Is rape always rape? Are men always to blame?

Jezek · 27-05-2013 01:07AM

starling wrote: »

I don't see anyone who has disagreed with Leggo or NiallySparky being irrational.

They are committing certain fallacies e.g. the Strawman fallacy. NiallySparky has said that he does not think that clothes are important in rape but many posters have replied to him discussing clothes and tearing down the myth that provocative clothes cause rape. This is a strawman argument put forth as it is easy to tear down, but not at all the point NiallySparky was making.

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2013 01:08AM

Author sounds like a douche. Having said that, I won't fully respect rape statistics until the act of drunkenly consenting to sex and waking up with regrets is firmly and completely separated from the possibility of being called "rape". Being drunk does not suddenly make others responsible for the choices you make, if you wake up with regrets it was still your decision.
(Note that I'm absolutely not talking about cases in which someone is raped when they're passed out drunk.)

Rape is sex without consent, simple as that. It is not sex with consent that is withdrawn after the fact has ended and it's physically impossible to go back in time and change anything.

Smidge · 27-05-2013 01:15AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Author sounds like a douche. Having said that, I won't fully respect rape statistics until the act of drunkenly consenting to sex and waking up with regrets is firmly and completely separated from the possibility of being called "rape". Being drunk does not suddenly make others responsible for the choices you make, if you wake up with regrets it was still your decision.
(Note that I'm absolutely not talking about cases in which someone is raped when they're passed out drunk.)

Rape is sex without consent, simple as that. It is not sex with consent that is withdrawn after the fact has ended and it's physically impossible to go back in time and change anything.

Nice edit:D

Was just about to say that.

The last time something came up about rape in here someone actually posted that "She shouldn't have gotten so drunk in the first place" :eek::rolleyes:

KKkitty · 27-05-2013 01:19AM

starling wrote: »

That's horrible kitty I'm sorry that happened to you. The awful thing is that so many girls in that situation think they can't really do anything about it because it was "too late" when they said Stop.

I was afraid to use force to stop him. Thought I may get a hiding if I did. I wasn't streetwise and wasn't used to being alone with lads in general. He kinda laughed it off after too.

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2013 01:19AM

Smidge wrote: »

Nice edit:D

Was just about to say that.

The last time something came up about rape in here someone actually posted that "She shouldn't have gotten so drunk in the first place" :eek::rolleyes:

That's BS. However, in cases like that recent incident in which she made an accusation after waking up and realizing she had drunkenly cheated on her boyfriend and needed an excuse to explain it...

Bottom line is, if I'm drunk and I punch someone in a pub I'm not going to get out of an assault conviction by saying "Your honour, I was drunk, I would nevet have done it if I was sober". By the same rationale I don't see how being locked and doing something stupid with lowered inhibitions automatically becomes the guy's fault the next day, even if he was also completely locked. That particular type of 'rape' has always pissed me off tbh, it places a discriminatory amount of burden on guys to take responsibility for the actions of others, but not on women to do the same.

starling · 27-05-2013 01:23AM

Jezek wrote: »

They are committing certain fallacies e.g. the Strawman fallacy. NiallySparky has said that he does not think that clothes are important in rape but many posters have replied to him discussing clothes and tearing down the myth that provocative clothes cause rape. This is a strawman argument put forth as it is easy to tear down, but not at all the point NiallySparky was making.

NS is making the general point that women should take certain precautions to avoid being raped. He says that rape is 100% the rapist's fault but that women should be aware of the possibility of being raped and do what they can to avoid it, the implication being that if a woman gets raped while not following his advice she is partly responsible. These statements contradict each other.

The posters disagreeing have been trying to explain why this attitude of "women need to take responsibility for their safety and do what they're told to avoid being raped" is not only fallacious, but dangerous. It is part of the popular sport of victim-blaming, which always includes "What was she wearing?" so it cannot be said often enough that what a woman wears is no excuse for rape.

starling · 27-05-2013 01:30AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's BS. However, in cases like that recent incident in which she made an accusation after waking up and realizing she had drunkenly cheated on her boyfriend and needed an excuse to explain it...

Bottom line is, if I'm drunk and I punch someone in a pub I'm not going to get out of an assault conviction by saying "Your honour, I was drunk, I would nevet have done it if I was sober". By the same rationale I don't see how being locked and doing something stupid with lowered inhibitions automatically becomes the guy's fault the next day, even if he was also completely locked. That particular type of 'rape' has always pissed me off tbh, it places a discriminatory amount of burden on guys to take responsibility for the actions of others, but not on women to do the same.

What incident are you talking about?
Many people have a false perception of the frequency of false accusations of rape. They are rarer than you think. Trying to accuse your rapist is hard enough when you were actually raped, very few people do it frivolously.

Nobody is expecting men to take responsibility for others' actions. We need them to take responsibility for their own actions.

kingcobra · 27-05-2013 01:37AM

jill_valentine wrote: »

Read this out loud as if it's been addressed to you, and see if you can hear how incredibly patronising this sentiment is to my ear.

Good little gartlas, we're only telling you this stuff for your own good. We only always fixate on what she was wearing or doing during these attacks to an absurdly disproportionate extent in your best interest.

Her choices were immaterial - it was his choice to rape her. He did not have a sudden, spontaneous attack of rape-capability that would not have otherwise existed just because she walked home alone.

When some unfortunate non-criminal randomer is shot or stabbed, what they did or where they were at the time never monopolises the discourse anything like as totally and comparably.

So why is it always the dominant theme of discussion when it comes to rape?

Sorry, I do realise now that I did put it in the wrong context/tone. I am by no means advocating that a rapist should get a lesser penalty just because of where the woman was or what she was wearing. After someone falls victim to a rape I'm not going to say or even think "Oh well you shouldn't have been there/wearing that in the first place." The perpetrator is fully to blame.

Of course it was the man's choice to rape her, and obviously he would have had a high lack of morals before the event. But a criminal like this wouldn't commit this crime in the middle of a busy street at night, nor pick them out from a group of people. So it would be a smart option to take 'a preventative measure' by not walking down a deserted side street by oneself.

Location or actions is never a more dominant theme of discussion in a sexual assualt in comparison to a shooting or stabbing. If this thread was about crime in general, there'd still be people advising others that there are ways of avoiding crime and rightly so. Unfortunately, most crimes are a case of "wrong place, wrong time," and if we were to truly avoid crime we best be locking ourselves up in totally secure houses all day every day, but we do need our freedom as well. Does that mean we should completely ignore every single measure given to us to avoid crime? Most certainly not. Should a victim be pulled up on a measure they didn't follow? Most certainly not either; no one can fully avoid crime without a bit of luck and it is sheer misfortune that someone does end up being victimised.

Smidge · 27-05-2013 01:40AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's BS. However, in cases like that recent incident in which she made an accusation after waking up and realizing she had drunkenly cheated on her boyfriend and needed an excuse to explain it...

Bottom line is, if I'm drunk and I punch someone in a pub I'm not going to get out of an assault conviction by saying "Your honour, I was drunk, I would nevet have done it if I was sober". By the same rationale I don't see how being locked and doing something stupid with lowered inhibitions automatically becomes the guy's fault the next day, even if he was also completely locked. That particular type of 'rape' has always pissed me off tbh, it places a discriminatory amount of burden on guys to take responsibility for the actions of others, but not on women to do the same.

I think any person who falsely, knowingly alleges rape should face the same penalties as a person convicted of rape.

But where a woman is genuinely raped while both drunk, the onus imo is still on the man to exercise exact caution.

Frito · 27-05-2013 02:11AM

There are a few things that make me chuckle whenever precautions are advised.

One of them being I can't lock my vagina the way I lock my house. Can't even leave it at home like the wallet stuffed to the brim of fifty euro notes.

The biggest laugh I get it is the irony that after years of rightly lambasting radical feminism, I am now being urged to view all men as potential rapists.

I don't though, cos they're not. And it would be stupid to live in fear.

starling · 27-05-2013 02:12AM

kingcobra wrote: »

The perpetrator is fully to blame.

So it would be a smart option to take 'a preventative measure' by not walking down a deserted side street by oneself.

So the perpetrator is fully to blame, except when the victim walked alone?

kingcobra wrote: »

Location or actions is never a more dominant theme of discussion in a sexual assualt in comparison to a shooting or stabbing.

That's not really true though, is it? When you are walking down a deserted street at night and some random nutter jumps out and stabs you, people don't obsess over whether you should have been walking alone at night.

kingcobra wrote: »

Should a victim be pulled up on a measure they didn't follow? Most certainly not either; no one can fully avoid crime without a bit of luck and it is sheer misfortune that someone does end up being victimised.

Look the things you're saying contradict each other. "Take precautions" doesn't fit with "It's sheer misfortune if you're the victim of a crime."

None of us is saying "Hey women - be reckless! Wander around the streets at night, alone, pissed!"
What we're trying to say is that even if a woman does wander alone at night she doesn't deserve to be raped for it. Focusing on what women should do to avoid rape deflects attention away from the real problem - the rapist. Constantly giving women advice about what not to do implies that rape is inevitable, as opposed to a crime that can be tackled. It's fatalistic. It implies that any man will commit rape, if he has the opportunity.

We are constantly being told what not to do, what not to wear, and so on. Basically we are taught to live our lives in fear of strange men, and then men get all offended when we won't go home alone with them because they might rape us.

Jamie2k9 · 27-05-2013 02:16AM

Men are not always to blame, its not men's fault that we have so many slags living in Ireland who go out almost naked and complain when people take advantage of them.

27-05-2013 02:17AM

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Men are not always to blame, its not men's fault that we have so many slags living in Ireland who go out almost naked and complain when people take advantage of them.

Jesus.

Words fail.

Micky Dolenz · 27-05-2013 02:22AM

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Men are not always to blame, its not men's fault that we have so many slags living in Ireland who go out almost naked and complain when people take advantage of them.

Mod

Banned.

Frito · 27-05-2013 02:28AM

Candie wrote: »

Jesus.

Words fail.

Hypothetically a said woman may sleep with him and go to on to make a false rape allegation. It would still be her fault, not his for failing to take the precaution of not being alone with her in a dark place. I think the issue is lost on him.

leggo · 27-05-2013 02:30AM

starling wrote: »

That is what happens when we focus on "precautions". People end up telling the victim she is responsible for what happened to her because she was alone in her room with her boyfriend.:(

You see, I agree with your entire post right up to this paragraph. It's that inability for people to see the nuance I'm discussing in my argument that's leading to that misappropriation of what I'm saying. They hear the word 'precaution' and think that it's indirectly blaming a woman for getting herself raped.

I'm not discussing any previous case at all or judging anyone based on past decisions. All my argument is focused on is preventing potential future cases from happening. That's very important to note.

Nor am I saying that being cautious will prevent all rapes from happening in the future. It clearly won't. So citing exceptions to the rule doesn't make my argument any less valid.

I'll give you an example of both being cautious and not doing so that I've heard just between my last post in this thread and right now: a story about a mixed gender group of people (some I know, others I don't) heading down to stay in a house together. They all got ridiculously drunk. Most don't know each other that well.

At one stage, a guy I know spoke of how one girl would only stay in a room with him in it because she didn't want to be drunk and alone with the other guys, simply because she just didn't know them. She didn't suspect them or anything, just didn't want to be vulnerable around them before building up a certain level of trust. Other girls on the trip didn't. Nothing happened, but the former was a case of being smart and taking precautions (i.e. making a conscious decision to stay with someone she knew well and trusted). With this very discussion in mind, upon hearing the story I could only think that the latter girls were slightly reckless.

That doesn't mean that anyone is 'asking for it' or 'deserves it'. Just people being smart and not being smart and the little decisions that, should they be unfortunate enough to encounter someone sick enough to do this, could either unwittingly save them or lead to serious consequences.

That's my point. And it's worth understanding and noting in these conversations without people applying false pretenses to it.

pharmaton · 27-05-2013 02:37AM

leggo wrote: »

That's my point. And it's worth understanding and noting in these conversations without people applying false pretenses to it.

your point implies that all men are potential rapists ergo it's a womans responsibility to make sure she doesn't encourage such behaviour.

Also I noticed that you refer to it being safer with a man/men that some woman trusts while statistically it has been shown that more acts of rape are committed by people who are known and trusted by the victim.

Rosy Posy · 27-05-2013 02:43AM

I have several issues with women being told to accept responsibility for not being raped by what they wear or where they go.

Firstly it places the onus on the victim to protect themself, rather than focusing on the perpetrator and the social conditions that allow some people to think that they can have non consensual sex with someone. These conditions include victim blaming and lack of education around consent. The message here is 'someone's going to be raped, make sure its not you'.

I also think that this attitude is extremely insulting to men- it portrays them as beasts not in control of their own urges who will be driven to rape if they have the opportunity or see too much exposed flesh.

The most damaging aspect for me is that it reinforces the myth of the bad man lurking in the alley. Most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim in a familiar location. For the media and the received knowledge to be that rape can be eliminated by changing patterns of dress and behaviour is to deny this fact, and to make it far more difficult for people who have been raped to come forward, and for potential rapists to acknowledge the wrongness of their actions. In the Steubenville case many of the witnesses said that they didn't think that what was happening was rape because it wasn't violent.

A more productive way of preventing rape would be to educate our children thoroughly on issues of consent, and to stop giving douches like Ross column inches.

leggo · 27-05-2013 02:43AM

pharmaton wrote: »

your point implies that all men are potential rapists ergo it's a womans responsibility to make sure she doesn't encourage such behaviour.

No, it doesn't.

However, it follows that since men are physiologically stronger than women and more capable of imposing their will upon them, that we address that issue first and foremost since it leads to the vast majority of cases.

Obviously, men would be similarly encouraged to exercise similar caution. However, if you'd like to read the OP again, we're specifically discussing the other dynamic.

Also I noticed that you refer to it being safer with a man/men that some woman trusts while statistically it has been shown that more acts of rape are committed by people who are known and trusted by the victim.

The women here knew all of the men going down, just not particularly well. In that case, the woman (even in a drunken state) weighed up which was less risky. Again, precautions can never make you 100% safe. But they can make you safer.

Rosy Posy · 27-05-2013 02:44AM

starling wrote: »

What incident are you talking about?
Many people have a false perception of the frequency of false accusations of rape. They are rarer than you think. Trying to accuse your rapist is hard enough when you were actually raped, very few people do it frivolously.

Nobody is expecting men to take responsibility for others' actions. We need them to take responsibility for their own actions.

From the Enliven project

leggo · 27-05-2013 02:46AM

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I have several issues with women being told to accept responsibility for not being raped by what they wear or where they go.

Firstly it places the onus on the victim to protect themself, rather than focusing on the perpetrator and the social conditions that allow some people to think that they can have non consensual sex with someone. These conditions include victim blaming and lack of education around consent. The message here is 'someone's going to be raped, make sure its not you'.

I also think that this attitude is extremely insulting to men- it portrays them as beasts not in control of their own urges who will be driven to rape if they have the opportunity or see too much exposed flesh.

The most damaging aspect for me is that it reinforces the myth of the bad man lurking in the alley. Most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim in a familiar location. For the media and the received knowledge to be that rape can be eliminated by changing patterns of dress and behaviour is to deny this fact, and to make it far more difficult for people who have been raped to come forward, and for potential rapists to acknowledge the wrongness of their actions. In the Steubenville case many of the witnesses said that they didn't think that what was happening was rape because it wasn't violent.

A more productive way of preventing rape would be to educate our children thoroughly on issues of consent, and to stop giving douches like Ross column inches.

I agree that the onus is more on the men. And, in particular, I think the campaign to educate people on the issue of what is/isn't consent is a very positive one that should enlighten many. Hopefully it will do a lot of good.

However, who else is to protect women, if we're not going to encourage them to attempt to protect themselves?

flanum · 27-05-2013 02:48AM

pass me my xxxx hat.

pharmaton · 27-05-2013 02:48AM

leggo wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

However, it follows that since men are physiologically stronger than women and more capable of imposing their will upon them, that we address that issue first and foremost since it leads to the vast majority of cases.

Obviously, men would be similarly encouraged to exercise similar caution. However, if you'd like to read the OP again, we're specifically discussing the other dynamic.

The women here knew all of the men going down, just not particularly well. In that case, the woman (even in a drunken state) weighed up which was less risky. Again, precautions can never make you 100% safe. But they can make you safer.

so which is it, should women be taught that all men are potential rapists and should dress and act accordingly? Or should men be taught that women are not just objects put here for their sexual gratification and that they should learn from a young age to respect them as well as they would another man?

starling · 27-05-2013 02:50AM

leggo wrote: »

You see, I agree with your entire post right up to this paragraph. It's that inability for people to see the nuance I'm discussing in my argument that's leading to that misappropriation of what I'm saying. They hear the word 'precaution' and think that it's indirectly blaming a woman for getting herself raped.

I'm not discussing any previous case at all or judging anyone based on past decisions. All my argument is focused on is preventing potential future cases from happening. That's very important to note.

Nor am I saying that being cautious will prevent all rapes from happening in the future. It clearly won't. So citing exceptions to the rule doesn't make my argument any less valid.

I'll give you an example of both being cautious and not doing so that I've heard just between my last post in this thread and right now: a story about a mixed gender group of people (some I know, others I don't) heading down to stay in a house together. They all got ridiculously drunk. Most don't know each other that well.

At one stage, a guy I know spoke of how one girl would only stay in a room with him in it because she didn't want to be drunk and alone with the other guys, simply because she just didn't know them. She didn't suspect them or anything, just didn't want to be vulnerable around them before building up a certain level of trust. Other girls on the trip didn't. Nothing happened, but the former was a case of being smart and taking precautions (i.e. making a conscious decision to stay with someone she knew well and trusted). With this very discussion in mind, upon hearing the story I could only think that the latter girls were slightly reckless.

That doesn't mean that anyone is 'asking for it' or 'deserves it'. Just people being smart and not being smart and the little decisions that, should they be unfortunate enough to encounter someone sick enough to do this, could either unwittingly save them or lead to serious consequences.

That's my point. And it's worth understanding and noting in these conversations without people applying false pretenses to it.

So are you saying that the girls who slept in a room with guys they didn't know well were not being smart? That they should have seen these guys as potential rapists?
There is a blatant contradiction between "if they got raped, they wouldn't have deserved it" and "It was foolish to sleep in a room with guys they didn't know well."
In the situation you're describing, realistically, the one most at risk of being raped is the girl who slept alone in a room with the guy she trusted. In the other room, if one of the guys tried it on with one if the girls, and she said "stop" there were other people in the room who would step in if necessary.
Look, you're actually trying to say that all men should be treated as potential rapists. Doesn't that bother you? Why should we accept that as "just common sense"? It's not a healthy way to have to live, for women or men.

leggo · 27-05-2013 02:52AM

pharmaton wrote: »

so which is it, should women be taught that all men are potential rapists and should dress and act accordingly? Or should men be taught that women are not just objects put here for their sexual gratification and that they learn from a young age to respect them as well as they would another man?

I didn't say anything about how they dress, now. Don't put words in my mouth.

But why can't we encourage potential victims (let's move this away from gender for a moment, it's already getting messy) to take precautions while also continue to educate people on the issue of consent and the long-term consequences their actions could cause? What exactly is the problem there?

The exact view that we can't do both of the above is why I'm saying that people viewing it in such black-and-white terms. And that isn't helpful.

Norwesterner · 27-05-2013 02:57AM

Whoopi Goldberg, the darling of the Left and feminism reckons there is "rape" and rape rape"
Two different types and two different circumstances.
She believes on the run, convicted paedo Roman Polanski was "not guilty of rape rape".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg

Had Peter Hitchens or Berlusconi made these remarks, there'd have been uproar.

Goldberg was honoured in Trinity recently I believe.

starling · 27-05-2013 02:57AM

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I have several issues with women being told to accept responsibility for not being raped by what they wear or where they go.

Firstly it places the onus on the victim to protect themself, rather than focusing on the perpetrator and the social conditions that allow some people to think that they can have non consensual sex with someone. These conditions include victim blaming and lack of education around consent. The message here is 'someone's going to be raped, make sure its not you'.

I also think that this attitude is extremely insulting to men- it portrays them as beasts not in control of their own urges who will be driven to rape if they have the opportunity or see too much exposed flesh.

The most damaging aspect for me is that it reinforces the myth of the bad man lurking in the alley. Most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim in a familiar location. For the media and the received knowledge to be that rape can be eliminated by changing patterns of dress and behaviour is to deny this fact, and to make it far more difficult for people who have been raped to come forward, and for potential rapists to acknowledge the wrongness of their actions. In the Steubenville case many of the witnesses said that they didn't think that what was happening was rape because it wasn't violent.

A more productive way of preventing rape would be to educate our children thoroughly on issues of consent, and to stop giving douches like Ross column inches.

I wish I could thank this post 100 times. Very well said.

pharmaton · 27-05-2013 02:58AM

leggo wrote: »

I didn't say anything about how they dress, now. Don't put words in my mouth.

But why can't we encourage potential victims (let's move this away from gender for a moment, it's already getting messy) to take precautions while also continue to educate people on the issue of consent and the long-term consequences their actions could cause? What exactly is the problem there?

The exact view that we can't do both of the above is why I'm saying that people viewing it in such black-and-white terms. And that isn't helpful.

Most women do grow up with a fear of walking anywhere alone, especially at night unaccompanied by other women or a man to protect her.
Women are always going to be physically disadvantaged when it comes to strength compared to men, do you believe it should follow then that they should be armed to protect themselves from the insidious nature of the other more stronger gender of the species?

Is that what we really need to learn? Think about it for a minute.

Rosy Posy · 27-05-2013 02:58AM

leggo wrote: »

I agree that the onus is more on the men. And, in particular, I think the campaign to educate people on the issue of what is/isn't consent is a very positive one that should enlighten many. Hopefully it will do a lot of good.

However, who else is to protect women, if we're not going to encourage them to attempt to protect themselves?

I don't dispute that I will teach my sons and daughter basic street smarts in terms of safety but in the broader context of avoiding crime, not specifically in relation to rape.

However to encourage women to avoid being raped by moderating their dress and behaviour reinforces the idea of rape as being dragged down a lane at knifepoint. This means that when a woman wakes up after a party to find she has been violated as she sleeps, or when a partner or friend persists in having sex after she has said no, she and others are less likely to consider it as rape, which in turn allows these things to continue unpunished and sanctioned in the public consciousness.

leggo · 27-05-2013 02:59AM

starling wrote: »

So are you saying that the girls who slept in a room with guys they didn't know well were not being smart? That they should have seen these guys as potential rapists?
There is a blatant contradiction between "if they got raped, they wouldn't have deserved it" and "It was foolish to sleep in a room with guys they didn't know well."
In the situation you're describing, realistically, the one most at risk of being raped is the girl who slept alone in a room with the guy she trusted. In the other room, if one of the guys tried it on with one if the girls, and she said "stop" there were other people in the room who would step in if necessary.
Look, you're actually trying to say that all men should be treated as potential rapists. Doesn't that bother you? Why should we accept that as "just common sense"? It's not a healthy way to have to live, for women or men.

I'm absolutely not saying that all men should be treated as potential rapists. I also didn't say that she slept alone in the room with him, she just slept in a room with him there.

In the example mentioned, they're going to bed with men. They're putting themselves in a vulnerable position around people they don't know that well.

It's like leaving your door open at night-time. No, it doesn't mean you deserve to have your stuff stolen. But you're simply making a poor judgement call that criminal-minded people could potentially prey upon.

Again, what is wrong with being cautious? Somebody answer me that.

Is rape always rape? Are men always to blame?

Comments