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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But do you not think people know all this advice already? I mean, that's what makes common sense, common, isn't it?

Circular argument though. If you stop giving the advice, and explaining why it makes sense, it ceases to be commonly known.

SVJKarate wrote: »

Circular argument though. If you stop giving the advice, and explaining why it makes sense, it ceases to be commonly known.

But I'm not suggesting we shouldn't give advice at all, I give advice to my child all the time, I have conversations with him all the time. I also know that he's going to be in situations where he will disregard all my advice because he will be thinking about the greater and more immediate benefit to him in that situation. That is normal human behaviour.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No they won't, because they aren't aware of all the potential risks, and that's why they are the targets of 80% of violence

Ahh, no, not really.

I don't want to take us OT but aggression towards and between men is very different in nature than aggression by a man against a woman. It's territorial, it's testosterone, it's cultural and it's peer-driven. Two men will commonly attack one man, but two men will rarely ever attack one woman. Cultural norms dictate that if two men are in the company of a woman and one man becomes aggressive towards her, the other man will usually intervene and de-escalate the situation, dragging his 'buddy' away from the scene. For two men to attack one woman it almost always requires a premeditated pact between the men, which is rare.

One man will attack a woman, on the basis that he is alone and won't be 'found out' for acting in that manner. If he does not know her he's not looking to dominate her, as he would be seeking by attacking an unknown male; he's out to kill or rape her. None of his preferred outcomes include the option where she walks away and is able to report his actions, and killing or the threat of killing will be used to ensure that's how it ends up. A man attacking a woman is 1000% more serious than an average man-attacks-man scenario.

Men commonly become victims of assault because other men have less inhibitions about attacking a man, and because 'flee' is not the natural reaction of a man when confronted with aggression, even though they know the risks.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I also know that he's going to be in situations where he will disregard all my advice because he will be thinking about the greater and more immediate benefit to him in that situation. That is normal human behaviour.

Which is why, as he gets older, you need to be able to articulate your advice in less simplistic ways, and explain in greater detail the benefits of following the advice, as well as ways by which the advice could be ignored with less risk consequence - "Son, if you must get hammered be sure to do it where there's trustworthy friends with you in case you get into bother"

SVJKarate wrote: »

Which is why, as he gets older, you need to be able to articulate your advice in less simplistic ways, and explain in greater detail the benefits of following the advice, as well as ways by which the advice could be ignored with less risk consequence - "Son, if you must get hammered be sure to do it where there's trustworthy friends with you in case you get into bother"

Absolutely, I absolutely agree with everything you've said above, which is why the whole idea of journalists "starting conversations" isn't going to do a whole lot to address issues in society, simply because the conversation doesn't evolve past "don't do this, don't do that, in this very specific set of circumstances, because you're increasing your risk of a bad outcome". The conversation needs to happen between children and their primary influence, between people and their immediate peer groups. Journalists aren't starting conversations, they're inflaming opinions in the most divisive way possible, and the only people who benefit from that behaviour, are journalists.

SVJKarate wrote: »

Ahh, no, not really.

I won't quote the whole thing because I actually agree with most of it, so I'm not going to nit-pick for the sake of it as it's pretty spot on IMO, this bit in particular resonates with me -

Men commonly become victims of assault because other men have less inhibitions about attacking a man, and because 'flee' is not the natural reaction of a man when confronted with aggression, even though they know the risks.

Because it actually reminded me of an incident one night where I was walking home on my own after the club, completely sober, but I walk with a limp which is more pronounced when I'm tired, so basically I'm all over the place and I walk like a drunk :pac:

So these three lads anyway out of nowhere start a conversation with me and they appear fairly harmless so I'm chatting away, when two of them either side of me link arms and offer to "escort me home". That's when the alarm bells went off that this was right dodgy (didn't take a genius to figure the three lads were as camp as Christmas), so I started calmly at first telling them I was grand from here and all the rest of it, and for three camp lads they were stronger than they looked, so I'd to put up a fair fight to get away (like you were saying the first response wasn't to flee, it was to make sure they couldn't follow!), and I eventually managed to escape them, sat down on a step to catch my breath and eat my burger I had in my pocket... I woke up the next morning with half a burger in my hand, checked I still had my wallet, and headed home! I wasn't even drunk!!

Three men were the victims of assault that night, but their peers who will comfort them won't hear a word about the reason why they were the victims of an assault. I doubt they'll have told anyone the truth either.

SeanW

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

But where does it stop?

Do we tell women not to by ground floor appartments? tell women not to go out after 8pm? Dont wear clothes that will reveal skin,....

No. I am suggesting that all people - regardless of sex, race etc - should take reasonable precautions. Things like:

Avoid drinking to ridiculous exccess, especially if you are on your own. Being totally wasted makes you vulnerable. Full stop.
Take additional precautions at night or in questionable areas/structures.
Avoid hellholes if at all possible. That includes parts of Compton, South Chicago, Finglas, most of the Middle East bar Israel etc.
If you can't avoid a particular hellhole, consider what preparations you can make. For example if you are American, is pepper spray legal in a hellhole you intend to visit? Knives? Do you know how to use them? Do you have the strength and/or skill needed to surivive in a fight if you had to? Use an elevated level of alertness, paying more attention to your surroundings while in danger. Gauge the people you see. Are the people you see showing signs of just going about their business or are there people/groups acting suspiciously?

Some limited reading I've done on this topic suggests that there are a number of states of awareness, I reviewed this just now and found out there's something called the Cooper colour code:

White. You are totally unprepared for trouble and unaware of your surroundings.
Yellow. You are in a state of relaxed awareness. You have a good idea of what's going on around you, including "watching your six" to some extent, but not to a distressing degree justified by any percieved threat.
Orange. Hyper-vigilance. A state used for dangerous situations, bad areas late at night, roads that may have IEDs on them etc. Or because you observed something suspicious in a lower state that has raised your alarm. A state of Hyper-vigilance is very stressful and is difficult to maintain.
Red. Fighting or otherwise immediately acting in response to a threat that has emerged.

Is 'taking measures that minimise your risk' not mightly close to a middle eastern type mind set?

No. They're good advice for everyone. Another example, if you're about to cross a street on a green man signal at a pedestrian crossing, you could just assume that all traffic is stopped and cross without further observation (condition white above) or you could assume there might be something you do not expect (a drunk driver, a dangerous driver, emergency vehicles, a cyclist) and just take a quick look back and forth before or at the start of the crossing. I've saved myself numerous nasty accidents (none of which would have been my "fault" had they occured) just by using more alertness on the road.

Just to show where we dont want to end up ... There was a dutch lady in Qatar who had her flat broken into and was raped ... she reported it o the police and found her self arrested for having extra marital sex, she got convicted and deported, he got 120 lashes.

Unlike the West, much of the Middle East, bar Israel, actually is a patriarchy. And, also unlike the West, some of it also has an actual rape culture. Most of the Middle East, bar Israel, is a ****hole.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it reasonable to advise potential rapists of steps they can take to limit their potential to commit rape?

How do you define "potential rapists"? If by that you mean "men" then no. Just like it is not reasonable to advise African-Americans on the steps they can take to limit their potential to be a violent 'banger. Or to tell women (potential paternity fraudsters and false rape accusers) how not to do those things.

Of the above, only feminists consider anything like this appropriate when they say "Teach men not to rape". My point is, it's all unreasonable, and the people who do it are delusional, or evil.

So where's "rape central" then?

Is it in the homes of the family members or friends of the victims, being statistically more likely? Or in their own home?

Then maybe you should tell the feminists about these statistics including the Obama administration, who are pushing US colleges to adopt a Salem Witch Trial approach to rape (broadly defined) on campus. Ditto for virtually all left wing politicians and all campus administrators in the Western world.

How does that tie in with notallmen?

If a black person robs you, you don't assign responsibility to all black people because that would be racist and most sane people agree on that. There is no "NotAllBlackPeople" campaign because it is not needed. NotAllMen is required because feminists assign responsibility to all men to combat the imaginary "patriarchy" and "rape culture" both of which are myths in the West.

It seems bizarre that it's preferable to some that women should wander about in a constant state of fear of attack from any man any where any time and is she doing enough

Who is advocating this?

but god forbid the feelings of any particular gentleman might be hurt because #notallmen by which he really means not him

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but if a man is not a sexist or a rapist, then yes, #notallmen applies.

Ben Gadot

blue note wrote: »

That's not what the thread is about. This is about whether or not it's okay to give women advice on ways to lessen their chance of being a victim. There have been lots of threads on consent, this isn't one.

I haven't got the healthiest of vices. A Saturday afternoon for me is probably drinking in the local with my brothers and gambling.

The odd time I get far too pissed for my own good with far too much money in my pocket, and people ask me for loans of money when they know I'll be far too pissed to remember.

So I wake up the next day with less money than I should have, and instantly I know what I've done but not really. I have a hazy recollection of giving someone money, but can't remember who and how much, so I can't stand over it. I'm at the mercy of someone to admit they were given a loan.

My first instinct is to be angry at myself, and to feel guilty. Then I realise I didn't do anything wrong and I didn't hurt anyone. I just had the gall to get pissed. I'm not the one who did wrong, it's the scumbags that preyed on my better nature that are solely responsible.

But at least in my situation, it's only money, and I have the good fortune to live and learn.

Picture yourself in your head saying that or even thinking that towards a rape victim, and I'm sure you'll feel you're own stupidity for focusing on the wrong factors.

Ben Gadot wrote: »

I haven't got the healthiest of vices. A Saturday afternoon for me is probably drinking in the local with my brothers and gambling.

The odd time I get far too pissed for my own good with far too much money in my pocket, and people ask me for loans of money when they know I'll be far too pissed to remember.

So I wake up the next day with less money than I should have, and instantly I know what I've done but not really. I have a hazy recollection of giving someone money, but can't remember who and how much, so I can't stand over it. I'm at the mercy of someone to admit they were given a loan.

My first instinct is to be angry at myself, and to feel guilty. Then I realise I didn't do anything wrong and I didn't hurt anyone. I just had the gall to get pissed. I'm not the one who did wrong, it's the scumbags that preyed on my better nature that are solely responsible.

But at least in my situation, it's only money, and I have the good fortune to live and learn.

Picture yourself in your head saying that or even thinking that towards a rape victim, and I'm sure you'll feel you're own stupidity for focusing on the wrong factors.

You'll live and learn? What do you mean by that? Do you mean that it's the dishonest people's fault who asked you for a loan, but you know they probably won't change so what way will you learn and will you alter your behaviour now to lessen your chances of them taking advantage of you?

And if someone was going to the pub with those people with a lot of money in their pocket, would you have a friendly word in their ear to warn them off your experiences with them? Not telling them what to do, just that you got drunk and they took advantage of you.

Or are you not going to alter your behaviour in any way and when you wake up with less money in your pocket than you should have just say "not my fault, there was nothing I could have done."

SeanW wrote: »

How do you define "potential rapists"? If by that you mean "men" then no.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because there's no such thing as a potential rape victim, just as there is no such thing as a potential rapist.

Seeing as we're at least agreed there's no such thing as a potential rapist, how do you define a potential victim of rape? Particularly seeing as nobody is a victim of rape unless they actually are raped?

And what advice do you have that would have everyone in society protect themselves from being raped, or can you only make these determinations in hindsight seeing as unless a person is raped, they're not a victim of a rapist. In the same way, a person isn't a potential rapist. A person is only a rapist if they commit rape.

That's just stating the obvious for most people.

professore

eviltwin wrote: »

Taught that where?

Following up on where boys and young men are taught by society that they are all evil rapists too stupid to understand that rape is wrong :

http://www.joe.ie/life-style/opinion-trinity-colleges-consent-classes-are-important-and-do-not-demonise-young-men/528823

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2015/10/19/3713670/male-student-rapist-photo/

Hundreds of these compulsory courses now at university.

Some women kill their babies (not talking about abortion BTW here...). Should all women have to follow compulsory courses in university about how it's not OK to kill babies?

The following article linked to from the article about the Trinity course : http://trinitynews.ie/one-in-four-female-tcd-students-sexually-assaulted-survey/

It says: 25% of women and 5% of men have been subjected to an unwanted sexual experience.

This is not the same as being sexually assaulted. The questions should have been much more specific, asking people what types of sexual harrassment they have been subjected to. "Unwanted sexual experience" could easily mean sleeping with someone you wouldn't normally sleep with when you see them next to you the next morning, or some drunk guy hugging you a bit too tightly. I think 100% of people have had those kinds of experiences.

Also an internet survey is open to abuse, and people who were abused are more likely to do this survey than those who weren't - so it wouldn't be a random sample.

I am not trying to downplay this at all, but we need to be very careful with presenting these types of studies as conclusive proof.

professore

Ben Gadot wrote: »

I haven't got the healthiest of vices. A Saturday afternoon for me is probably drinking in the local with my brothers and gambling.

The odd time I get far too pissed for my own good with far too much money in my pocket, and people ask me for loans of money when they know I'll be far too pissed to remember.

So I wake up the next day with less money than I should have, and instantly I know what I've done but not really. I have a hazy recollection of giving someone money, but can't remember who and how much, so I can't stand over it. I'm at the mercy of someone to admit they were given a loan.

My first instinct is to be angry at myself, and to feel guilty stupid. Then I realise I didn't do anything wrong and I didn't hurt anyone. I just had the gall to get pissed. I'm not the one who did wrong, it's the scumbags that preyed on my better nature that are solely responsible.

But at least in my situation, it's only money, and I have the good fortune to live and learn.

Picture yourself in your head saying that or even thinking that towards a rape victim, and I'm sure you'll feel you're own stupidity for focusing on the wrong factors.

Your first instinct is correct, except stupid would be better than guilty. What stops you only taking enough money for drink if you know you can't trust yourself? Where are your real friends to stop you doing this ****? Where is personal responsibility? If you got in a car in that state and killed a family on the way home, would you still say

I realise I didn't do anything wrong and I didn't hurt anyone.

None of this absolves the scumbags from guilt by the way, it isn't a nice thing they did, but you can't consider yourself blameless in this situation. In fact the scumbags didn't do anything legally wrong - morally yes but legally no - you lent them the money willingly. They are by no means solely responsible.

professore

SVJKarate wrote: »

Ahh, no, not really.

I don't want to take us OT but aggression towards and between men is very different in nature than aggression by a man against a woman. It's territorial, it's testosterone, it's cultural and it's peer-driven. Two men will commonly attack one man, but two men will rarely ever attack one woman. Cultural norms dictate that if two men are in the company of a woman and one man becomes aggressive towards her, the other man will usually intervene and de-escalate the situation, dragging his 'buddy' away from the scene. For two men to attack one woman it almost always requires a premeditated pact between the men, which is rare.

One man will attack a woman, on the basis that he is alone and won't be 'found out' for acting in that manner. If he does not know her he's not looking to dominate her, as he would be seeking by attacking an unknown male; he's out to kill or rape her. None of his preferred outcomes include the option where she walks away and is able to report his actions, and killing or the threat of killing will be used to ensure that's how it ends up. A man attacking a woman is 1000% more serious than an average man-attacks-man scenario.

Men commonly become victims of assault because other men have less inhibitions about attacking a man, and because 'flee' is not the natural reaction of a man when confronted with aggression, even though they know the risks.

I agree with one caveat:

and because 'flee' is not the natural reaction of a man when confronted with aggression, even though they know the risks

Lots of men will run away, and rightly so. They SAY they wouldn't, but I've seen it happening a few times and they DO run. I see red and feel nothing when the red mist descends, so generally don't run - it very nearly got me killed many years ago in Dublin. It's not a conscious decision. The only thing saved me was that I managed by some miracle to stay on my feet and none of the 3 guys that attacked me had a knife. I eventually got away and ran after being punched and kicked several times. Ironically they robbed me of a ticket to get into a youth hostel because they were chasing some girl, and the doorman wouldn't let them in because they had no ticket and tried to steal mine. I wouldn't give it to them so they attacked me. I shudder to think what they would have done to the girl.

stefanovich

s4uv3 wrote:

Drinking to the point of oblivion is a bad idea for anybody, man or woman. Nobody needs to explain all the reasons why. Now. That's a completely separate issue from the fact that having sex with somebody without their consent is just not ok, no matter how many spins you put on it or excuses you come up with. I've just finished reading "Asking for it" by Louise O'Neill. It's a frightening read, but well worth it for anybody interested in this topic.

If you are drunk to the point of oblivion you are not a reliable witness. Maybe you said yes and forgot afterwards?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

You don't have to be drunk to be raped.
Should a woman take precautions to dress modestly and keep her legs/arms/cleavage undercover so as to not attract men prone to forcing women to have unconsentual sex?

No means no. If she says no, then there is NO EXCUSE for a man to continue having sex with her. If she is so drunk she cannot consent, then there is no consent.

A woman being drunk isn't hurting anyone or breaking any law. A man preying on a woman in a vulnerable state is a raping scumbag. There's only one person in the wrong then and it's not the woman.

arayess

LexieOnRale wrote: »

You don't have to be drunk to be raped.
Should a woman take precautions to dress modestly and keep her legs/arms/cleavage undercover so as to not attract men prone to forcing women to have unconsentual sex?

No means no. If she says no, then there is NO EXCUSE for a man to continue having sex with her. If she is so drunk she cannot consent, then there is no consent.

A woman being drunk isn't hurting anyone or breaking any law. A man preying on a woman in a vulnerable state is a raping scumbag. There's only one person in the wrong then and it's not the woman.

actually anybody being drunk is breaking the law but it's an aside.

nobody disagrees with you but being drunk out of your mind raises the risk of bad things happening to you things other than rape such as an accident or a mugging.

It's your responsibility to yourself to try and remain safe or as safe as you can but nobody blames anybody but the rapist. However pointing out some pragmatic steps to avoid being a victim surely isn't a bad thing.
I find it does everybody a disservice when people are attacked for pointing this out .

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

arayess wrote: »

actually anybody being drunk is breaking the law but it's an aside.

nobody disagrees with you but being drunk out of your mind raises the risk of bad things happening to you things other than rape such as an accident or a mugging.

It's your responsibility to yourself to try and remain safe or as safe as you can but nobody blames anybody but the rapist. However pointing out some pragmatic steps to avoid being a victim surely isn't a bad thing.
I find it does everybody a disservice when people are attacked for pointing this out .

You don't have to be drunk. Plenty of women are raped stone cold sober. Plenty of women are mugged sober. Hell, it only happened me last week on my lunch break. Or is that a woman's fault too for carrying a big shiney tempting handbag? Id be much safer on the streets if I didn't carry a handbag or a mobile phone. Should I stop doing that too?

What advice do you have for sober women who are raped? Do you think a sober woman could fight off a grown man better than a drunk woman?

LexieOnRale wrote: »

You don't have to be drunk. Plenty of women are raped stone cold sober. Plenty of women are mugged sober. Hell, it only happened me last week on my lunch break. Or is that a woman's fault too for carrying a big shiney tempting handbag? Id be much safer on the streets if I didn't carry a handbag or a mobile phone. Should I stop doing that too?

What advice do you have for sober women who are raped? Do you think a sober woman could fight off a grown man better than a drunk woman?

But he didn't say no sober women are raped and he didn't say all drunk women are. He said it increases chances. It's up to you what you want to do or not do. Carrying a handbag probably does increase your chances of being robbed. In touristy areas sometimes people will use bun bags or the like to minimise the chance of being pick pocketed. It's up to you though.

arayess

LexieOnRale wrote: »

You don't have to be drunk. Plenty of women are raped stone cold sober. Plenty of women are mugged sober. Hell, it only happened me last week on my lunch break. Or is that a woman's fault too for carrying a big shiney tempting handbag? Id be much safer on the streets if I didn't carry a handbag or a mobile phone. Should I stop doing that too?

What advice do you have for sober women who are raped? Do you think a sober woman could fight off a grown man better than a drunk woman?

i agreed with your point to be fair that the victim isn't to blame .

we can all take steps to reduce risk but some risk is still there.
to deny that one can take steps to decreases an attack of some sort is naive.

bluenote has pointed out I never said sober women don't get raped...its' about reducing risk

you seem to think it's an either / or situation that if steps to reduce risk are pointed out that somehow we are blaming the victim - which is ludicrous.
It's just being realistic.
You are bringing in the word "blame" wtf is blaming anybody other than the attacker.

on one point - I'd reckon a sober women could possibly fight off a rapist with more chance of success is she was sober. I'm not saying she'd be successful 100% of the time (cos that's silly) but she'd certainly have a better chance.
handling a situation like that drunk or sober is like day and night.

I've been attacked drunk and sober and it's a different ball game when you are sober. you have more co-ordination and you can run properly for one.

eviltwin

Where does it end? I agree no one should ever get so drunk they are blotto but I'm tipsy after a couple of glasses of wine, should I just not drink at all then? I can't fight off a rapist, I'm small, old and unfit. A few drinks isn't going to make a difference. I go running on my own in a local park early in the morning, is that a risk? What about walking home from work on my own? I can't live my life anticipating an attack so I just have to live my life. If we start putting responsibility on women not to get raped soon we will be judging everything women do.

eviltwin wrote: »

Where does it end? I agree no one should ever get so drunk they are blotto but I'm tipsy after a couple of glasses of wine, should I just not drink at all then? I can't fight off a rapist, I'm small, old and unfit. A few drinks isn't going to make a difference. I go running on my own in a local park early in the morning, is that a risk? What about walking home from work on my own? I can't live my life anticipating an attack so I just have to live my life. If we start putting responsibility on women not to get raped soon we will be judging everything women do.

It ends wherever you want it to end. It's advice, not instruction. I don't think many people are saying don't have a drink, but if you want to go that extreme it's your choice. If you want to drink to the point where you can't walk straight that's your choice too.

https://youtu.be/Ya-Xps9cV54

Sorry, I'm on the phone so don't know how to embed files. But the clips shows a woman (pretending to be) drunk and talking to guys. And lots of them seem to want to take her home. I think it's quite true to life and shows effectively how a drunk woman on her own is liable to be a target.

Obviously they're scumbags for trying to take her home, but they weren't trying to take home random sober women.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Then how about preach to men to change their behaviour and not women

blue note wrote: »

Obviously they're scumbags for trying to take her home, but they weren't trying to take home random sober women.

It's an interesting video clip, but it does not demonstrate a whole lot except:

Sometimes, when you're drunk, some people may try to take advantage of you*
That girl isn't going to get a proper acting job any time soon

*and those people are scum

The video did not show whether any men or women intervened to try to take her to a safe place, nor how long she had been wandering around by herself on the street. The cameras did not follow the men around to see how many other women they tried to take home. They did not repeat the experiment with her being sober. If you compare that video to the now-infamous video of a girl walking around a city (NYC?) and being cat-called and harassed, the two situations are quite different (we did not see California girl getting harassed with cat-calls). Why is that? Because they were edited to give a different result.

Social media tests are fascinating, but they are not a replacement for proper social studies.

Tasden

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Then how about preach to men to change their behaviour and not women

Exactly. The rapist will just move on to the next drunk woman. Or if we all stay sober they will target the unsteady woman carrying her shopping, the friend who trusted him enough to be in his company alone. The younger girl who will be too afraid to speak out. So we can take the advice to stay sober enough not be raped (as if that is how it works) but tough **** for the other sober women who happen to be more vulnerable.