El_Dangeroso wrote: » Really? I can't imagine that not being super-offensive. Care to share a link?
Sand wrote: » I enjoy debates where people present different views and values and reach a common ground - if not conclusion - based on evidence and logic. And then you have debates where people just ignore presented evidence and logic and say "Nuh-Uh".
bubblypop wrote: » Perhaps you would like to share something that links womens drinking and them being raped? Because there actually is no link between being drunk and being raped.
Director of Public Prosecutions Claire Loftus came out in 2014 to address the problem of such a low conviction rate in rape cases. She said that there were usually no other witnesses to the event, and memories may be impaired due to alcohol consumption and other factors. “Thus, it is often one person’s word against another’s,” she said. The head of the Rape Crisis Centre also wants you to know about the risk of alcohol and rape. Following the debate on Brendan O’Connor’s show — while reiterating that we must not blame the victim — Cliona Sadlier, of Rape Crisis Network Ireland, said: “Our position would be — because of the prevalence of sexual violence —we have to talk about alcohol’s role. It is unavoidable.” And the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit in the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin wants you to know how big a role alcohol plays.In 2012, more than seven in 10 alleged victims of sexual assault who attended the unit had consumed the equivalent of six pints of beer, or 12 units of alcohol, in the 12 hours before the attack. The Department of Health says that women should not drink more than 11 units of alcohol over the course of a week.
These findings indicate an association between alcohol and victimization independent of associations of both with physical aggression. Reducing intoxication may reduce victimisation without necessarily affecting violent behaviour. Violence reduction should focus as much on preventing alcohol misuse among victims or potential victims as among offenders.
Foxtrol wrote: » This isn't the one I was think of but one of the first that pops up on a youtube seachhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l3GZUy1VAI
El_Dangeroso wrote: » Ahh, sorry but how was that situation caused by the woman getting too drunk? If the woman was sober (or had less to drink) and sleeping in a bedroom on her own would that mean she would have been less likely to be raped by those four men?
Sand wrote: » Yes. Opportunity is a clear factor in the decision to commit any crime. Most policing and urban planning is based on reducing the opportunity or at least reducing the perception of opportunity to commit crime.
El_Dangeroso wrote: » I'm still not seeing how that women caused the opportunity for that sexual assault by drinking, her main crime seems to be being alone. As far as I can see the bigger issue was the man leaving the room. So the real advice we can draw is 'Men, never leave your women alone at a party lest 4 men rape her'.
Sand wrote: » We saw two people - the man and the woman - drinking to the point where they were both incapacitated and vulnerable. The man puking his ring up and probably passing out to the amusement of the thugs, and the woman passed out unconscious in the bedroom. Now, men are largely nice people and don't harm anyone. Women are also largely nice people and don't harm anyone. So most of the time you can afford to get incapacitated and leave yourself vulnerable. But, plot twist, not all people - male or female - are nice people. Some are mean and nasty, some are .... well, they're very drunk. Leaving yourself vulnerable runs the risk that these people may happen along and spot an opportunity. The ad is a PSA so of course it doesn't run with the "And nothing bad happened..." conclusion.
LorMal wrote: » This debate is a crock. Nobody listening - just repeating the same points over and over. Good luck with that.
El_Dangeroso wrote: » Yes but you are missing my point. There are numerous things that lead to an assault opportunity. Not one of those things is the fault of the victim. If advising on one is silly (never leave women alone in a room at a party) then the others are too. Tell me one person who thinks getting drunk (men or women) to the point of incapacity is a good idea? That's why I think this whole article is pointless. It's paternalistic judgement dressed up as faux concern for women's safety and I'm calling bull**** on it as a pointless exercise.
bubblypop wrote: » If I'm at home, drunk after a night out, & I don't hear someone breaking in to my house, is that my fault because I was home, Alone, in my own bed? Am I in anyway at all to blame? Should we tell women to never be alone, never walk anywhere alone, don't live alone, don't drink, all because some rapist or burglar may take advantage if them? My point is, it shouldn't be an issue at all. The victim is NEVER to blame. Never. Be ' warning' women that they may be raped if they are drunk is completely ignoring the actual issue. Which is that men shouldn't rape them.
bubblypop wrote: » Yes, drinking to that extent is crazy, it's not good for our health & we can injure ourselves if intoxicated to that extent. A pedestrian falling in front of a car, is the pedestrians fault, 100% , a drunk person getting mugged, assaulted or raped is not their fault. They are the victim. A drunk person that falls over and injures or kills themselves in the fall is 100% at fault. BUT a drunk person is not in anyway at fault for someone else's actions. Everyone is responsible for their OWN actions. Do you see the difference?
Foxtrol wrote: » But we’re constantly advised to do things to lower risks to ourselves due to others harming us and nothing receives this kind of knee jerk defensiveness.
El_Dangeroso wrote: » Is this your first time on the internet or something?
El_Dangeroso wrote: » Yes but you are missing my point.
El_Dangeroso wrote: » No, no we're not constantly advised. All PSA's in Ireland are about harm we do to ourselves or potential harm to others (smoking, binge drinking, drink driving). I'm not aware of one that's aimed at preventing being a victim of crime. Maybe because they are not actually effective and just serve to shame victims.
bubblypop wrote: Be ' warning' women that they may be raped if they are drunk is completely ignoring the actual issue. Which is that men shouldn't rape them.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » 'Men' don't rape. Rapists, rape. Rapists would love to see someone in a vulnerable position such as walking alone or being too drunk to defend themselves. Publicising the status that in 7/10 cases the victim had consumed X units of alcohol in the Y hours before the attack, is like telling people that speeding is involved in X cases or alcohol slows driving reactions and you shouldn't drink and drive. You can warn people about danger but it's more effective if you give them some context for the warning. It's not about blaming anyone, it's informing people so they can hake more informed decisions
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I don't know what it is about sexual assaults which makes people so damn precious about any discussion regarding risk reduction. As a guy, if I am walking down a road alone late at night and I see a group of lads that seem drunk and unpredictable, I will take a detour as I know statistically there is a good chance I could get a hiding.
bubblypop wrote: No, the person that drinks and then drives a car is directly responsible for any injury or otherwise that befalls them.
bubblypop wrote: We are taking away some blame from rapists by warning women, would you warn women not to wear certain clothes, shoes?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » The drunk person might be driving fine in general but if someone else veers onto their side of the road, the drunks reactions are likely to be slower and more likely to result in a crash. The drunk person didn't cause the crash and they're not at fault but they put themselves in a more vulnerable position by being drunk. .
blue note wrote: » When we tell children to be wary of strangers are we victim blaming them? It seems like sound advice to me, but if you were to take what a lot of people are saying here as absolute truth there is no reason for children to be wary of strangers. And if someone tells their child not to talk to strange men they are attributing blame to the child if they are then abused. I would have assumed that people could separate these two things, but from reading this thread I'm not sure everyone can.
bubblypop wrote: Their reactions are slower because they are drunk. Intoxicated that they cannot be in charge of an mpv. Therefore their slowed reactions are entirely their own fault.
bubblypop wrote: Telling children to be wary of strangers is not the same thing as linking rape and drink. Rapes happen, children are assaulted. Neither victim are in anyway responsible.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
