I found the following report disturbing. If these statistics are any where near accurate, we definitely need a re-think of public policy and a change in our legal procedures and attitudes.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,1540328,00.html

Originally posted by LordChaverly
I found the following report disturbing. If these statistics are any where near accurate, we definitely need a re-think of public policy and a change in our legal procedures and attitudes.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,1540328,00.html

Really quite shocking. I suspect many rapes go unreported because the victims feel too ashamed or cannot face the court ordeal. Don't know how we deal with that aspect of it as it's a very personal decision and for all our 'enlightened' attitudes to sex there still seems to be a social stigma the victim has to live with.

There is certainly a case for the legal representation of the victims to begin as soon as possible after the event. Police witness statements taken whilst the victim is still in a state of shock and presented in court usually months later are not the ideal basis for a prosecution.

This doesn't shock me, unfortunately :(

The courts and police service are just not equipped well enough to cope with rape victims. Many, many women, I supsect, have been prey to non-violent coercion when drunk into bed with a man they probably wouldn't have slept with if they saw a possible way out of the situation.

There is (mentioned in the article) the 'myth of the violent stranger' - the view generally that rape only happens in dark alleys to silly women at night. In my opinion, you are more likely to be raped by a friend, relative, or a drunken colleague. These are also the people it is hardest to bring a case against and hardest to provide any proof.

There are also horrible cases of innocent men sent to prison for rape they didn't commit, which serves only to fan the flames in a 'crying wolf' type of way.

Well done to the guardian and glamour magazine for this important campaign and well done to you m'Lud for bringing it to our attention.

Sorry to double post but I think, in addition - there still prevails in some social circles the attitude that 'no' actually means 'yes', and that sleeping with someone who is completely off their face drunk or stoned is okay, or indeed a good way to get someone into bed.

These attitudes need tackling head on as they are completely unacceptable.

It might be just me being thick but, how can the police know that 50k women were raped if so few were reported?

That is a very good question Duffer. We should always be sceptical about statistics and should certainly not take them at their face value without detailed information as to their provenance. I have been dealing with statistics of one kind or another all of my working life and experience has taught me to have a built in crap detector when analysing data presented as facts.

The article does not cite the source of the estimate, but it appears to derive from the research study mentioned in the article. This may for example have been based on a questionnaire of a sample of British women etc. As I said in my first post, if the figures are by any means accurate, they are indeed disturbing.

I agree entirely, Lord C, regarding the urgent need for policy revision, and a reassessment of current attitudes towards sexual assault and legal procedures.

Bindel's point about the vulnerability of young women in particular is a cogent one. Combine an increasing trend towards 'sexual openness' [not the same thing as sexual confidence] with an increasing trend towards 'binge drinking' and we have a recipe for even greater numbers of young women being raped and assaulted. One reflects that so many young women, in particular University students, unwittingly put themselves in positions of great danger. They often are oblivious to the way their behaviour and demeanour may be misinterpreted, or cynically taken advantage of, by predatory males. Often, the young women are very inexperienced, despite their contrived attempts to appear sophisticated. As Bindel suggests, their transparent vulnerability is a magnet for the vilenesses who commit such assaults. Many young women do not seem to realise that men can be very, very dangerous animals indeed.

Having said that, young women are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know rather than by the stereotypical, inadequate pervert in a soiled macintosh. When Susan Brownmiller, a feminist scholar, made the statement, 'All men are potential rapists', I remember condemning it as the most reductionist, absolutist, sexist and offensive bilge. On reflection, since so many rapists are 'ordinary men', often 'family men', even fathers and brothers of their victims, I can understand why Brownmiller said what she did. It may not be true that 'all men are potential rapists', but nevertheless, from the point of view of women, given statistics as horrific as the ones Lord C provides, a sizeable minority must be.

I think the stats were taken from 'A Gap or A CHasm', cited in the article, which can be accessed here (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf) with an explanation of the methodology.

Originally posted by timo
I remember condemning it as the most reductionist, absolutist, sexist and offensive bilge. On reflection, since so many rapists are 'ordinary men', often 'family men', even fathers and brothers of their victims, I can understand why Brownmiller said what she did. It may not be true that 'all men are potential rapists', but nevertheless, from the point of view of women, given statistics as horrific as the ones Lord C provides, a sizeable minority must be.

I think there are some men who would not consider what they do to be rape, even though it definitely is.

For example a man who takes a woman out on a few dates and then expects sex so doesn't listen well enough to the objections and forces himself upon her whilst drunk - would probably not consider himself a rapist whilst regretting it in the cold light of day.

Yes, I totally agree. These figures are shocking.

Originally posted by kathythebean
I think the stats were taken from 'A Gap or A CHasm', cited in the article, which can be accessed here (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf) with an explanation of the methodology.

Thanks kathy, very useful post.

To echo Kathy, these stats don't surprise me either. I've had too many friends who this has happened to over the years. Every time it has been a similar situation. It's always been someone they knew pretty well and always been when intoxicated. I agree that most of these men wouldn't see this situation as rape in the purest sense, even though they may feel bad about it the next day.

A big problem is that if the rape is not reported and dealt with then any guilt that the perpetrator may feel will pass and next time they are in the situation they will be more comfortable with doing the same again. Not being challenged only serves to diminish the morality of the attacker, possibly making them even more dangerous.

Perhaps we should not be quite so shocked, just saddened or angry? Rape has always been a social problem, so to speak. For example, rape and war go hand in hand. Think of the horrific mass rapes recently in Sudan, the Congo, the Balkans, the Soviet rape of German women, the unbelievable orgy of rape [and torture/murder] indulged in by Japanese troops in Nanking, the rape of thousands of Italian women at Monte Casino by Moroccan troops etc, etc, etc.

The rapists in all cases were not all sadistic sociopaths. Indeed, many were 'ordinary' men, husbands, fathers and brothers. Rape is often regarded as one of the 'spoils of war'. In the case of the Moroccan troops who descended on the mountain villages of Monte Casino after playing a part in the Allied defeat of the Germans, there is evidence that they were 'promised' such a reward by their French general.

An interesting point Timo. In a confined social environment like the armed forces, individuality is pretty much lost and service men are moulded into a kind of automaton state. It makes sense that this will also affect the morality of the individual concerned. If you are used to acting out orders as a unit with your peers and behaving as a unit then this will surely pass into any moral code that you develop. If everyone around you is doing something horrible, then it nearly excuses any guilt that you may have had in a normal environment. This doesn't just go for rape, but also situations like the pink fields massacre during the Vietnam conflict. It's hard to believe that so few soldiers disobeyed orders to kill hundreds of innocent people. The military is very good at removing the moral values of the individual and rebuilding them to fit a general format.

Suggest that young offenders may have reasons such as substance abuse or family problems behind their behaviour and you are a 'wooly liberal' a 'dangerous do-gooder who does not realise the damage you are doing to this country'.

Suggest a man may have a reason to rape and people just seem to take it as common sense.

Just to echo what some others have said, in my experience (myself and friends) I have found that there are far too many men out there who see having sex with a woman too drunk to do or say anything about it as perfectly acceptable. In my book this is rape. If the woman had been drugged there would be no question about it – but for some reason a significant minority of men seem to think that because a woman is drunk he can do whatever he likes.

In this situation what is a woman supposed to do? The problems of getting a conviction for rape are well known. And if you are drunk, your attacker is someone you know and it is his word against yours (and he wasn’t as drunk as you were), then who is a jury going to believe?

Am I correct in thinking that at the moment it is up to the prosecution to prove that consent wasn’t given? I’m sure I heard talk recently of changing it so that the defence has to prove that consent WAS given. And a woman who is too drunk to say either way cannot give consent. If the burden of proof was this way around then the prosecution could then use evidence of the level of alcohol in a woman’s blood to prove that she was not in a position to give consent. This would surely make any man prepared to have sex with a drunk woman think twice. And I think that overall changing the burden of proof so that consent has to be proved would significantly increase the chances of conviction in any case.

There needs to be an education programme for young boys/men to say that having sex with a very drunk woman is wrong – it is the same as having sex with a drugged woman. Unfortunately there seems to be too many men out there who do not understand this.

But surely this is where the lines become blurred. Simply saying that if a woman is very drunk, and she sleeps with a man and then wakes up the next morning and decides that she shouldnt have. To say that this is rape seems wrong to me, as to me it would be a drunk woman doing something stupid and then regretting it - not rape.

Therein lies the conundrum, duffer!

To my mind, the difference between a rapist and a decent bloke in that particular situation is that a decent guy will stop to ask "are you sure you want to, is this what you want, we can do it some other time when you're not so drunk, do you realise how much alcohol you've had tonight' - whereas a rapist would say 'go on you really want to, you should do it after all that money I spent on you, stop being uptight' etc etc

I have been in both situations :|

Edit: before anyone worries about me, in the latter situation, if I can't make my way to the door I know where to place a swift kick to get me out of there :)

That does make sense to me.

Glad to know that you can look after yourself :) Its a shame some women dont feel confident enough in that situation.

The trouble with this particular subject, and gathering evidence about why people do not report such crimes is there is still very much a social stigma about it.

Very much like the social stigma about domestic violence. Many people are ashamed that they are a victim and do not want to re-live their ordeal. There is often the feeling that somehow it was their fault, that they did something to somehow deserve it. And this is the subliminal opinion of many people.

When someone is 'attacked and raped' by a total stranger it is very much easier to see it as a crime. But even then, the way someone is dressed, their reasons for being where they were and why they were alone are all brought into question, thus making a conviction more difficult.

Perhaps an in-depth survey of people who have experienced rape (anonymously) as the victim and the perpetrator (would be difficult to get this info I know) could provide much needed information as to a) why these crimes are not reported b) why otherwise law-abiding people commit these crimes (do they even see it as a crime) and c) what can be done to reduce the occurances of these crimes and increase the conviction rate when cases are reported.

Originally posted by banesmabes
Just to echo what some others have said, in my experience (myself and friends) I have found that there are far too many men out there who see having sex with a woman too drunk to do or say anything about it as perfectly acceptable. In my book this is rape. If the woman had been drugged there would be no question about it – but for some reason a significant minority of men seem to think that because a woman is drunk he can do whatever he likes.

In this situation what is a woman supposed to do? The problems of getting a conviction for rape are well known. And if you are drunk, your attacker is someone you know and it is his word against yours (and he wasn’t as drunk as you were), then who is a jury going to believe?

Am I correct in thinking that at the moment it is up to the prosecution to prove that consent wasn’t given? I’m sure I heard talk recently of changing it so that the defence has to prove that consent WAS given. And a woman who is too drunk to say either way cannot give consent. If the burden of proof was this way around then the prosecution could then use evidence of the level of alcohol in a woman’s blood to prove that she was not in a position to give consent. This would surely make any man prepared to have sex with a drunk woman think twice. And I think that overall changing the burden of proof so that consent has to be proved would significantly increase the chances of conviction in any case.

There needs to be an education programme for young boys/men to say that having sex with a very drunk woman is wrong – it is the same as having sex with a drugged woman. Unfortunately there seems to be too many men out there who do not understand this.

that is just asking for miscarriages of justice. How can you ever prove that someone consented, unless you intend to carry around legally binding contracts and witnesses and ask for a signature before having sex.
Or maybe you could take a blood sample and a voice recording of them consenting... clearly not workable.

how do you determine where the line is between a woman who's tipsy but capable of consenting and one who isn't?

I'd agree that it's rape if they are basically unconscious or passed out due to alcohol, but otherwise they are still capable of making decisions.
And that situation could equally apply to a man, i'm sure some people on the forum have woken up and wished that they hadn't slept with someone (men I mean), but does that mean that they were raped because their judgement was impaired? I doubt they'd get very far in court claiming that.

Originally posted by Duffer
But surely this is where the lines become blurred. Simply saying that if a woman is very drunk, and she sleeps with a man and then wakes up the next morning and decides that she shouldnt have. To say that this is rape seems wrong to me, as to me it would be a drunk woman doing something stupid and then regretting it - not rape.

I agree with what Kathy said, but also the kind of situation I was thinking of is where a woman is so drunk that she is barely conscious (or even unconscious) – where is should be obvious to the man that she is in no fit state to make a decision about having sex or not. I know too many women who have been taken advantage of in this situation. They can have a vague recollection of it happening, but know that there were in no fit state to have given consent either way, and know that they would not have agreed to sleep with that person if they were in a fit enough state to give consent. I have even known women who have no recollection of the assault, and only find out because the man told them it happened (and obviously thought there was nothing wrong with it!).

Originally posted by Hels
Very much like the social stigma about domestic violence. Many people are ashamed that they are a victim and do not want to re-live their ordeal. There is often the feeling that somehow it was their fault, that they did something to somehow deserve it. And this is the subliminal opinion of many people.

Thats's something that I've come across a few times times (both rape and violence). The victim often tries to find any way possible to make the situation seem normal. using irrational logic to justify the attacker. I find this really upsetting, when a friend is trying to blame themselves for something that quite clearly wasn't their fault.

I can't see an answer to the consent issue. The whole social attitude to drinking and sex seems warped to me. To many people getting someone drunk to get them into bed is almost part of a game. If they do (consent given or otherwise), then it's seems like an achievement. How many groups of lads/men to you see out on the pull of a night time? It's like a pack of animals hunting, and just as predatory.

Maybe education to the younger generation will help, as we need some way of tackling men's opinions. I'm not sure if there will ever be a solution, but surely hammering in certain moral rules at a young age can't hurt.

Referring to Kathy's comments (again), in an ideal world, a decent man would be able to see past their own desires and think about the person they are with. Even if the person is wasted and willing, it should be obvious that this is not the right situation. Hell, even I've said no when drunk because I knew it's not what I or the other person really wanted.

Well, perhaps its wise to remember that a date involves a threesome - a woman, a man and his penis. As a wise Italian gentleman once said, an erect penis has no conscience. It has no sense either, particularly when there is a drunken man on the end of it. Perhaps there ought to be a new criminal offence - drunk in charge of an erect penis.

Not only thoes figures shocking ,but i am also shocked by the number of teenagers just of late that being convicted of murder.

What is happening to the human race i say bring back some old fashioned values and pinishments. Bring back National Serivce and lets see how tough some of them really are.

Originally posted by Cyclone
that is just asking for miscarriages of justice. How can you ever prove that someone consented, unless you intend to carry around legally binding contracts and witnesses and ask for a signature before having sex.
Or maybe you could take a blood sample and a voice recording of them consenting... clearly not workable.


But the current system isn't workable either. What is a woman supposed to do to prove non-consent? At the moment we are having huge miscarriages of justice but the miscarriages are that the rapists are going free because they know it is almost impossible for a woman to prove non-consent. Even when there is physical bruising the rapist always just says it was rough but consensual. I don't see a way through this, but I know I would be more comfortable with a system where the defence has to prove consent rather than the prosecution having to prove non-consent. Rape is an unusual case in that it is about the only offence where the genuineness of the crime is called into question by pretty much all sides. How many other crimes are pretty much always assumed to have been falsely accused before anyone actually takes the victim seriously? How many other crimes get to court and all the defence does is question whether the crime really happened?

Originally posted by banesmabes
But the current system isn't workable either. What is a woman supposed to do to prove non-consent? At the moment we are having huge miscarriages of justice but the miscarriages are that the rapists are going free because they know it is almost impossible for a woman to prove non-consent. Even when there is physical bruising the rapist always just says it was rough but consensual. I don't see a way through this, but I know I would be more comfortable with a system where the defence has to prove consent rather than the prosecution having to prove non-consent. Rape is an unusual case in that it is about the only offence where the genuineness of the crime is called into question by pretty much all sides. How many other crimes are pretty much always assumed to have been falsely accused before anyone actually takes the victim seriously? How many other crimes get to court and all the defence does is question whether the crime really happened?

The problem is if I hit you in the face there is no reason why you would have consented. So it is obviously a crime.

Having sex is not a crime. Only non-consensual sex is a crime. So there is a clear case that the accuser needs to prove non-consent in the case of rape.

certainly under the current and long standing tradition of innocent until proven guilty the onus is on the prosecution to prove that it was non consensual. To alter that overturns a foundation pillar of our justice system.

Ignored the point about men crying rape when they realise they've slept with someone they normally wouldn't... How does that fit in?

the problem with rape cases is that its often one word against another. Unless there is some kind of independent evidence or the attacker looks like a rapist then they tend to get off.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Ignored the point about men crying rape when they realise they've slept with someone they normally wouldn't... How does that fit in?

I don't know that men would cry rape in this situation? I've certainly never heard of a man crying rape. And certainly most women don't either. Only a very small number of reported rapes are fake accusations. And certainly as only a very small proportion of rapes are reported then most women who are raped are not crying rape because they suffer in silence instead. I'm not talking about times that you have drunken sex with someone where both of you are obviously consenting - even if you may not otherwise choose to if you were sober. I'm talking about women being raped when they are too drunk to talk or move, so cannot in anyway give or withhold their consent. I just think that the system needs to change as far as rape is concerned. I do wonder if violent sexual assaults were as common against men as they are against women whether the system would still be so stacked against the victim (again, unlike any other crime).

Originally posted by Cyclone
certainly under the current and long standing tradition of innocent until proven guilty the onus is on the prosecution to prove that it was non consensual. To alter that overturns a foundation pillar of our justice system.

A justice system where most rapists get off scott free - one to be proud of no doubt! :loopy:

Originally posted by banesmabes
A justice system where most rapists get off scott free - one to be proud of no doubt! :loopy:

I don't think a complete scrapping of a fundamental of our justice system is required here, I'm also not sure that it wouldn't just replace the existing problem with another one.

Originally posted by nightrider
The problem is if I hit you in the face there is no reason why you would have consented. So it is obviously a crime.

Having sex is not a crime. Only non-consensual sex is a crime. So there is a clear case that the accuser needs to prove non-consent in the case of rape.

But if you hit me in the face and there was only me and you present and no witnesses then it can be argued that the event didn't actually take place. However in this kind of case the police do usually take the victim seriously and don't immediately assume that a crime may have not actually occured. And it is just an automatic response of the defence case in a rape trial. Those accused of rape very rarely deny that intercourse has taken place, because they know that with forensic evidence they don't have a leg to stand on - however they can hide behind the consent issue and on there not being any witnesses and pretty much guarantee that it will not get to court, never mind end in conviction. I just find it disgusting that we have a law where 99 times out of a 100 women have absolutely no protection under whatsoever. I think rape needs to be recognised as a crime like no other, because of the consent issue, and it should therefore be down to the defendent to prove that consent was given. I really cannot see any other way to protect women from a crime that is second only to murder in severity.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I don't think a complete scrapping of a fundamental of our justice system is required here, I'm also not sure that it wouldn't just replace the existing problem with another one.

I wouldn't advocate the change for other crimes, but I think rape is a special case. The criminal justice system is far too skewed in favour of the rapist. I think it needs to be recognised that rape is unlike any other crime and thus needs to be treated differently.

Originally posted by banesmabes
I wouldn't advocate the change for other crimes, but I think rape is a special case. The criminal justice system is far too skewed in favour of the rapist. I think it needs to be recognised that rape is unlike any other crime and thus needs to be treated differently.

then we're back to my earlier question, how can you ever prove consent unless you carry around a legal contract and fine a witness to sign it infront of, which is clearly never going to happen.

I can see no way to prevent false rape claims resulting in someone going to prison, and that is just as unacceptable as genuine cases not resulting in conviction. Swapping one problem for another is not a solution.

Originally posted by banesmabes
But if you hit me in the face and there was only me and you present and no witnesses then it can be argued that the event didn't actually take place. However in this kind of case the police do usually take the victim seriously and don't immediately assume that a crime may have not actually occured. And it is just an automatic response of the defence case in a rape trial. Those accused of rape very rarely deny that intercourse has taken place, because they know that with forensic evidence they don't have a leg to stand on - however they can hide behind the consent issue and on there not being any witnesses and pretty much guarantee that it will not get to court, never mind end in conviction. I just find it disgusting that we have a law where 99 times out of a 100 women have absolutely no protection under whatsoever. I think rape needs to be recognised as a crime like no other, because of the consent issue, and it should therefore be down to the defendent to prove that consent was given. I really cannot see any other way to protect women from a crime that is second only to murder in severity.

the issue of consent can come up in other areas, unfortunately they are useless in this discussion as they tend to be things like sporting matches. For example you can consent to hit each other in the face, it's called boxing, it's unlikely that it would ever occur without witnesses though.
Unless you suggest making sex a sporting event with spectators that isn't going to help here.

Originally posted by Cyclone
then we're back to my earlier question, how can you ever prove consent unless you carry around a legal contract and fine a witness to sign it infront of, which is clearly never going to happen.

I can see no way to prevent false rape claims resulting in someone going to prison, and that is just as unacceptable as genuine cases not resulting in conviction. Swapping one problem for another is not a solution.

Very true. I think the answer is there is no answer.

Originally posted by Cyclone
then we're back to my earlier question, how can you ever prove consent unless you carry around a legal contract and fine a witness to sign it infront of, which is clearly never going to happen.

I can see no way to prevent false rape claims resulting in someone going to prison, and that is just as unacceptable as genuine cases not resulting in conviction. Swapping one problem for another is not a solution.

And again I would ask how you can ever prove non-consent? But by asking that the prosecution prove non-consent you are immediately putting the chance of conviction at slim to none - and rapists know this.

Your argument is going back to the same old assumption that most rape claims are false. We really need to move away from this mentality. It is this assumption that has protected rapists for too long. It seems to be so inbred into everyone that if a woman reports a rape then the chances are it is a false claim – but if this research is to be believed then false accusations make up only a very small proportion of cases. This mentality seems to assume that all women are lying and vindictive – some can be, but why should this tiny minority of women spoil protection and retribution for the VAST majority who aren’t? It seems like the law is protecting the tiny minority of men who are falsely accused of rape, rather than the many more women who ARE actually raped, and as a result the real rapists are being protected as well.

The fact of the matter is the current system does not work as far as rape is concerned. The only kind of rape that women can have any kind of confidence in getting justice for is stranger rape – which is the most uncommon kind. Women know that if a man they know decides to rape them then there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. And unfortunately most rapists know this as well, so they will just continue to rape and rape and rape. SOMETHING needs to change. We need to stop automatically protecting the accused and actually think about protecting the victim.

Again I would ask the question if men were being sexually assaulted on the same scale as this would we really sit back and allow this disgusting status quo to continue? Would we automatically assume that most rape claims are false when they are not? Would we really have so much concern for the accused? I don’t believe in sending innocent men to jail, but what I don’t believe in even more is rapists never having to be accountable for their actions. Unfortunately this is not an easy problem to solve, bringing the real rapists to account, but protecting the innocent – but as I said, SOMETHING needs to be done.

Can I just say that I agree with both Cyclone and banesmabes on this subject, I know that sounds odd but I'll try to explain...

...Cyclone is (IMO) correct, the idea that someone should be able to prove consent is clearly unworkable...

...and...

...banesmabes is correct (IMO) to be outraged by the current situation and be demanding that something is done...

...the question is, what can be done?

If we look back at the article quoted in the OP we see

…In the 1970s you had a 33 per cent chance of getting a conviction. In 1985 it was 24 per cent…

…By 2003 it had fallen to 5 per cent…

Source:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,1540328,00.html

So, what were they doing right in the '70s, that has started to go so wrong since?

This needs looking at by those in power, as to allow this situation to continue is clearly very unacceptable.

:rant:

I completely agree that something should be done, I just disagree that turning part of our legal system on it's head is the right answer.

I haven't suggested that the majority of rape accusations are false, i've suggested that changing the problem from one where it's acknowledged that too many remain unconvicted to one where it's acknowledged that innocent men will go to jail isn't solving the problem.

It would appear that education on both sides is part of the key. Education for juries regarding the liklihoof of rape and how it often isn't a stranger, and education on the part of women so that they DO report it and do so immediately not after destroying most of the evidence.

In fact looking a bit closer at the figures, it would appear that it's not really the law/juries that are the problem. Of rape cases that actually went to court, 38% resulted in a conviction.
The problem seems to lie more in the area of only 13% of reported rapes going to trial. And in only 23% being reported in the first place.

So, presumably if all the rapes were reported, we'd see an immediate quadrupling of the number taken to court and convicted.

If the police/CPS attitude is changed (and women report a rape immediately not after 24/48 hrs) then the % that are taken to court can be increased, this is the lowest figure and so probably the one that is easiest to target and increase.

Originally posted by foo_fighter

So, what were they doing right in the '70s, that has started to go so wrong since?

This needs looking at by those in power, as to allow this situation to continue is clearly very unacceptable.

:rant:

I think in order to answer this question we would need to go beyond raw data and examine the statistics carefully.

For example, is the change in conviction rates for this type of crime out of line with changes in conviction rates for other offences? If not, then it may be due to factors which now favour the defendant in criminal trials;

Is it due to pressure on the Crown prosecution Service to bring cases forward, even though the possibility of conviction is rather doubtful (e.g. date rape offences)?

Has there been a rise in prosecutions for date rape offences (far harder to prove than stranger on stranger offences, because of the 'he says, she says' factor)?

Moreover, if we take the 50,000 figure quoted, it could have seemingly increased over the years because women are now more willing to admit that they have been assaulted than formerly.

There are no doubt many other possible reasons too.

Well then maybe the answer lies in prevention. If getting absolutley hammered on a night out/date is going to increase the possibility of this occuring then maybe not drinking as much is the answer. If the girl has got her wits about her then it would make this alot harder for this to happen.

Originally posted by Duffer
Well then maybe the answer lies in prevention. If getting absolutley hammered on a night out/date is going to increase the possibility of this occuring then maybe not drinking as much is the answer. If the girl has got her wits about her then it would make this alot harder for this to happen.
There is of course an element of truth in this, after all, somebody getting into this state,
Originally posted by banesmabes
...I'm talking about women being raped when they are too drunk to talk or move, so cannot in anyway give or withhold their consent...
could get themselves into any number of problems, run over, fall from height, anything.

Is this increase in "binge drinking" partially to blame, lasses getting too drunk to say “no” effectively, and lads getting too drunk to listen (or care to listen).

Whatever the reasons, it's still a worrying trend.

:(

Originally posted by Duffer
Well then maybe the answer lies in prevention. If getting absolutley hammered on a night out/date is going to increase the possibility of this occuring then maybe not drinking as much is the answer. If the girl has got her wits about her then it would make this alot harder for this to happen.

But why should a woman change her lawful behaviour just because there are men out there who think it is acceptable to rape a drunk woman? It is the men's behaviour that should be targeted, not women's. It is their behaviour that is unlawful. Saying women should drink less in order to avoid rape is again going back to old fashioned ideas that women ask to be raped because of their behaviour/how they are dressed etc.

Foo,
My earlier posting made reference to the so-called 'binge culture', and I agree that it may be a significant contributory factor in cases of young women being assaulted and raped. This is particularly so with regard to female students. It is quite common on campuses throughout Britain to find young female students [and their male counterparts] drunk as lords in the daytime due to lunchtime boozing sessions in the student union bar or pub, let alone when night falls. Ludicrous 'drinking contests' are popular, with the result that the participants are left in a state of great vulnerability, and sometimes end up in every conceivable position of distress. The worst offenders, in my experience, are first year undergraduates.

The publicity departments of certain Universities play a part in encouraging the idea that one enrols to 'get bladdered' rather than to study. The shameful recent adverts for Salford University spring to mind. Here, the emphasis is on the 'nightlife' and how 'exciting' and 'diverse' the particular city is, with little about the academic side of things on show. The 'binge culture' is so bad that often seminars and lectures are half empty in certain Universities when it is 'happy hour'. The solution might be to install bars in the lecture halls, with a full range of beers, wines, spirits and cocktails, plus bar snacks, and a quiz [non-academic variety].

Realistically, people will always drink and become inebriated and possibly vulnerable. There is a Libertarian argument for allowing them to do just that. However, young female students ought to remember the dangers. It may be unfair to expect them to restrain themselves when 'Justin' and 'Liam' are getting 'totally wasted' in the pub. However, the danger of rape looms far larger for young women.

Originally posted by Cyclone
It would appear that education on both sides is part of the key. Education for juries regarding the liklihoof of rape and how it often isn't a stranger, and education on the part of women so that they DO report it and do so immediately not after destroying most of the evidence.

If the police/CPS attitude is changed (and women report a rape immediately not after 24/48 hrs) then the % that are taken to court can be increased, this is the lowest figure and so probably the one that is easiest to target and increase.

I think most of the education has to be focused on the Police, CPS, and on men. If the police and CPS attitudes changed then more rapes would be reported. In most rapes waiting 24 -48 hours to report has little effect on the chance of conviction (at present). Yes, we can prove by forensics that intercourse took place - but those accused of rape very rarely deny that this happened, it is all down to the question of consent. You may say that there would therefore be physical bruising on the victim and that this could be lost if the woman waits before reporting - but again this is often not the case. If a woman is in fear of her life then she will generally not fight the attack. If she is too drunk to do anything about it then she will not fight the attack. Even if she does fight it, some people bruise easily and others don't. Even if there is evidence of physical injury, most men accused of rape say that it was as a result of rough but consensual sex. Again it pretty much always comes down to the question of consent - which is almost impossible to prove either way. But the way the system is now means that rapists go free.

Originally posted by banesmabes
...Saying women should drink less in order to avoid rape is again going back to old fashioned ideas that women ask to be raped because of their behaviour/how they are dressed etc.
No it isn't, it's asking people to take responsibility for their own actions, something that is all too lacking in today’s "claims culture" society.

If you are in a state described by you previously,
Originally posted by banesmabes
...I'm talking about women being raped when they are too drunk to talk or move, so cannot in anyway give or withhold their consent...
you are quite clearly a danger to yourself, by whatever means happens along.

This is quite clearly different to (for example) dressing provocatively, when was the last time a short skirt got you run over...

...although, I'll admit, they've probably caused a few RTAs. ;)

In short, if there is a clear problem (which there seems to be) we should ALL change our behaviour to solve it, if that is what’s required...

...just blaming someone else will get society nowhere.

edit to add
Timo, while I agree with your point as regards women being more vulnerable, and therefore "taking care", I also think men should think about this issue also, we have a responsibility not to get so drunk that we can't (or won't) listen when a lady says "no" (or enough). It's up to everyone to protect those most vulnerable in society, it's the how that's tricky. At any rate, getting into such a state is a danger for men anyway, as outlined above.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
No it isn't, it's asking people to take responsibility for their own actions, something that is all too lacking in today’s "claims culture" society.

If you are in a state described by you previously,

you are quite clearly a danger to yourself, by whatever means happens along.

This is quite clearly different to (for example) dressing provocatively, when was the last time a short skirt got you run over...

...although, I'll admit, they've probably caused a few RTAs. ;)

In short, if there is a clear problem (which there seems to be) we should ALL change our behaviour to solve it, if that is what’s required...

...just blaming someone else will get society nowhere.

But again drinking is not illegal. A drunk woman is just as entitled to be protected from rape as a sober woman. What you are suggesting is that if a woman is drunk and is raped then she is in some way partly to blame. I can never accept that a woman is to blame for being raped - it is entirely the blame of the rapist. In that situation is it the rapist who is in control - just because a woman is drunk is absolutely no excuse. I am a great believer that women should not have to change their own lawful behaviour (whether that be getting drunk, wearing a short skirt or walking alone at night) because there are men out there who will use it as an excuse to do whatever they like. Blaming someone else for rape and not yourself is acceptable - because it is someone else who is to blame - the rapist, and the rapist alone.

Originally posted by banesmabes
But why should a woman change her lawful behaviour just because there are men out there who think it is acceptable to rape a drunk woman? It is the men's behaviour that should be targeted, not women's. It is their behaviour that is unlawful. Saying women should drink less in order to avoid rape is again going back to old fashioned ideas that women ask to be raped because of their behaviour/how they are dressed etc.

I didnt say it was an ideal solution, but then how many solutions to legal problems are? But its seems like common sense to me that for a girl not to be raped in the first place and not have to go through all that trauma is infinitley better than getting raped and then the courts siding with her. I agree that in an IDEAL world their would be a solution where crimes could be prevented before they happen, but we dont live in that world.

I can only speak for myself and the only comparison I can come up with is probably not even a good one but... If I knew walking around somewhere like pitsmoor shouting about how i thought the war in Iraq was such a great idea was likely to get me into hot water. Then I wouldnt do it. Even if my actions were completley legal and I had every right to do it.

Originally posted by banesmabes
But again drinking is not illegal. A drunk woman is just as entitled to be protected from rape as a sober woman...
Of course she is, but don't let your entrenched position on this issue cloud your judgement...

...after all, what happens if she's so drunk she falls off of her expensive city centre flats balcony...

...it's not all about blame, it should also be about keeping yourself alive / safe.

:)

just as if a man drinks himself to unconsciousness and wakes up naked in the park, minus clothes and rolex.
Is he completely blameless, or did he create the opportunity for him to be robbed, by not acting in a sensible way.

Of course that doesn't condone robbery or rape, but there are things that people can do to protect themselves instead of just shouting that society should protect them.

Originally posted by Cyclone
just as if a man drinks himself to unconsciousness and wakes up naked in the park, minus clothes and rolex.
Is he completely blameless, or did he create the opportunity for him to be robbed, by not acting in a sensible way.

Of course that doesn't condone robbery or rape, but there are things that people can do to protect themselves instead of just shouting that society should protect them.

I think the same principle should apply to the ridiculous argument that the July 7th suicide bombers were 'brainwashed'

Originally posted by LordChaverly
I think the same principle should apply to the ridiculous argument that the July 7th suicide bombers were 'brainwashed'
Wow! Derail alert.

Original thread direction

...^
....l
....l
....l .... -------- > Lord Chav'
....l .../
....l ./
....l/
....l
....l
....l

Original post

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Wow! Derail alert.

Original thread direction

...^
....l
....l
....l .... -------- > Lord Chav'
....l .../
....l ./
....l/
....l
....l
....l

Original post

Foo, I appreciate the subtlety of the diagram. I love a good tangential argument especially when the original appears to be going round in circles. My post was in response to Cyclone's analogy about moral responsibility. I was drawing a parallel between the eschewing of moral responsibility for criminal behaviour on the grounds that the perpetrator was drunk at the time and the argument that the suicide bombers had been 'brainwashed' and therefore were not fully responsible for their actions.

There is no proof that women who are dressed provocatively are more likely to be raped. You have to try and forget everything you think you know about rape and try and remodel it. Research shows that it doesn't mostly happen to tarty women in dark alleyways!

We could apportion blame in varying degrees all over the place -men, women, the media, alcohol, clothes, the 'loss of moral values', biology, hormones...you never reach a conclusion and it's kind of immaterial.

What everyone needs to do is challenge the ideas of friends, relatives and strangers as regards what kind of behaviour and social attitudes are acceptable. Men and women should be taken seriously when they claim to have been raped. Men should pull up their friends when they start chatting about 'dumb bitches who are gagging for it' etc. Women should clearly lay down boundaries about how far they want to go and what they expect.

As much as a criminal justice problem, it is a societal problem which we should all take responsibility for.

Kathy,
The problem is, how do women 'clearly lay down boundaries about how far they want to go and what they expect'? Are women always certain about 'how far' they wish to engage in sexual foreplay etc? Sex makes fools of us all. Passion and heightened emotion can override logical thinking where sexual congress is concerned.

In some American Universities in the early to mid 90s, female students asked their pimply swains to sign agreements that they would only explore certain anatomical regions and erogenous zones. Things got very technical. One can imagine the effects upon the libedo of having to fill in a form every time one wished to 'ball' one's 'chick', as I believe it is known in the American colonies of the New World. One envisages arguments along the lines, 'He fondled my buttocks, after clearly ticking question 2 in section 11' etc.

' No' should mean 'no', I agree. However, the subtleties of human sexual relationships and behaviour make it extremely difficult for boundaries , short of forbidding full, penetrative sex, to be set. Sometimes, it is women who put pressure on men to have sex too. I get this all the time from tall, blonde Swedish au pair girls . They simply will not listen to my tremulous whinings about being 'happily married'. I am just a sex toy to the temptresses. Afterwards, I feel so very 'used'.

Regarding the technicalities and parameters of exploratory fumblings on American campuses, I remember when i was living in the US I mentioned to a group of students and lecturers that semis were very common in the UK, whereas in the US they are few and far between. I was of course referring to housing. This was followed by amused looks and sniggering. I was told later that the word 'semi' is common American parlance for a half erection.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
...I was of course referring to housing. This was followed by amused looks and sniggering. I was told later that the word 'semi' is common American parlance for a half erection.
...and there was me thinking "Semi" was American slang for a particular type of truck.

See here:
http://www.buyatruck.net/Detailed/1518.html


Wow, now I'm off on a tangent.

;)

I hope I dont **** off a lot of people by saying this but this is my personal viewpoint on this whole matter.

You shouldnt go out and get rat arsed and go throwing yourself at every tom, dick and harry in a club or a pub.

Thats what it boils down to for me unfortunately.

Women do not deserve to be raped, and the people who are commiting these acts deserved to be punished more than they are now.

The fact of the matter is, if you go out, get ****** up, meet someone you dont know and then give them the wrong signals, which I'm sorry to say a lot of lasses do nowadays, then bad things happen. They shouldnt but they do.

It does not happen mostly to tarty women, thats true-- because they are looked at as an easy lay.. a rapist so we are told by people in the know.. needs a kind of challenge in a way- if I can put it like that.

Thats a part of the rush for a rapist, that is what gives them more 'excitement' in what they do. Pretty sick I know.

Thankyou to the Bishop of Bath and Wells there. Only jesting. Actually, Angelus, yours is a welcome bit of 'straight talking' on the issues. I do not think that the notion of 'contributary negligence' should play any part in a rape trial. However, there is nothing wrong with highlighting a trend towards irresponsible 'binge' drinking, and the often tragic results. Your point about rapists often 'needing a challenge' echoes the views of several psychologists, feminist scholars etc to the ends that rape is more about power than it is about sexual gratification. I am not entirely sure that I accept that theory as an explanation, as I am sure there is a multifactorial explanation somewhere. Nevertheless , your views are in line with those scholars you refer to as 'in the know'.

Originally posted by timo
Thankyou to the Bishop of Bath and Wells there. Only jesting. Actually, Angelus, yours is a welcome bit of 'straight talking' on the issues. I do not think that the notion of 'contributary negligence' should play any part in a rape trial. However, there is nothing wrong with highlighting a trend towards irresponsible 'binge' drinking, and the often tragic results. Your point about rapists often 'needing a challenge' echoes the views of several psychologists, feminist scholars etc to the ends that rape is more about power than it is about sexual gratification. I am not entirely sure that I accept that theory as an explanation, as I am sure there is a multifactorial explanation somewhere. Nevertheless , your views are in line with those scholars you refer to as 'in the know'.

LOL :)

The idea that women who are raped are generally dressed in a provocative fashion is a myth. The majority of women are raped by someone they know.

It is almost unheard of in Sheffield for someone to be convicted of rape. The charge is almost always reduced to indecent assault. Sometimes even to common assault because its easy to get a conviction. 'Common assault' doesn't even suggest anything sexual on a criminal record.

Sometimes police give out cautions and final warnings to people accused of sexual assault because its the only way to get them to admit what they've done - solicitors can easily bargain because they know and the police know that there's a cat in hell's chance of conviction at court.

In my experience, lads don't take the charge of 'rape' or 'indecent assault' seriously anymore. I heard one lad say the other day re answering bail 'oh its only a rape charge'. Very very scary. And blaming women for this is scarier still...

I agree with you chickmonk.

What I dont agree with is another thing that pished me off in the last two weeks.. fake rape allegations, ie: Alton Towers a week ago.

What would possess a normal person to cry rape?
They are sick and they should be treated as criminals as such.

If women -sorry lasses- have to sink this low to get some attention, then I'm sorry I am disgusted with the human race as a whole.

I feel sorry for genuine rape victims, I sympathise with them, no woman should ever be hit or raped IMO.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
I hope I dont **** off a lot of people by saying this but this is my personal viewpoint on this whole matter.

You shouldnt go out and get rat arsed and go throwing yourself at every tom, dick and harry in a club or a pub.



But again what this is implying is that these women are asking to be raped. Just because a woman may chose to 'throw' herself at a man while she is drunk does not mean she is consenting to sex later in the evening. Yes it may mean a man gets the wrong idea, but he should still know that if that same woman then refuses to have sex with him then it is rape - it doesn't matter what has happened earlier on. Indeed a woman can have a sex with someone once and then refuse to a second time - if the man ignores this then it is still rape - he can't argue that if she consents once then she consents always. Consent can only be given at the time of intercourse - not beforehand.

Similarly if she is so drunk that she cannot give consent either way then it is still rape, again despite what actions may have passed earlier.

I think the problem is there are a lot of men out there who do not even see having sex with an inebriated or even unconscious woman, who does not have a clue what is happening to her (very different to drunkenly but consciously sleeping with someone, which you then regret), as rape. They see this as perfectly legitimate because of what may have passed earlier or in the night, or simply because she is drunk and should just expect that kind of thing to happen. It is an attitude that needs to be stamped out.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
I agree with you chickmonk.

What I dont agree with is another thing that pished me off in the last two weeks.. fake rape allegations, ie: Alton Towers a week ago.

What would possess a normal person to cry rape?
They are sick and they should be treated as criminals as such.

If women -sorry lasses- have to sink this low to get some attention, then I'm sorry I am disgusted with the human race as a whole.

I feel sorry for genuine rape victims, I sympathise with them, no woman should ever be hit or raped IMO.

Yes, I can't stand these women who make false claims as well. They do nothing but harm the chances of real victims getting justice. I don't know how any woman who makes a false rape claim can live with herself. But please remember that false claims are rare, we have an inflated sense of how often they occur because they tend to gain a lot of publicity.

if you are so drunk that you pass out it may well be the case though that you wouldn't remember consenting.

I've had hour long conversations when extremely drunk that I don't even remember having (never mind the details) until someone reminds me about it, and even then the details never come back.

Originally posted by banesmabes
Just because a woman may chose to 'throw' herself at a man while she is drunk does not mean she is consenting to sex later in the evening. Yes it may mean a man gets the wrong idea, but he should still know that if that same woman then refuses to have sex with him then it is rape - it doesn't matter what has happened earlier on. Indeed a woman can have a sex with someone once and then refuse to a second time - if the man ignores this then it is still rape - he can't argue that if she consents once then she consents always. Consent can only be given at the time of intercourse - not beforehand.

Similarly if she is so drunk that she cannot give consent either way then it is still rape, again despite what actions may have passed earlier.

I think the problem is there are a lot of men out there who do not even see having sex with an inebriated or even unconscious woman, who does not have a clue what is happening to her (very different to drunkenly but consciously sleeping with someone, which you then regret), as rape. They see this as perfectly legitimate because of what may have passed earlier or in the night, or simply because she is drunk and should just expect that kind of thing to happen. It is an attitude that needs to be stamped out.

Totally agree with that!! :)

IMO again -sorry- you really shouldnt be sleeping with people once and then not again to be fair.. thats another attitude we need to stamp out in this country as well.

In fact, I'd go whole hog and say the whole, getting pished and out of control thing should be stamped out as well.

I cannot understand the attitude of girls who get themselves so drunk they are incapable of preventing or remembering anything that has happened to them.
Do they think they are fireproof.
Are they relyng on the moral standards of the men they meet to get them safey home.
They are very vunerable in this state and must take some of the responsibility surely. I know that they should, in an ideal world be able to do as they want, but our world is not ideal.
hazel

Originally posted by hazel
I cannot understand the attitude of girls who get themselves so drunk they are incapable of preventing or remembering anything that has happened to them.
Do they think they are fireproof.
Are they relyng on the moral standards of the men they meet to get them safey home.
They are very vunerable in this state and must take some of the responsibility surely. I know that they should, in an ideal world be able to do as they want, but our world is not ideal.
hazel

Agree totally with you Hazel!

If you purposely go out to get so wrecked, and bad stuff happens to you - then I'm sorry, I dont feel the slightest pang of sympathy when bad stuff happens to them.

Dont go out to get **** faced - simple as that really.
Have some self respect for yourself, dont end up looking like a tit and embarassing yourself.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
Agree totally with you Hazel!

If you purposely go out to get so wrecked, and bad stuff happens to you - then I'm sorry, I dont feel the slightest pang of sympathy when bad stuff happens to them.

Dont go out to get **** faced - simple as that really.
Have some self respect for yourself, dont end up looking like a tit and embarassing yourself.

It's not about 'embarrassing yourself', it's about being raped. Good grief, are we saying that men don't have any self-control?!?!

Many people, men and women, have one at least one occasion got themselves into a bit of a tangle with drink. This does not mean they deserve to be raped.

This whole thread seems to be directed towards women being raped when they have been drunk. This is not the only time that rape charges become contentious. Women who are sober also have a very difficult time in gaining a conviction against their rapist.

Why isn't men's attitude towards sex challenged? Lots of men seem to see it as their 'right' and that the woman is a 'slag' and deserves it? 'The woman has no self-respect' rather than 'the man has no respect for women'?

A lot of men dont have 'self control', I thankfully do as I have been brought up very well by my parents, god bless them.

Men do need to realise no means no.

I also didnt say ****** women deserved to be raped, no, no, no, all we are implying is that you are more likely to be raped and taken advantage of if you are in a state.

I dont know how the legal system is with rape charges, but I do know you have to have a lot of evidence nowadays to get a proper charge which seems wrong.

My one example of how this country has been warped has appeared on TV last night.

Kinga on BB.

If this is what every woman does when they are drunk or high, then I'm very sorry.. men will get the wrong signals sent to them and I would be very surprised if a ****** anthony had not been on top of her in the garden as quick as a flash.

And if that is what the youth of today aspire too, then we are all royally fooked as a country.. and its no wonder why foreigners have such low opinions of our country.

If you act like that, you kinda draw in the wrong attention to yourself.. sorry!

I have respect for women, I dont shag about, I dont treat my missus with anything less than respect, love and max attention for her- in short treating her like a queen at all times.

Yes, men who dont have any self control and rape women are criminals. This is absolutley wrong and I completley agree with you. This is a social problem and their is little you can do as an individual that will alter this directly.

But do you agree that if a girl is v.v. drunk that this is more likley to happen? This is something that you can have a very direct influence on. If you do agree with that statement then isnt it logical to want to do the thing that you have direct control over?

Originally posted by Duffer
Yes, men who dont have any self control and rape women are criminals. This is absolutley wrong and I completley agree with you. This is a social problem and their is little you can do as an individual that will alter this directly.

But do you agree that if a girl is v.v. drunk that this is more likley to happen? This is something that you can have a very direct influence on. If you do agree with that statement then isnt it logical to want to do the thing that you have direct control over?

True!

I agree that women have a responsibilty to look after their own health and safety. It is, of course, foolish to place oneself in a vulnerable position when there are obvious risk involved.

I don't know whether, though, this will change the horrifying statistics about convictions. The huge media coverage of the (rare) cases in which a woman is shown to have made false rape allegations really does not help matters. I think that the Crown Prosecution Service really needs to get tougher and to stop the ridiculous dropping of cases and plea bargain deals. Rapists, even when caught, are conitnuing to get away with it.

Oh, and if you're a vunerable woman, say with learning difficulties, and you are raped you may as well forget ever getting your rapist convicted...

Originally posted by Duffer
Yes, men who dont have any self control and rape women are criminals. This is absolutley wrong and I completley agree with you. This is a social problem and their is little you can do as an individual that will alter this directly.

But do you agree that if a girl is v.v. drunk that this is more likley to happen? This is something that you can have a very direct influence on. If you do agree with that statement then isnt it logical to want to do the thing that you have direct control over?

Yes, it does increase your risk of being raped. But aren't we approaching reducing the risks in this the wrong way? Why is it that as far as rape is concerned it is always the woman's behaviour that we scrutinise? Why is it that we are always looking for ways in which the woman has acted that has led to them being raped? Why aren't we looking at the rapist's behaviour? Why aren't we educating boys at school about how horrific rape is? Why aren't we doing something to stop the perpetrators rather than just lecturing potential victims? Why aren't we trying to find ways of getting better conviction rates?

Again I ask a question which I have mentioned twice before in this thread and which still hasn't been answered by anyone - if men were being sexually assaulted on this scale would we really be sitting back and letting this happen? Would we really be sat here lecturing men on how they need to refine their behaviour otherwise they deserve little sympathy if they are raped?

In my opinion the answer to Banemabes question has to be a resounding no. I think this may be to do with women being far too soft in dealing with this sort of issue, possibly because they are frightened, almost certainly with good reason of all kinds of consequences not to mention the backlash of bad publicity usually associated with these activities.

For the equally disturbing, but lesser charges involving persistent violence I think options are available which can be taken up. I heard of one case where the perpetrator, a male, was taken in to police custody until his ardour had cooled off after a series of violent incidents. Apparently this entails being locked in a police cell without clothes or blankets this prevented any further physical violence or abuse from taking place.

Perhaps if more women went down this route early on it just may result in a reduction in these sort of crime statistics and men may begin to learn the practical implications of what happens when they get violent in their relationships with women.

I do not possess the latest Home Office figures on domestic violence, but around three years ago they suggested that women are responsible for around 46% of assaults. If these figures represent an accurate picture, perhaps people, not just those of the male sex, need to reflect upon the implications and effects of violence within relationships. Both men and women are capable of violent behaviour, bullying and sadism.

Originally posted by timo
I do not possess the latest Home Office figures on domestic violence, but around three years ago they suggested that women are responsible for around 46% of assaults.

The strange thing is the way everyone instantly assumes the man "deserved" it in some way, as if women would only strike in self defense, or the whole thing is seen as a joke, like when women remove various parts of a mans anatomy because they feel they have been wronged in some way.

I know this is going offtopic slightly or maybe quite a bit but I've always been wondering how a woman can actually rape a bloke?

It baffled me when I read ages ago now about a bloke being raped by a gang of women.

Originally posted by wendygs
In my opinion the answer to Banemabes question has to be a resounding no. I think this may be to do with women being far too soft in dealing with this sort of issue, possibly because they are frightened, almost certainly with good reason of all kinds of consequences not to mention the backlash of bad publicity usually associated with these activities.

For the equally disturbing, but lesser charges involving persistent violence I think options are available which can be taken up. I heard of one case where the perpetrator, a male, was taken in to police custody until his ardour had cooled off after a series of violent incidents. Apparently this entails being locked in a police cell without clothes or blankets this prevented any further physical violence or abuse from taking place.

Perhaps if more women went down this route early on it just may result in a reduction in these sort of crime statistics and men may begin to learn the practical implications of what happens when they get violent in their relationships with women.

I appreciate what you are saying here, and I do believe that women put up with a lot in relationships that men would not put up – mainly because men are traditionally not treated in such a submissive way by their partner. Women were historically expected to be completely submissive and compliant towards their husbands, and I believe it wasn’t until 1987 that rape between a married couple actually became illegal – so less than 20 years ago the law didn’t even recognise non-consensual sex within marriage as unlawful – as though sex was something that a man could rightly expect whenever he wanted as a result of their marriage vows!

Obviously the position of women in society and within relationships has come on – but there is still a long way to go. Women are still discriminated against in many walks of life and are by no means treated as equal to men by society at large.

So yes, I think women need to stand up for themselves more – but while this may be workable say in a domestic violence episode where it is obvious that someone has been assaulted, it is almost impossible in a rape situation where, if a woman does stand up for herself and report it, she is either not believed by the police, or the police or CPS are unwilling to prosecute. Again it needs to be men/boys and the police/CPS who really need to be targeted when it comes to talking about changes in behaviour/attitudes and not women.

Originally posted by nick2
The strange thing is the way everyone instantly assumes the man "deserved" it in some way, as if women would only strike in self defense, or the whole thing is seen as a joke, like when women remove various parts of a mans anatomy because they feel they have been wronged in some way.

That sounds totally gross. I dont know anyone who has done anything like that. I simply gave my opinion in reply to banesmabes' question which they asked several times in this thread. I then suggested a possible solution and reported on a successful outcome in a particular type of incident, ie men being violent to women.

I did not suggest men are not subject to violence from women and nor did I go in to the possible causes for this type of offence which I think is as unacceptable.

If a man behaves in such an unacceptably violent way to a woman then in my view it is unreasonable that they be allowed to walk away from the woman who they have caused harm whether psychological or physical as if nothing had happened.

It is a well recognised that a lot of this goes on in long-term relationships and the Police have therefore set up a Family Unit to deal with the problems involved with domestic violence between women and men.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
I know this is going offtopic slightly or maybe quite a bit but I've always been wondering how a woman can actually rape a bloke?

It baffled me when I read ages ago now about a bloke being raped by a gang of women.

From sitting through numerous rape and assault court cases I would imagine the rape took place 'internally' using some form of 'impliment'. But I could be wrong.

Incidentally did you know that it is the policy of many 'family' newspapers, including our good old Sheffield Star, to censor the legal crime term 'anal rape' and replace it with the lesser crime of 'sexual assualt'.

Something to think about next time you pick up a paper eh?

Originally posted by timo
I do not possess the latest Home Office figures on domestic violence, but around three years ago they suggested that women are responsible for around 46% of assaults. If these figures represent an accurate picture, perhaps people, not just those of the male sex, need to reflect upon the implications and effects of violence within relationships. Both men and women are capable of violent behaviour, bullying and sadism.

Although some of the issues do overlap, I do think that domestic violence and rape are two very different issues (although they can go hand in hand). The vast majority of rapes are commited against women by men - so in the case of rape (which is what this thread is about) then it is the male sex who need to reflect upon what is and isn't acceptable behaviour.

Originally posted by nick2
The strange thing is the way everyone instantly assumes the man "deserved" it in some way, as if women would only strike in self defense, or the whole thing is seen as a joke, like when women remove various parts of a mans anatomy because they feel they have been wronged in some way.

In this way this is exactly how women are treated when they are raped - everyone always automatically looks for what the woman did to get raped. I think both situations are ludicrous. It is the actions of the perpetrators that needs to be looked at - it is they who have done something illegal and immoral! We need to re-focus on who is really to blame for the assault - and that is the perpretrator - they are the only person who has chosen to rape/beat someone. Just because a woman may have been flirtatious with a man, or a man has been unfaithful to his wife, does not mean that they deserve what's coming to them.

Originally posted by banesmabes
Yes, it does increase your risk of being raped. But aren't we approaching reducing the risks in this the wrong way? Why is it that as far as rape is concerned it is always the woman's behaviour that we scrutinise? Why is it that we are always looking for ways in which the woman has acted that has led to them being raped? Why aren't we looking at the rapist's behaviour? Why aren't we educating boys at school about how horrific rape is? Why aren't we doing something to stop the perpetrators rather than just lecturing potential victims? Why aren't we trying to find ways of getting better conviction rates?


This is like saying I can walk down a dark deserted alley at night and then act all suprised when I get mugged. It isnt my fault I got mugged, but the fact remains I wouldnt have been mugged if I had not put myself in that situation. Since I cant stop people wanting to mug me I tend to not walk down dark deserted alleys at night, regarldess of the fact I should be able to in an ideal world.

Of course we should try the above suggestions, but you will never eliminate crime so we may as well all take appropiate precautions.

Just wanted to say I've read through all the posts and find this argument really interesting.

Last year my bf played on the rugby team for uni and I experienced first hand what the young male "pulling" culture is all about (I was only his friend then by the way, before people start wondering!). All of the lads would go out on a Wednesday night and being with them was like watching a pack of predators. They do their best to get women drunk to the point of being paraletic, and then talk these women into letting them come home with them. They then talk the women into having sex with them and then leave early in the morning.

I don't condone this behaviour in any way and think people are right to suggest this sort of culture needs to be dealt with. However, as women, I do believe we have a responsibilty to NOT LET THIS HAPPEN to ourselves. The reason men do this is because they know they can. They know they can get women drunk and persuade them to have sex. So really the only way we, as women, can change this is to stop letting men do this. One of my bf's best mates says "If you act like a slag, you'll get treated like a slag" which sums it up really. Women need to start having some respect for themselves before they can expect men to have respect for them.

I know it has been said that women shouldn't have to change behaviour they are legally entitled to do because of the way some men act. But I think it isn't about that, I think it is about being responsible for your own safety and not placing yourself at risk.

Think about it. You are legally entitled to walk out into the middle of a busy road. But that would be stupid because you would be placing yourself at risk. There are, unfortunately, risks in this world, and all you can try to do to minimalise these risks is to modify your behaviour accordingly.

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
Just wanted to say I've read through all the posts and find this argument really interesting.

Last year my bf played on the rugby team for uni and I experienced first hand what the young male "pulling" culture is all about (I was only his friend then by the way, before people start wondering!). All of the lads would go out on a Wednesday night and being with them was like watching a pack of predators. They do their best to get women drunk to the point of being paraletic, and then talk these women into letting them come home with them. They then talk the women into having sex with them and then leave early in the morning.

I don't condone this behaviour in any way and think people are right to suggest this sort of culture needs to be dealt with. However, as women, I do believe we have a responsibilty to NOT LET THIS HAPPEN to ourselves. The reason men do this is because they know they can. They know they can get women drunk and persuade them to have sex. So really the only way we, as women, can change this is to stop letting men do this. One of my bf's best mates says "If you act like a slag, you'll get treated like a slag" which sums it up really. Women need to start having some respect for themselves before they can expect men to have respect for them.

I know it has been said that women shouldn't have to change behaviour they are legally entitled to do because of the way some men act. But I think it isn't about that, I think it is about being responsible for your own safety and not placing yourself at risk.

Think about it. You are legally entitled to walk out into the middle of a busy road. But that would be stupid because you would be placing yourself at risk. There are, unfortunately, risks in this world, and all you can try to do to minimalise these risks is to modify your behaviour accordingly.

Exactamundo!

If some lasses are thick enough, sorry to say!, to let themselves get so ****** so blokes take advantage of them.. then sorry, they only have themselves to blame.

Blokes should not take advantage admittedly, and we need to have a lot more self-control than we do, but I'm sorry to say, thats the world today for you.

You dont walk in dark alleys- and then be surprised you get mugged or raped.. thats the world we live in peeps.

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
Just wanted to say I've read through all the posts and find this argument really interesting.

Last year my bf played on the rugby team for uni and I experienced first hand what the young male "pulling" culture is all about (I was only his friend then by the way, before people start wondering!). All of the lads would go out on a Wednesday night and being with them was like watching a pack of predators. They do their best to get women drunk to the point of being paraletic, and then talk these women into letting them come home with them. They then talk the women into having sex with them and then leave early in the morning.

I don't condone this behaviour in any way and think people are right to suggest this sort of culture needs to be dealt with. However, as women, I do believe we have a responsibilty to NOT LET THIS HAPPEN to ourselves. The reason men do this is because they know they can. They know they can get women drunk and persuade them to have sex. So really the only way we, as women, can change this is to stop letting men do this. One of my bf's best mates says "If you act like a slag, you'll get treated like a slag" which sums it up really. Women need to start having some respect for themselves before they can expect men to have respect for them.

I know it has been said that women shouldn't have to change behaviour they are legally entitled to do because of the way some men act. But I think it isn't about that, I think it is about being responsible for your own safety and not placing yourself at risk.

Think about it. You are legally entitled to walk out into the middle of a busy road. But that would be stupid because you would be placing yourself at risk. There are, unfortunately, risks in this world, and all you can try to do to minimalise these risks is to modify your behaviour accordingly.

I hear what you are saying but what I am getting at is that in any discussion about rape it always seems to come back around to how a woman has behaved rather than how the man has behaved - and this is completely wrong. It just seems to be constant justification for the unacceptable behaviour of some men who should just learn to control themselves and respect other women as people who have feelings, and not just as sex objects there for their gratification. It is really too much for us to ask these men to finally take responsibility for their actions rather than always looking at ways to blame the woman? I just find it so disturbing that society, including women, is so willing to help rapists along by upholding this view.

You say it is up to women to not let this happen to them - but that's the problem with rape you - you don't have a choice - that's why it is rape and not sex. You also say "If you act like a slag, you get treated like a slag" sums things up well. This again is just a man's way of justifying his own unacceptable behaviour. It is saying that if a woman has chosen to be sexually promiscuous in her past then she must continue to have sex with any man who demands it, whether she likes it or not. It is saying that a woman who has had a lot of sexual partners has no right to be protected from rape.

If you want to chose not to drink or wear revealing clothing or not be alone at night then that is your choice - but it won't change the fact that there are men out there who still think it is acceptable to have sex with a woman without her consent - knowing full well that society and the legal system in it's present form will provide back-up for his justifications ("she was drunk", "she was flirting with me", "she let me walk her home", "she came home with me"), and he will never have to face the consequences of what he has done.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
Exactamundo!

If some lasses are thick enough, sorry to say!, to let themselves get so ****** so blokes take advantage of them.. then sorry, they only have themselves to blame.

Blokes should not take advantage admittedly, and we need to have a lot more self-control than we do, but I'm sorry to say, thats the world today for you.

You dont walk in dark alleys- and then be surprised you get mugged or raped.. thats the world we live in peeps.

I know I keep going on and on about this, but I just can't believe some of the things I am reading! No a woman who gets drunk and is then raped does not only have herself to blame. She did not rape herself! The person to blame is the man - he took the decision to rape her! He cannot use her drunkeness as an excuse - it is still rape. I don't see why this is difficult to understand. As I said earlier as woman has as much right to be protected from rape if she is drunk than if she is sober.

You suggest that if you walk down a dark alley then you shouldn't be surprised if you get raped because that's the world we live in - well actually it's not. VERY few rapes occur in this manner. The VAST majority occur with someone the woman knows and trusts, and happens somewhere where she thinks she is safe - whether alcohol is involved or not.

banesmabes, I quite agree with your getting steamed up about the attitudes expressed in this thread because it is totally unacceptable that people think like this.

I am therefore very sorry to say it is precisely such attitudes that convinces me that one has got to get real about the reality of what goes on.

Therefore if I think someone has undesirable intentions towards me on whatever basis, you can bet the bank accounts of everyone on this forum I will do my utmost to avoid situations that may cause me any harm, pain or suffering in whatever form.

For that reason I was impressed with the woman who let the police take this offensive bod in to custody until his unsolicited ardour had cooled down. If more women did so, women and men might begin to reconsider what is and is not acceptable.

To my mind it is therfore just basic common-sense to avoid pottentially harmful situations.

banesmabes, I quite agree with your getting steamed up about the attitudes expressed in this thread because it is totally unacceptable that people think like this.

I am therefore very sorry to say it is precisely such attitudes that convinces me that one has got to get real about the reality of what goes on.

Therefore if I think someone has undesirable intentions towards me on whatever basis, you can bet the bank accounts of everyone on this forum I will do my utmost to avoid situations that may cause me any harm, pain or suffering in whatever form.

For that reason I was impressed with the woman who let the police take this offensive bod in to custody until his unsolicited ardour had cooled down. If more women did so, women and men might begin to reconsider what is and is not acceptable.

To my mind it is therfore just basic common-sense to avoid pottentially harmful situations. This is not to say that you are wrong about your beliefs which I would entirely endorse.

IMO I think this thread has actually been very illuminating in explaining why conviction rates for rape are so low. I think it would be fair to say that a country’s judicial system generally reflects the attitudes and beliefs of the society it acts on behalf of, and it certainly seems clear from many posts in this thread (from both men and women) that as far as rape is concerned there is universal condemnation of the act, but there seems to be almost as much agreement that the victim has usually done something that has led to them being raped and therefore is thought of as partly or even wholly to blame.

I have obviously made my thoughts on this very clear and I think that as long as society at large holds this kind of attitude then we cannot really be surprised that conviction rates for rape are so low. It is only until it is generally accepted that rape is rape whatever the situation, however a woman has acted/behaved, that we will really be able to tackle these appalling statistics. Unfortunately it seems that the current attitudes of looking at how the woman was to blame are so engrained in most people that it will be a long time before this happens - which is a very sad thing.

I don't believe that anyone deserves to be raped, regardless of their state. I accept that we should all be careful and aware of our own safety but sometimes we're not. I mean how safe is safe? Some would say that a flirtatious girl is just bringing it on herself, which is just plain wrong.

To a rapist who is desperate to exonerate his own guilt, the words 'she brought it on herself' would surely serve to justify his actions and make him more likely to commit the act again in the future. As I said, such comments can only diminish any level of responsibility.

Originally posted by Andy78
I mean how safe is safe?

That's the £64K question isnt it particularly when it is an acepted fact that the vast majority of these incidents happen in the safety of one's home. :gag:

Originally posted by Andy78
I don't believe that anyone deserves to be raped, regardless of their state. I accept that we should all be careful and aware of our own safety but sometimes we're not. I mean how safe is safe? Some would say that a flirtacious girl is just bringing it on herself, which is just plain wrong.

To a rapist who is desperate to exonerate his own guilt, the words 'she brought it on herself' would surely serve to justify his actions and make him more likely to commit the act again in the future. As I said, such comments can only diminish any level of responsibility.

I couldn't agree with you more! Any justification for rape needs to become socially reprehensible, but at the moment it seems like many excuses (like the woman being drunk or flirtatious) are accepted by many more people than it should be - and as long as that remains the case, well like you say, these men are just going to go on commiting these acts time and time again.

Originally posted by banesmabes
I couldn't agree with you more! Any justification for rape needs to become socially reprehensible, but at the moment it seems like many excuses (like the woman being drunk or flirtatious) are accepted by many more people than it should be - and as long as that remains the case, well like you say, these men are just going to go on commiting these acts time and time again.

I think you're missing the point that people are trying to make.

No one is saying it's an excuse or a justification if the women is drunk or walks down a dark alley. They're saying that she should have had more sense.

In the same way that if I walk around in a dodgy area flashing money about then people would say that I should have had more bloody sense when I get mugged.
It won't stop the police trying to catch the mugger/rapist, nor will it mean that people condone the action. They are just commenting that I put myself in harms way and that if i'd been a bit smarter then the situation would never have arisen.

Obviously we'd like it if no one raped anyone, and equally we'd like it if people didn't mug us, steal our cars, break into our houses, or hit us in the head with an axe.
Given that there are people who will do these things and that they haven't all been locked up yet, it behoves each of us to minimise our own personal risk.

i think that's the point people have been trying to make.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think you're missing the point that people are trying to make.

No one is saying it's an excuse or a justification if the women is drunk or walks down a dark alley. They're saying that she should have had more sense....

...Given that there are people who will do these things and that they haven't all been locked up yet, it behoves each of us to minimise our own personal risk.

i think that's the point people have been trying to make.
I think that's more or less the point that was being made, I don't like your example though, and don't think that a lass going out and having a few drinks is analogous to waving "loads a money" in a dodgy area...

...and I wouldn't say "she should have had more sense"...

...but I agree there are things we can all do to keep ourselves that little bit safer, and since there are dodgy people out there, we should do those things wherever possible.

If you repeatedly put yourself in harms way, sooner or later something will happen, it most likely won't be rape, but you can injure yourself in all sorts of ways...

...so take a little care.

BUT, we still need to catch the rapists if it happens, and the current (apparent) downward trend in convictions cannot be a good thing for society. I still think something needs to be done about this.

:)

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think you're missing the point that people are trying to make.

No one is saying it's an excuse or a justification if the women is drunk or walks down a dark alley. They're saying that she should have had more sense.

In the same way that if I walk around in a dodgy area flashing money about then people would say that I should have had more bloody sense when I get mugged.
It won't stop the police trying to catch the mugger/rapist, nor will it mean that people condone the action. They are just commenting that I put myself in harms way and that if i'd been a bit smarter then the situation would never have arisen.

Obviously we'd like it if no one raped anyone, and equally we'd like it if people didn't mug us, steal our cars, break into our houses, or hit us in the head with an axe.
Given that there are people who will do these things and that they haven't all been locked up yet, it behoves each of us to minimise our own personal risk.

i think that's the point people have been trying to make.

I believe that one previous comment has been that if a woman is thick enough to get drunk and then is raped then she only has herself to blame. I’m not quite sure how I have misunderstood this comment and how it isn’t a justification for rape.

You mention that behaviour which has put you at risk of mugging or rape will not stop the police trying to catch the perpetrator. While this may be the case with mugging it is simply not true with rape. This is exactly the problem that this thread is aimed at. Rape cases don’t come to court because either the police or the CPS don’t pursue it because they don’t think they can get a conviction because of the behaviour of the victim, or because of the justifications that the defendant will put up in court. Can you imagine in a mugging case that got the court that the defendant would get off, or would be given a laughably lighter sentence because he put up the defence of “well, he was flashing all his money around, so he was asking for it”? We wouldn’t accept this as a defence! We’d say it wouldn’t matter because it is still not the mugger’s money to take. But this is exactly what happens in rape cases – men get off with rape, or are sentenced to community service because the woman has been seen to be “asking for it” by the judge/jury. And as it has already been mentioned, most rapes occur in situations where the woman feels safe, so you can lock yourself away, cover yourself up, and stay sober as much as you like – as long as attitudes about rape and its justifications stay the same as they are now, there will still be far too many men out there who really do believe it is acceptable behaviour.

All I am saying is that is we need stop focusing on the woman and start trying to change attitudes towards rape being rape no matter what the situation, then the men that do these horrible things may actually realise that what they are doing is wrong and maybe, just maybe, not do it again – thus reducing the number of rapes that actually occur. I’m not so blind to believe that we can eliminate rape – but the scale of it at the moment is simply appalling – and I think we need to open our eyes and realise that these attacks must be being carried out by seemingly ordinary men, rather than someone who has ‘rapist’ written across their forehead, and question why these ordinary men think it is acceptable.

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
Just wanted to say I've read through all the posts and find this argument really interesting.

Last year my bf played on the rugby team for uni and I experienced first hand what the young male "pulling" culture is all about (I was only his friend then by the way, before people start wondering!). All of the lads would go out on a Wednesday night and being with them was like watching a pack of predators. They do their best to get women drunk to the point of being paraletic, and then talk these women into letting them come home with them. They then talk the women into having sex with them and then leave early in the morning.

I don't condone this behaviour in any way and think people are right to suggest this sort of culture needs to be dealt with. However, as women, I do believe we have a responsibilty to NOT LET THIS HAPPEN to ourselves. The reason men do this is because they know they can. They know they can get women drunk and persuade them to have sex. So really the only way we, as women, can change this is to stop letting men do this. One of my bf's best mates says "If you act like a slag, you'll get treated like a slag" which sums it up really. Women need to start having some respect for themselves before they can expect men to have respect for them.

I know it has been said that women shouldn't have to change behaviour they are legally entitled to do because of the way some men act. But I think it isn't about that, I think it is about being responsible for your own safety and not placing yourself at risk.

Think about it. You are legally entitled to walk out into the middle of a busy road. But that would be stupid because you would be placing yourself at risk. There are, unfortunately, risks in this world, and all you can try to do to minimalise these risks is to modify your behaviour accordingly.

Yes. I completley agree with this!

I know personally at least seven women who have been raped. All of them knew their attackers. Only one was drunk. Two were under 15 years of age. Only two went to the police because they didn't think they would be believed.

Not a single guy was convicted. One woman who did go to the police had such horrific internal injuires that she needed emergency surgery. Still the CPS would not persue the case because she had previously been in a relationship with the man concerned and they didn't think they would get a conviction.

So yadda yadda personal safety aside, what are women to do? In NONE of the cases I know about was the woman wearing provocative clothing and raped by some guy when out for an evening when pished up.

It seems to me that I can cover up as much as possible, not get drunk when out on the town and not speak to guys I don't know but that in reality this will hardly lower my chances of being raped. To do that, statistically, I would be better off never associating with any male family members, friends, colleagues or neighbours. Most importantly I should not have a boyfriend.

Women get to read in magazine's from an early age 'you shouldn't do anything sexually with a man that you don't want to do'. When do boys ever get told 'you shouldn't pressurise women into doing things sexualy that they don't want to do'???

Originally posted by ANGELUS
If some lasses are thick enough, sorry to say!, to let themselves get so ****** so blokes take advantage of them.. then sorry, they only have themselves to blame.


I'm sorry to be pitting myself against you in a debate again Angelus, but I don't like this arguement of yours at all.

I totally agree that women should be more responsible for their own safety, in the same way as people should look both ways before crossing a road. But you can't seriously say that all drunk girls are asking for it.

The fault of rape always lies with the man - there is absolutely no justification in forcing a sex act on a woman without her express consent.

I can see the point that is trying to be made and agree that a woman should not be BLAMED, under any circumstances, for being raped. The actions were the man's, so only he can be blamed for them. So yes of course we need to address that and teach young men not to pressurize women.

But look at it in behaviourist terms and from (some) men's point of view:

Night out + flirting with girls and being a gentleman OFTEN = no sex

Night out + getting girls drunk + a little bit of manly "charm" OFTEN = I get laid

In order to stop the second behaviour any good behaviourist would say you have to remove the reinforcement for the behaviour which appears to be sex. So as women, as long as we give the men reinforcement (sleep with them after getting trollied and after a bit of persuasion) this behaviour will continue to happen again and again.

I know I could always be at risk of being raped - it's the nature of our society unfortunately. But I can take stratagies to minimilise that risk. I don't think anybody ever really BLAMES a woman for being raped but if you don't take stratagies to minimilise your risks in this world then it should be no suprise something bad happens.

Incidently - (sorry to double post) but why exactly do some women go out to clubs and get trollied and have one night stands anyway? Yeah ok, maybe once or twice but there are women out there who do this thing every week (me and my bf know some girls who have been through the entire rugby team :gag: )

I sometimes wonder with these girls whether they really don't respect themselves and, for whatever reason, they don't believe they are worth any more. I also think some of the girls sleep with a member of the team in the hope of gaining a "rugby team boyfriend" but in fact all these guys do is mess them around. After these guys have slept with them they keep ringing and ringing but their calls never get answered and they are made a fool of.

You would think they'd learn??? To be honest, rape debate aside, I have very little sympathy with these sorts.

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
I can see the point that is trying to be made and agree that a woman should not be BLAMED, under any circumstances, for being raped. The actions were the man's, so only he can be blamed for them. So yes of course we need to address that and teach young men not to pressurize women.

But look at it in behaviourist terms and from (some) men's point of view:

Night out + flirting with girls and being a gentleman OFTEN = no sex

Night out + getting girls drunk + a little bit of manly "charm" OFTEN = I get laid

In order to stop the second behaviour any good behaviourist would say you have to remove the reinforcement for the behaviour which appears to be sex. So as women, as long as we give the men reinforcement (sleep with them after getting trollied and after a bit of persuasion) this behaviour will continue to happen again and again.

I know I could always be at risk of being raped - it's the nature of our society unfortunately. But I can take stratagies to minimilise that risk. I don't think anybody ever really BLAMES a woman for being raped but if you don't take stratagies to minimilise your risks in this world then it should be no suprise something bad happens.

I don't think applying a bit "manly charm" is the same as raping a girl.

If blokes are allowed to enjoy having one night stands (which it would appear they do from the way they've been characterised in this thread) why is it so wrong for girls to like the same?

Originally posted by Cyclone
I don't think applying a bit "manly charm" is the same as raping a girl.

If blokes are allowed to enjoy having one night stands (which it would appear they do from the way they've been characterised in this thread) why is it so wrong for girls to like the same?

I'm not saying that - what I am saying is that women shouldn't let themselves get talked into sleeping with somebody they don't really want to.

The reason I used the phrase "manly charm" is because some of my boyfriends mates consider groping a woman and forcing her to kiss them just this. And yet instead of saying get off you psycho and reporting them to the bouncers they end up going home with these guys???

I also have no problem with women going out and having one night stands, when they are in full control of their actions. The problem is that a lot of women have these one night stands and then really regret them afterwards and often they only have them because they are talked into it and/or are bladdered.

It seems just another social problem connected with the whole binge drinking culture...

Originally posted by chickmonk
I know personally at least seven women who have been raped. All of them knew their attackers. Only one was drunk. Two were under 15 years of age. Only two went to the police because they didn't think they would be believed.

Not a single guy was convicted. One woman who did go to the police had such horrific internal injuires that she needed emergency surgery. Still the CPS would not persue the case because she had previously been in a relationship with the man concerned and they didn't think they would get a conviction.

So yadda yadda personal safety aside, what are women to do? In NONE of the cases I know about was the woman wearing provocative clothing and raped by some guy when out for an evening when pished up.

It seems to me that I can cover up as much as possible, not get drunk when out on the town and not speak to guys I don't know but that in reality this will hardly lower my chances of being raped. To do that, statistically, I would be better off never associating with any male family members, friends, colleagues or neighbours. Most importantly I should not have a boyfriend.

Women get to read in magazine's from an early age 'you shouldn't do anything sexually with a man that you don't want to do'. When do boys ever get told 'you shouldn't pressurise women into doing things sexualy that they don't want to do'???

But there are women who do get raped because they are way too drunk to know what is going on and this is what we were discussing. There are different kinds of rape e.g. date rape, a violent random rape or rape in a long term relationship; and for each scenario there will be different things that may have helped prevent it from happening.

I think part of the the thread that you replied to was focusing on the drunken girl who is attacked because someone thought they could take advantage of her state. I dont think you can just dismiss points about increasing personal safety that will in fact reduce the possibility of rape, because they wouldnt have prevented the type you have described.

I agree that it is not a complete argument as there are som many different aspects of the problem and I do agree with points you have raised that from a young age children should be tought right and wrong. This is a long term social goal that is very important.

What you described about the girl with horrific injuries does worry me, and action should have definitley been taken against the rapist. This definitley needs to be addressed in our legal system, which is what you are saying. But our arguments arent mutually exclusive and you can do one and STILL do the other.

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
But look at it in behaviourist terms and from (some) men's point of view:

Night out + flirting with girls and being a gentleman OFTEN = no sex

Night out + getting girls drunk + a little bit of manly "charm" OFTEN = I get laid




I don't suppose there's any chance of these kind of men starting to think with their brains rather than their penis?!? I don't think society's pre-occupation with sex helps matters at all - it only reinforces these men's ideas that sex is all life is about and if you are not getting any then you may as well not be alive. Am I the only person who finds these statistics about how men think of sex every 3 seconds quite scary? Everyone seems to think it's quite a funny little fact, but I find it quite disturbing. I just can't work out how anyone can think of sex that often without having a problem.

it's also a load of rubbish like 88% of statistics commonly known.

Lucy - girls willingly sleeping with men and regretting it afterwards is a completely different issue and won't help to solve this one.

Originally posted by Cyclone
it's also a load of rubbish like 88% of statistics commonly known.



I sincerely hope so! When I hear these things reported I wonder how men would ever get anything done if they really spent so much time thinking about sex!!