"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.

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.

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.

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:

1. Avoid drinking to ridiculous exccess, especially if you are on your own. Being totally wasted makes you vulnerable. Full stop.
2. Take additional precautions at night or in questionable areas/structures.
3. Avoid hellholes if at all possible. That includes parts of Compton, South Chicago, Finglas, most of the Middle East bar Israel etc.
4. 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 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."

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.

blue note wrote: »

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.

The biggest worry there is the mindset of men who think a drunk woman is fair game. But sure let's ignore that and focus on her drinking.

Grayson wrote: »

I'll agree that there are stupid things that a person can do that will increase the risk of any crime. We all have to be wary and vigilant to an extent. That doesn't mean that we are to blame when something does happen.

Exactly, if I'm passed out from too much drink it would be much each easier to rob me or **** me up the ass.