows its dangerous to be paralytic, why did they put themselves in that postion" or worse, "what do you expect to happen if you let your guard down like that". I don't think victims of crimes like that should ever feel they're guilty of contributory negligence by trusting someone in the wrong scenario, or having their judgement impaired by drink, or being passed out, or just having the kind of common sense failure we all have from time to time.

So one course of action is reasonable, but it puts an unreasonable expectation on the woman - or man - to avoid being raped, or the conversation will turn to what THEY did wrong. And avoiding being raped really means the rapist will look for someone else.

SarahMollie

Niamh Horan is a glorified troll and the Indo is a rag.

Anyone remember her from this career highpoint? http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/niamh-horan-on-women-in-rugby-i-never-play-a-game-without-my-tan-30495836.html

Jayop

meeeeh wrote: »

Ok, so quote me a similar article as the one in op, when this is pointed out for someone being assaulted and beaten when going home or similar? If it is so common it shouldn't be that hard.

I didn't mention articles. I'm talking about personal experience.

OldGoat

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

If a woman out cycling hits a pothole, crashes and passes out and were to get raped .... are we saying she shouldnt have been riding a bike?

No. Whats being said is that if a sober woman and a drunk woman each get on bicycle then the sober woman is less likely to hit the pothole due to being more in control.

meeeeh

Jayop wrote: »

I didn't mention articles. I'm talking about personal experience.

Or otherwise it is completely outside public discourse while women get constantly told how they shouldn't drink so bad things won't happen to them in media and online.

Let's face it we all know getting drunk puts you into a whole pile of danger but only some of us are constantly bombarded with how really we should be more careful. Why wouldn't you tell men they shouldn't drink because they might rape otherwise? It would cause a war about how all men are vilified and so on...

Edit: just to add, I don't believe that there's rape culture, in fact I hate the therm. Neither I believe all men are potential rapist and similar nonsense. But every victim of a crime will wonder why they didn't lock the door, why they drank, why they went into that street. But they would take all the precautions they would be just replaced by another victim who didn't. Isn't then better to focus debate how to stop crime instead of how to avoid it? Compare rape debate which places responsibility on victims to avoid rape to the one of rural crime where the debate is how to prevent it.

meeeeh

OldGoat wrote: »

No. Whats being said is that if a sober woman and a drunk woman each get on bicycle then the sober woman is less likely to hit the pothole due to being more in control.

Actually a drunk woman is very much breaking the law..

OldGoat

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually a drunk woman is very much breaking the law..

Not really the salient point though. Someone drunk is in less control than someone sober. In ANY* situation having less control is the poorer option. It's just a piece of advice, take it or leave it.

*Fetishists aside.

[Deleted User]

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. 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?

Of course its true that people's behaviour can increase the risk of bad things happening to them. Be it drinking, drug taking, walking alone at night, walking down dark lanes, walking in known bad areas etc etc. its head in the sand stuff saying risk isn't increased.

If people used "a correlation after the fact" as a reason to dismiss something we would basically be binning all stats gained after events happen.

Someone staggers in front of a car and gets knocked down - "sure it might have happened anyway you can't blame the drink".

Someone has a heart attack after taking drugs - "sure they might have had it anyway you can't say the drugs caused it".

Someone walks into a known bad area and is attacked - "sure they could have been attacked in the taxi they didn't get".

It in no way takes away from the severity of the crime nor does it place any blame for the actual crime on the victim to say that you increase your risk of things happening to you by behaving in certain ways.

sunshine and showers

blue note wrote: »

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.

It's a general point about how rape cases are discussed and examined. It's the entire basis of the Stanford rape case.

Just because you haven't seen it expressed in this exact thread doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a way of thinking.

[Deleted User]

OldGoat wrote: »

No. Whats being said is that if a sober woman and a drunk woman each get on bicycle then the sober woman is less likely to hit the pothole due to being more in control.

Hitting a pothole of course due to each woman's own actions.
None of which have anything to do with someone else's actions.

The analogy doesn't work.
Unless a random man tries to push them off their bikes & you contend that if the drunk woman falls, then it's her fault for being drunk.

Ignoring of course, that it's an offence to be drunk in charge of a pedal cycle!

freddiek

like some people, I never took Horan seriously as a journalist. She tended to specialize in fluff pieces for the Sindo.

however this is on balance a very good article.

The Brock Turner case rightly appalled many.

I'm sure the victims in the vast majority of female rapes are not "out of it" and are capable of resisting, but in a male on female situation with no-one to help them they won't be able to fight off an attacker.

However there will be plenty of cases - just like Turner - where the attacker only takes the chance because the victim is extremely drunk or comatose.

Therefore, there are plenty of rapes that happen just because the victim is extremely drunk or comatose.

Her message to be safe is therefore well-intentioned and accurate.

I myself ended up in hospital some years ago after an accident that would not have occurred had I not been over indulging in alcohol.

Dyr

bubblypop wrote: »

Ignoring of course, that it's an offence to be drunk in charge of a pedal cycle!

Also ignoring the fact that its an offense to be a danger to yourself or others in public through drunkenness

But that's none of my business

suicide_circus

Luckily, outside the shrill hyper sensitive environs of social media, people can give and take simple common sense advice in the spirit it was given without resorting to moronic offense-seeking.

[Deleted User]

This is probably a bit of idiosyncratic view and it is more about safety in general.

Why does someone who grew up somewhere a bit dogey end up street smart?.

There is a false sense so security in how safe our environment had become when alcohol is not a factor.

Children are very protected by parents, schools have all sorts of policies about behaviour, work has HR to police behaviour. All this can lead to anyone with less that savoy attitudes, thought, desires or motivations to police themselves very carefully when they are sober but one once alcohol is involved it is different because alcohol loosens inhibitions.