Poster blames rape victims, does it?

[cgksheff 44]

Because it quite obviously implies that the woman in that photo has been raped as a result of drinking too much.

.

 

No. It doesn't.

[Waldo 96]

If the poster is effective; why do some people want it removing, just because it offends their sensibilities?

 

Would they rather not have their sensibilities offended, even if the price for that is more women getting raped?

Edited November 3, 2014 by Waldo

[milquetoast1 10]

No. It doesn't.

 

Yes. It does.

 

My wife and daughter think so too, as do 180,000 people that have signed the petition.

 

This might not be what the campaigners wanted to imply, but it is certainly what has been implied.

 

If the poster said "one in three reported rapes happens when the victim has been wearing a short skirt" then we wouldn't even be having the debate at all.

[Waldo 96]

Yes. It does.

 

My wife and daughter think so too, as do 180,000 people that have signed the petition.

 

Don't the people who sign; think the girl in the picture was raped because she'd been drinking; AND, also conclude that the rape was the fault of the girl?

 

Quite different to; drink was probably a factor which led to the girl in the picture getting raped; however, this doesn't in anyway imply blame.

[RootsBooster 24]

Because it quite obviously implies that the woman in that photo has been raped as a result of drinking too much.

You keep saying this but still haven't managed to give an explanation as to how or why you interpret it to be so. If it really is so obvious then you shouldn't have a problem giving a straightforward explanation.

 

Given the fact that I respect most of your comments on this forum I can't believe that you can't see this here, but the fact that you think the photo is inappropriate suggests that you really know this to be the case.

I think the photo is inappropriate because it may unnecessarily traumatise existing victims who don't need to be visually reminded by an image of suffering.

 

I'm likewise surprised that you are jumping to such a conclusion about this poster, most of your posts show much reason and rational thinking, yet here your train of thought appears to be more similar to those who connect dots that aren't there or read between lines when there is nothing to read there.

Ask yourself, what actual facts do you have about the poster and what conclusion can you rationally draw from them?

 

It's a campaign to stop people drinking. And just like other campaigns to stop overeating, stop smoking etc, the campaigners are not hesitant to use scare tactics.

No, it's not at all. It's a campaign to encourage responsible drinking.

Or to put it in their own words...

" The main objectives of the campaign are to raise awareness of the risks associated with binge drinking by adopting an original approach, that is, not by demonising alcohol, but by encouraging young people to understand their limits. The campaign addresses the issue of personal safety, risk and

vulnerability." from here.

How on Earth did you arrive at the conclusion that it's a campaign to stop people drinking?

Unfortunately in this instance they have decided to focus on the victims of crime rather than the criminals.

I agree the focus is on the victims, that's the whole point of it. That, however, is a completely different thing to blaming the victim.

 

If it was a campaign by the police, rather than NHS, I might agree that the focus should be on the criminal, depending on the context of the poster.

[milquetoast1 10]

Don't the people who sign; think the girl in the picture was raped because she'd been drinking; AND, also conclude that the rape was the fault of the girl?

 

Quite different to; drink was probably a factor which led to the girl in the picture getting raped; however, this doesn't in anyway imply blame.

 

The UK data on drink/crime is useless.

 

More reliable data comes from the US which states that 34% of rapists were intoxicated, so likely that much more had been drinking in comparison with the victims.

 

So if drink was a factor it is much more likely to be a factor with the rapist than the victim. So where's the campaign that says; "one in three rapists have been drinking"?

 

Rape, more than any other crime, seems to create a impression with many people that the victim is somehow to blame.

 

Although drink is likely to be a factor in why rapists might rape, this campaign is targeted at women as potential victims. Although you might be able to read the campaign in a sensible manner, many will not.

 

We should always remember that even criminals have a moral compass, it's just that they invent their own to justify their actions. This is why victim blaming, even when done naively with good intentions like this, makes people so angry.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2014 at 19:01 ----------

 

You keep saying this but still haven't managed to give an explanation as to how or why you interpret it to be so. If it really is so obvious then you shouldn't have a problem giving a straightforward explanation.

 

I'll just reply to this since it is sort of the whole point of the thread, and the main question you were asking.

 

How do I interpret it as victim blaming?

 

Well it features the implied picture of raped woman does it not. It has the message "one in three reported rapes happens when the victim has been drinking". So in addition to the picture of a rape victim the implication is that she has also been drinking.

 

"one in three reported rapes happens when the victim has been drinking"

 

What is the point of that message juxtaposed with that picture if it is not "if only she'd not been drinking she might not have been raped"

 

That's the very definition of victim blaming.

 

It might not be as blatantly obvious, or horrible, as "one in three reported rapes happens when the victim has been wearing a short skirt" ... but the logical conclusion of victim blaming is the same.

[cgksheff 44]

Yes. It does.

 

My wife and daughter think so too, as do 180,000 people that have signed the petition.

 

 

The ability to respond to peer pressure via the internet does not necessarily equate to rational interpretation of publicity posters.

[milquetoast1 10]

If it was a campaign by the police, rather than NHS, I might agree that the focus should be on the criminal, depending on the context of the poster.

 

It was a campaign by the NHS and the Home Office.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2014 at 19:13 ----------

 

The ability to respond to peer pressure via the internet does not necessarily equate to rational interpretation of publicity posters.

 

Which is why I would put more weight on the opinion of my wife and daughter tbh.

 

But, then the definition of interpretation is assignment of meaning. So if lots of people think the poster is victim blaming, then is has been interpreted that way so that is what's been implied even if totally unintended.

 

Arguing what a poster implies is one of those rare occasions when I can use argumentum ad populum.

Edited November 3, 2014 by milquetoast1

[Michael_W 11]

You've clearly made that up..to what purpose I can only guess at. The stats are not important..their basis are flawed.

 

 

Now you're getting it. "Male" hasn't even been mentioned contextually within the poster, but because I mention it it now becomes relevant..was it relevant when you viewed the poster? did you superimpose a "male" victim over the female in the same way you read "bladdered" over "drinking" Or did you think this was aimed at women? Did you think as a potential male victim, "I must curb my drinking in order to cut my chances of being raped"? Honestly? I didn't. I read it as female focused simply because it was female focused. But because it's a debate and debates have a tendency to either open your mind and review your thinking or look at it from a differing perspective, I've come to the conclusion that the poster is dangerously misleading.

 

Made something up ron, you seem to have made stuff up in almost every response to me .... to what purpose I can only guess .... hypocrisy eh !

 

As for the rest of your post, I did not mention 'Male' because you had made it relevant, it does not matter what I think, or if I superimpose the victim as male, it does not matter what terminology is used for 'drinking' or being 'drunk', likewise it does not matter if you think it's dangerously misleading and I don't .... just so long as some people get the message, unfortunately most people learn lessons the hard way as opposed to taking notice of an NHS poster !

Edited November 3, 2014 by Michael_W

[milquetoast1 10]

If the poster is effective; why do some people want it removing, just because it offends their sensibilities?

 

Would they rather not have their sensibilities offended, even if the price for that is more women getting raped?

 

If this poster is effective?

 

Well the intention of the campaign is to stop reduce drinking, not reduce rape. However,the evidence that reducing drinking will reduce rape is flaky to non-existent. There is evidence that in cultures that disprove of women drinking there are more rapes.

 

What we do know is that rapists are more likely to rape when they think they will get away with it. This is why we've seen some specific demographics where rapes have become more common. Convictions of rapists will reduce rape.

 

If a poster campaign like this had become effective as you say, would this lead to more or less reported rapes and convictions? Would women be more or less likely to report a rape if they had been drinking?

 

This particular poster was part of the 'Know Your Limits' campaign that ran from 2005 to 2007 and focused on alcohol statistics, not violence against women and girls. Although only 7 years ago, it seems almost a generation given what we have learnt about the behaviour of certain sexual predators. It's only by removing any hint of guilt from the imagination of the victim's minds that we can hope to reduce the numbers of rapes. Anybody proposing this poster now would be sacked.

[gimp27 10]

Made something up ron, you seem to have made stuff up in almost every response to me .... to what purpose I can only guess .... hypocrisy eh !

 

As for the rest of your post, I did not mention 'Male' because you had made it relevant, it does not matter what I think, or if I superimpose the victim as male, it does not matter what terminology is used for 'drinking' or being 'drunk', likewise it does not matter if you think it's dangerously misleading and I don't .... just so long as some people get the message, unfortunately most people learn lessons the hard way as opposed to taking notice of an NHS poster !

 

Whatever view you have, it will be obliterated by others who will not even try to take something from it. They know they are twits, but sadly cannot see beyond their fleshlites.

When I saw this poster, I didn't see the tripe that some are spouting. I saw a genuine plea to people that shows getting blotto could increase the chances of a rape occurring. When we are inebriated, we are possibly lovey dovey, or violent or just unable to make a rational decision, but getting two drunks to be in the same mindset is hobsons choice. It may start as a drunken romance or it may be an attack from the offset or could even happen with the victim not knowing anything about it until the morning after. In any scenario, drink can be a factor, and although it's not a basis of entire blame, the poster is a very powerful lesson on the effects of getting rat-arsed, and the vulnerability of all those concerned, including the hypothetical rapist/victim who could just be normal people until they become drunk.

[milquetoast1 10]

Anyway, thanks for proposing the interesting question for debate RootsBooster.

 

I think the answer is a bit obvious now, although I did have to debate it with myself initially. I think I've said all I want to now.