PDA

View Full Version : Heated debate time...



David Bailey
21st-November-2005, 09:38 PM
A recent rape survey (BBC article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4453820.stm)) is pretty controversial:
- 34% of people believe women who flirt partially responsible for being raped
- 26% of those asked said that they thought a women was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was wearing sexy or revealing clothing
- 22% held the same view if a woman had had many sexual partners.
- 8% believed that a woman was totally responsible for being raped if she’d had many sexual partners.
- 30% said that a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk,
- 37% held the same view if the woman had failed to clearly say “no” to the man.

Now, I'm sure we can have a good old debate about What This All Means.

But you know what really annoys me? It's the fact that this is, and I quote:
"part of Amnesty International’s ‘Stop Violence Against Women’ campaign,"

:confused: :what: Excuse me, but since when did Amnesty International get involved in this? Or have human-rights abuses, false imprisonments, torture and other malpractices just gone away? What makes Amnesty International experts on this area all of a sudden?

We have a world in which both the UK and the US have been accused of either torturing or outsourcing torture. That's the United Kingdom. And the United States of Americe. Torturing people.

And Amnesty bloody International are busy doing rape surveys? :mad:

Is this suddenly their area of expertise? Keep your eye on the ball, guys, please...

OK, rant over, I feel better now.

Trousers
21st-November-2005, 10:40 PM
Nice Rant DJ

Part of the Amnesty Int. thing is sticking their noses in where governments don't want them so this is foray into more local issue I 'spose.

As to report that initiated your rant it's a very difficult issue. As i suppose are all the law issues that boils down to one persons word against another.

Personally I would like to think they got the report all wrong and all those people were ticking the wrong boxes but maybe thet weren't but also maybe AI weren't asking all the questions that needed to be asked or even all of the question.

for example

Q) Is that girl wearing stillettos, mini skirt and crop top that is flirting with people asking to be raped?

or should that read

Q) Is that girl wearing stillettos, mini skirt and crop top that is flirting with people, who have all obviously had too much to drink, asking to be raped?

Every question asked, ever, can be re-asked in numerous ways to illicit the response the questioner wants. Just listen to Radio4's This Morning show.

No one actively goes out seeking to be abused, raped, murdered.
They do possibly go out ill prepared for the people they will meet whilst out.
They may impair their ability to detect unsafe activities and dangerous people.
Under the influence of drugs or alcohol they may put their trust in unsuitable people.

But "Asking for it?"

Personally I love to be flirted with and if the girl is wearing sexy clothes it all adds to the kick I get from it. But when I go out it's with a bunch of people that, by way of association, all know each other (dance venues, MJ'ers). Also we as a group tend toward the lightweight end of the drink trade (atleast whilst dancing). So in our environment we arn't ever out of our depth through drink and there is always someone looking out for you, even if they aren't an active friend. How many regrettable incidents we have I'm not sure of but I'd be horrified to find out that some of them resulted in rape.

So my point. . . . .

what is my point,

Is it a girls fault that she got raped?

No! How can it be?
Where is it written that a bloke by means of strength or alcohol or drugs can have sex with a woman without her consent?
We all know what consent is - even in the heat of passion up the nightclub wall and the absense of consent means NO!
Surely just for the guys peace of mind it's better to look after a girl that has had too much to drink and make sure she's safe rather than to try and get her to have sex. Well it ain't sex is it, it's rape.
I've been around a lot of very ****ed people in my time - used to work bars and staff do's are notorious for the barstaff getting hammered and I've always tried to look out for ****ed people, one day it will be me and I want someone looking out for me ('snever gonna happen but i live by my rules).

Everyone has rights at the end of the day.

I have the right to say I think the government suck (although I really ought to have some evidence for that opinion)
Girls Do have the right to dress provocatively.
They do have the right to get drunk.
They also have the right to flirt

Guys have the right to flirt with girls
they have the right to get drunk

No one has the right to rape, abuse, fight with or shout at any other person.
Isn't this common sense?

Remember Bill & Ted their motto was

Be excellent to everyone; and party down!

That would work wouldn't it?

Amnesty International need to redo their poll methinks!


and be safe whilst they do it.
I have the right to go out at night and feel safe (uho its

Andy McGregor
21st-November-2005, 10:50 PM
Q. What causes rape?

A. Rapists.

The thing is that women like/need to look attractive. It's how they attract a mate and perpetuate the species - that's nature. Sometimes they attract the wrong sort of attention.

Q. Who's to blame for rape? Women for being attractive or the rapists.

A. Rapists.

It seems to me that every question should have the same answer. Amnesty International are wasting their money. Stop donating to them and they will run out of money and stop doing these surveys :mad:

Dreadful Scathe
21st-November-2005, 11:01 PM
I was going to post this myself after saying the article in the Metro - but Ive been busy.

Well said all above. Its so bizzare that ANYONE would think that when someone else chooses to assault you it could possibly be YOUR fault. It beggars belief! As Trousers points out though, word your questions right and people will give you the answers you want. Shame on Amnesty International for paying for such nonsense.

ducasi
21st-November-2005, 11:10 PM
Ultimately it's the rapist that is 100% the cause of the rape. There's no grey areas when the victim does not consent, no matter what he/she has been doing before this point.

However, there's a factor of personal responsibility, and not putting yourself in danger. If I went out to some parts of Glasgow tonight carrying my laptop in its case, listening to my ipod, while texting someone on my expensive phone I shouldn't be too surprised if I get mugged – especially if I didn't have my wits about me, perhaps because I was falling down drunk.

Nothing I will have done will imply consent to being mugged, and I don't think the police or the courts would call me in any way partly responsible for being mugged, but I'd bet both they and the jury trying my attacker will be thinking it. I'm sure the defence lawyer will be using that to his client's advantage.

I'm not sure what to conclude from this though.

Am I an insensitive sexist pig?

DianaS
21st-November-2005, 11:36 PM
We have a world in which both the UK and the US have been accused of either torturing or outsourcing torture. That's the United Kingdom. And the United States of Americe. Torturing people.

And Amnesty bloody International are busy doing rape surveys? :mad:


Yep David violence and abuse starts at home. Theres no torture like being raped and there's no better way to keep the victim well under than tell them:-

A They were asking for it
B there's worse things that could happen

Rape was used as a wepon in Nazi Germany hence Joy Division in Kosovo and as a military weopon in many invasions. Did you not hear what happened to the women of Yugoslavia? and the amssive realief effort that had to go into the country. Its a way to enslave a woman and kill a culture.

However, attitudes at home are basic indicators of levels of where humanity is the fact that there is so little concern for the victims of sexual violence here is a mattter of concern.
It sets a baseline
You are a prat

El Salsero Gringo
21st-November-2005, 11:51 PM
Amnesty International underwent a sea-change in 'management' a few years ago, I seem to remember, when they vastly expanded their focus from compaigning on behalf of a few named individual prisoners of conscience held by national governments to more general campaigning on anything that conceivably comes under the banner of "human rights." (Does this ring any bells with anyone else? I have vague memories of this being debated in the press a while back.)

The Charities Commision has changed (or is about to change) the rules about what a charity is permitted to do. Previously anything that was political in nature was off-limits and a charity had a duty to be accurate and fair in its publicity; now, pretty much anything goes, especially when it gets you airtime on Radio 4, and a slot on the BBC News website.

Incidentally, a couple of years ago I was running a business and a friend and I fabricated some spurious statistics from a survey (that never happened) about which shoes women choose to wear, and whether the height of the heel was correlated with their level of responsibility at work and what activities they had planned that day. We made up a completely bogus press release, and faxed it out to all the news organisations. It made the Evening Standard and the Financial Times city pages, and won me an interview the next day on Radio Five live.

The whole experience rather skewed my perspective about "surveys", butit wouldn't surprise me if this one was totally bogus.

Ghost
22nd-November-2005, 12:39 AM
Ok a little leeway here please. I'd normally leave this to someone more eloquent and informed.

I'm a member of Amnesty, I campaign on their behalf, and I once saved a teenage girl from being raped.

From the May/June 2004 Edition of Amnesty's magazine



VIOLENCE against women is a cancer eating away at the core of every society, every country in the world. AI's new campaign seeks to highlight the true scale of violence against women, from rape in conflict zones to violence in the family and calls for urgent action to prevent further deaths, injuries and discrimination.

AI is linking violence in the family with other forms of violence in the community that see women and girls being abused and killed on every continent. Up to 70 per cent of the world's female murder victims are killed by male partners. In the USA four women die each day as a result of violence in the family - about 1,400 women a year. In the UK one in four women experiences violence at the hands of a partner during her lifetime. In South Africa more than 52,000 rapes were reported in 2002, with the 12-17-year age group being the most vulnerable. At least 1,000 women and girls a year are killed in 'honour crimes' in Pakistan alone.

Governments are failing to protect women from this form of terror. According to a UNIFEM survey, 79 countries have no Known legislation against domestic violence. Marital rape is recognized as a crime in only 59 countries. Female genital mutilations occurs in 28 African countries, but only 14 have adopted laws to ban the practice

Actor Patrick Stewart, Playwright Eve Ensler and former child solder China Keitetsi helped launch the campaign at a press conference in London.

Patrick Stewart said: ‘As a child I witnessed my mother being abused by my father, and how violent language can escalate into physical violence.
'I felt shame, guilt and responsibility. I saw the self-loathing of my father, due to his inability to control his violent outbursts. I saw society – police, doctors and neighbours – conspire to hide the abuse with comments like, “She must have provoked him” and “It takes two to make an argument”.
‘This only perpetuates the offence.
‘I say this with the full support of my two brothers. Last night I spoke to my 79-year-old brother, who said that what had happened had blighted his life.

'Violence must be controlled. The alternative is utterly unacceptable. Progress will always be limited until men are fully engaged. If you fail to raise your hand in protest, you are part of the problem.'

China Keitetsi also talked of her personal experiences of violence in Uganda. She was abducted at the age of eight by the rebel army of General Yoweri Museveni in 1984, and was subsequently recruited into the National Resistance Army to fight against the regime of Milton Obote, then president of Uganda. She became a ruthless guerrilla fighter, but like other girl soldiers she also experienced sexual exploitation and abuse In 1991, at the age of 14, she gave birth to a child. Months later, she was forced to return to the army. Three years later, after rejecting the sexual advances of a senior officer, she was accused of selling weapons to enemy forces. She escaped the army and fled to South Africa.

'When I look back, I feel sad because I would be very happy, if I could sit and have a cigarette with one of my comrades, or one of the girls that I saw dying of AIDS, dying from abortion,' she said. 'At the end, they were taken to a camp called Women's Wing, because they told us that we are shaming the image of the army, and it was forbidden to carry our children having a military uniform on.'

Imagine a world...
without violence against women
VIOLENCE against women destroys societies across the world - immediately and in the long term. It directly affects individual women, their children and their families. It affects society at large economically and culturally. Because it is seen as normal in every corner of the world, future generations are trapped in this cycle of destruction. Violence against women makes victims of us all.

Even when laws are introduced to protect women from violence, the social environment in which those laws must be enforced have accepted violence against women for far too long. Thus stopping violence against women will take more than drafting the right legislation. It requires a change in cultural and social attitudes.

AI has decided to make a start by challenging people to imagine a different world — a world without violence against women and girls. We will be asking AI groups to record - through videos, voice recordings, written statements, artwork, and other formats - what the absence of violence against women would mean to people in their communities. We hope that this exercise will start discussions in communities all around the UK about violence against women.

To meet the challenge, people will have to think about how the problem affects them. This is critical to the campaign: if people fail to accept that violence against women affects them, they are not going to accept that they have a part to play in eradicating it.

Testing the exercise with AI members has yielded some interesting and inspiring responses. Many women looked forward to a safer life. Perhaps less predictably, men began to realise that they too were affected, with responses such as 'I could watch my daughters play in the park' and 'I could walk down the street without being viewed as a threat'. Other responses covered economic and cultural benefits, for example: 'Taxes would be lower as there would be no need to allocate funds to dealing with the consequences of violence against women.'

By asking people to imagine a world where violence aginst women does not exist, we will be challenging individuals, groups, societies and governments to acknowledge and accept their responsibility.

Amnesty continues to campaign for human rights around the world. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/action/index.shtml#ongoing

Prisoners of conscience continue to be released.

[URL]http://www.amnesty.org.uk/ (] http://www.amnesty.org.uk/gcc/2005/ [/URL)

"It is better to light a candle, than to curse the darkness"

Christopher

WittyBird
22nd-November-2005, 01:29 AM
IMO
No means No ....
Doesn't matter if your male, female, gay, straight in a relationship or not
Its about respect and everyone has the right to say no and that should be adhered to. :D

Andy McGregor
22nd-November-2005, 08:17 AM
Ok a little leeway here please. I'd normally leave this to someone more eloquent and informed.

I'm a member of Amnesty, I campaign on their behalf, and I once saved a teenage girl from being raped.

From the May/June 2004 Edition of Amnesty's magazine



Amnesty continues to campaign for human rights around the world. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/action/index.shtml#ongoing

Prisoners of conscience continue to be released.

[URL]http://www.amnesty.org.uk/ (] http://www.amnesty.org.uk/gcc/2005/ [/URL)

"It is better to light a candle, than to curse the darkness"

ChristopherI'm certain that most of Amnesty's work is very worthy. This survey is not. It's a waste of money.

One thing that strikes me about large charities is that they seem to employ a number of incompetent managers who's not cut it in commerce...

ElaineB
22nd-November-2005, 08:42 AM
Nice Rant DJ

Part of the Amnesty Int. thing is sticking their noses in where governments don't want them so this is foray into more local issue I 'spose.

As to report that initiated your rant it's a very difficult issue. As i suppose are all the law issues that boils down to one persons word against another.

Personally I would like to think they got the report all wrong and all those people were ticking the wrong boxes but maybe thet weren't but also maybe AI weren't asking all the questions that needed to be asked or even all of the question.

for example

Q) Is that girl wearing stillettos, mini skirt and crop top that is flirting with people asking to be raped?

or should that read

Q) Is that girl wearing stillettos, mini skirt and crop top that is flirting with people, who have all obviously had too much to drink, asking to be raped?

Every question asked, ever, can be re-asked in numerous ways to illicit the response the questioner wants. Just listen to Radio4's This Morning show.

No one actively goes out seeking to be abused, raped, murdered.
They do possibly go out ill prepared for the people they will meet whilst out.
They may impair their ability to detect unsafe activities and dangerous people.
Under the influence of drugs or alcohol they may put their trust in unsuitable people.

But "Asking for it?"

Personally I love to be flirted with and if the girl is wearing sexy clothes it all adds to the kick I get from it. But when I go out it's with a bunch of people that, by way of association, all know each other (dance venues, MJ'ers). Also we as a group tend toward the lightweight end of the drink trade (atleast whilst dancing). So in our environment we arn't ever out of our depth through drink and there is always someone looking out for you, even if they aren't an active friend. How many regrettable incidents we have I'm not sure of but I'd be horrified to find out that some of them resulted in rape.

So my point. . . . .

what is my point,

Is it a girls fault that she got raped?

No! How can it be?
Where is it written that a bloke by means of strength or alcohol or drugs can have sex with a woman without her consent?
We all know what consent is - even in the heat of passion up the nightclub wall and the absense of consent means NO!
Surely just for the guys peace of mind it's better to look after a girl that has had too much to drink and make sure she's safe rather than to try and get her to have sex. Well it ain't sex is it, it's rape.
I've been around a lot of very ****ed people in my time - used to work bars and staff do's are notorious for the barstaff getting hammered and I've always tried to look out for ****ed people, one day it will be me and I want someone looking out for me ('snever gonna happen but i live by my rules).

Everyone has rights at the end of the day.

I have the right to say I think the government suck (although I really ought to have some evidence for that opinion)
Girls Do have the right to dress provocatively.
They do have the right to get drunk.
They also have the right to flirt

Guys have the right to flirt with girls
they have the right to get drunk

No one has the right to rape, abuse, fight with or shout at any other person.
Isn't this common sense?

Remember Bill & Ted their motto was

Be excellent to everyone; and party down!

That would work wouldn't it?

Amnesty International need to redo their poll methinks!


and be safe whilst they do it.
I have the right to go out at night and feel safe (uho its

Well said!

I worry about my daughter who is just coming up to 18 years old. She goes clubbing and doesn't have to wear mini skirts to look beautiful!

Her plans one night were to get a taxi home alone from a night club to my house. Sensible, yes? I mentioned this to the lads (aged between 26 and 30), in my Office, who were horrified as they considered that to be dangerous. So, what do girls do - are they meant to stay in because even a taxi ride home, alone, could mean putting themselves in danger? If she had caught a taxi and was then raped, would the Jurers have considered that she had asked for it? I sincerely hope not!


Elaine

ducasi
22nd-November-2005, 08:43 AM
I'm certain that most of Amnesty's work is very worthy. This survey is not. It's a waste of money.

One thing that strikes me about large charities is that they seem to employ a number of incompetent managers who's not cut it in commerce...
You've got to ask yourself what is the purpose of the survey. If it was to bring the problem to people's attentions, and stimulate debate, then it's done it. If it changes some people's attitude, even better.

If it then influences government policy, no matter how much it cost, it'll have been a bargain.

But, tell me, how much did this survey cost?

David Bailey
22nd-November-2005, 09:22 AM
Amnesty International underwent a sea-change in 'management' a few years ago, I seem to remember, when they vastly expanded their focus from compaigning on behalf of a few named individual prisoners of conscience held by national governments to more general campaigning on anything that conceivably comes under the banner of "human rights." (Does this ring any bells with anyone else? I have vague memories of this being debated in the press a while back.)
The trouble is, once you expand your remit to "fixing everything that's wrong in the world", you lose some of your identity, your moral authority, and your power to affect things. To actually achieve change, you've got to be focused, with a clearly-defined remit, and a clear set of goals.

I remember hearing a few years ago that Bernado's no longer ran any actual homes; they just kind of generally "campaigned for children's issues" instead. To me, Bernado's lost a lot of their raison d'etre at that point - surely they were then just doing what, for example, the NSPCC were doing?

With Amnesty International, "Freeing prisoners of conscience" is a great aim - and, I'd have thought, at least as relevant now as in the past. It's measurable, achievable, and clear. "Working for human rights" is more tricky, it's more subject to interpretation, and it's necessarily open-ended. It sounds like a typical middle-management corporate makeover program to me.


it wouldn't surprise me if this one was totally bogus.
No, it's an ICM survey, I think it's fine provenance-wise.

For those who may have misunderstood, I've got no problem with the survey itself, I think it's a useful wake-up call. Yes, of course it's a PR exercise, but there's nothing inherently wrong in that, if it manages to raise these issues (and it has).

I am, however, surprised that AI are doing it; I personally don't see it as part of their own remit to talk about these issues - there are surely more appropriate rape charities who should be doing this work.


Amnesty continues to campaign for human rights around the world. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/action/index.shtml#ongoing

Prisoners of conscience continue to be released. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/gcc/2005/

That's great, and I applaud and salute those efforts. But clearly, they're not doing as much of it as they were, simply because they're diverting some of their resources to work such as the above.

LMC
22nd-November-2005, 09:47 AM
I agree that Amnesty is possibly suffering from mission drift - as have many large not-for-profit organisations, who are so desperate for funding that they try to be all things to all people. But I'm glad the horrifying attitudes of too many people are being addressed.

What a woman is wearing or her sexual history is TOTALLY irrelevant. No means no, rape is NEVER the woman's fault. BUT, however little we like it, it is not safe to walk around on our own late at night or get drunk to the extent that our judgement or even our awareness is affected. I say again - it is NEVER the woman's fault. But I sometimes can't help wondering why some women seem to have so little sense of "self-preservation" :( - having said this, I firmly believe that it's indefensible for anyone in a public place, male or female, to get so drunk that they behave offensively or are "incapable".

It's not fair that the risk of assault is higher for women, thus restricting our freedom to go where we want, when we want, drink how much we want. Sadly, that's the way it is at the moment. Or maybe my thinking has been contaminated too?

fletch
22nd-November-2005, 09:52 AM
IMO
No means No ....
Doesn't matter if your male, female, gay, straight in a relationship or not
Its about respect and everyone has the right to say no and that should be adhered to. :D
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

Rebecca
22nd-November-2005, 10:56 AM
Incidentally, a couple of years ago I was running a business and a friend and I fabricated some spurious statistics from a survey (that never happened) about which shoes women choose to wear, and whether the height of the heel was correlated with their level of responsibility at work and what activities they had planned that day. We made up a completely bogus press release, and faxed it out to all the news organisations. It made the Evening Standard and the Financial Times city pages, and won me an interview the next day on Radio Five live.

Can I please ask why you would fabricate and distribute such a survey? What was your objective?

cheeks
22nd-November-2005, 12:03 PM
I actually can't believe amnesty would carry out such a survey never mind publishing such the biggest pile of crap results:angry:
In this day and age we should not be continiously casting the blame to the victim. Is it not bad enough that our judicial system does this.....:mad: :angry: I have worked with survivors of sexual abuse for many years now male/female aged from 9 years up......and one of the hardest obstacles for them to cross is the "self blame" thats before they tackle the ...................
low self esteem, addressing the violation, no self worth, lack of confidence, depression, suicide, std's, unwanted pregnacy's, self harm the list goes on and on.....
So many people campaign and work there ass of to promote awareness and provide support to the victims and there families and we find that stupid survey's are still being carried out and there hasn't been that much of a mind shift overall if thats the crap they are still coming out with.................:angry:

Petal
22nd-November-2005, 12:14 PM
I actually can't believe amnesty would carry out such a survey never mind publishing such the biggest pile of crap results:angry:
In this day and age we should not be continiously casting the blame to the victim. Is it not bad enough that our judicial system does this.....:mad: :angry: I have worked with survivors of sexual abuse for many years now male/female aged from 9 years up......and one of the hardest obstacles for them to cross is the "self blame" thats before they tackle the ...................
low self esteem, addressing the violation, no self worth, lack of confidence, depression, suicide, std's, unwanted pregnacy's, self harm the list goes on and on.....
So many people campaign and work there ass of to promote awareness and provide support to the victims and there families and we find that stupid survey's are still being carried out and there hasn't been that much of a mind shift overall if thats the crap they are still coming out with.................:angry:

Well said, cheeks.:clap:

.

Petal
22nd-November-2005, 12:21 PM
Where is it written that a bloke by means of strength or alcohol or drugs can have sex with a woman without her consent?


Remember it's not always a woman who is the victim, it can happen to both sexes, and its all about power and control.

ChrisA
22nd-November-2005, 12:27 PM
I actually can't believe amnesty would carry out such a survey never mind publishing such the biggest pile of crap results:angry:

Could I ask, why on earth are people getting so heated? :confused: :confused:

Ok, one or two are questioning whether Amnesty International should or shouldn't be involved in this area, but on the assumption that the survey was conducted properly, and that the results actually do reveal the attitudes they describe, surely they should be commended for bringing the results to light? If there really is such an appalling level of entrenched unenlightenment in people's attitudes, shouldn't it be publicised more? :confused: :confused:

As you say:


So many people campaign and work there ass of to promote awareness
... so why are Amnesty taking such a beating for this?

This seems a case of "shooting the messenger" to me.

cheeks
22nd-November-2005, 12:38 PM
Taken from http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk
In order to deny responsibility for their sexual violence, men have constructed an entire mythology, which tries to put the blame on women and children. The myths of rape include the pernicious ideas that:

Women and children enjoy it
Women and children say no but mean yes
Women provoke it by their clothes or their behaviour

This means that we are not to blame for sexual violence. It is not our fault.

Myth: Only young, attractive women are at risk of being raped.
Fact: Women, children and men of all ages, classes, racial groups and lifestyles have been raped. No one asks to be humiliated and degraded by an act of extreme violence.

Myth: Women enjoy rape.
Fact: Rape is never pleasurable for any woman.

Myth: Women "ask for it" by hitching lifts, wearing short skirts and make-up, leading men on.
Fact: No women ever deserves to be raped, abused or assaulted, no matter what the circumstances, most rapes are planned. What a woman is wearing makes no difference.

Myth: Rape is just sex when a woman does not want it.
Fact: Sexual assault and rape are not just sex. They involve the total humiliation of a woman. They involve taking control of her body against her will. They involve taking all dignity and self assurance away from a woman, and reducing her to an object of sexual abuse. It is violence when someone forces a woman to engage in sexual acts against her will. It is humiliation. It is degradation. During interviewing rapists say that rape is more about power and violence than about sex.

Myth: Prostitutes can't suffer rape.
Fact: Any man who forces a woman into a sexual act against her will has abused her. Any woman regardless of her job or her appearance can suffer rape.

Myth: Women say no when they mean yes.
Fact: While some women may have been socialised into believing that it is wrong for them to want sex, and that they should play hard to get, when a woman says "no" she means "no". This is no excuse for disregarding a woman's "no" to sex.


Myth: Rape does not happen in marriage.
Fact: Husbands can and do rape their wives. Rape is sexual acts without the woman's consent. It is only since 1991 that a precedent for this has existed in English law.

so many more datils on to

Myths and Facts about child sexual abuse
:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
other links http://www.saywomen.co.uk

DianaS
22nd-November-2005, 12:38 PM
Could I ask, why on earth are people getting so heated? :confused: :confused:

Ok, one or two are questioning whether Amnesty International should or shouldn't be involved in this area, but on the assumption that the survey was conducted properly, and that the results actually do reveal the attitudes they describe, surely they should be commended for bringing the results to light? If there really is such an appalling level of entrenched unenlightenment in people's attitudes, shouldn't it be publicised more? :confused: :confused:

As you say:

... so why are Amnesty taking such a beating for this?

This seems a case of "shooting the messenger" to me.

It does reveal an interesting phenomena:-
terrorism abroad is condemned
whilst terrorrism at home is quietly colluded with

You should all be publicly flogged
Except Cheeks Chris and Rebecca that is

stewart38
22nd-November-2005, 12:50 PM
Q. What causes rape?

A. Rapists.

The thing is that women like/need to look attractive. It's how they attract a mate and perpetuate the species - that's nature. Sometimes they attract the wrong sort of attention.

Q. Who's to blame for rape? Women for being attractive or the rapists.

A. Rapists.

It seems to me that every question should have the same answer. Amnesty International are wasting their money. Stop donating to them and they will run out of money and stop doing these surveys :mad:





Yes very simple answer and i agree rapist cause the rape end of story lets all go home :yeah:

The problem with a thread like this it just goes around in a circle ie raped shouldnt happen ,no means no and no one is 'asking for it'

Simple question in a 'real society'

a) are you more likely to be raped if your drunk , showing your tits and walking down a dark alley against

b) wearing a sack cloth and getting mum to pick you up at 1am

Is a) asking for it and b) not ?

No but how you behave will effect your chances of being raped (forget the moral issue ,id kill all rapists)

should it of course not.

LMC
22nd-November-2005, 12:53 PM
Simple question in a 'real society'

a) are you more likely to be raped if your drunk , showing your tits and walking down a dark alley against

b) wearing a sack cloth and getting mum to pick you up at 1am

Is a) asking for it and b) not ?

No but how you behave will effect your chances of being raped (forget the moral issue ,id kill all rapists)

should it of course not.
Exactly what I was trying to say - but you put it more clearly.

(except I don't support capital punishment but that's another argument)

David Bailey
22nd-November-2005, 12:55 PM
Could I ask, why on earth are people getting so heated? :confused: :confused:
Well, I dunno, some fool titled the thread that way, wasn't anything to do with me... :whistle:


Ok, one or two are questioning whether Amnesty International should or shouldn't be involved in this area, but on the assumption that the survey was conducted properly, and that the results actually do reveal the attitudes they describe, surely they should be commended for bringing the results to light? If there really is such an appalling level of entrenched unenlightenment in people's attitudes, shouldn't it be publicised more? :confused: :confused:
I've already said, I've got nothing against there being publicity in this area - I haven't got in the debate about the survey itself, though; everyone else seems to be doing that.


... so why are Amnesty taking such a beating for this?.
OK, from my part, let's take this to an extreme reducto-etc. example:

Charity A works for, let's say, battered women, providing shelter for them. Their mission statement is, say: "No battered woman turned away", and their goal is to ensure there's adequate resources and support for battered women at all times. They do a great job; there's always more to be done, but people generally agree they make a difference.

Charity A then decides it needs to have a corporate makeover, forget they're a charity, and create mission goals to diversify into new and exciting growth markets.

Charity A then suddenly starts spending time and resources supporting, let's say, "feed starving children in Africa" campaigns. They publish surveys, get publicity, phone the media, etc., to great success, because they've spent time and money on it, and because they've got a high-profile name; at least for now.

But, the battered women don't get those resources. And there's no other charity supporting these people, because Charity A have established a monopoly in this particular area.

That's what annoys me.

cheeks
22nd-November-2005, 01:01 PM
Could I ask, why on earth are people getting so heated? :confused: :confused:

Ok, one or two are questioning whether Amnesty International should or shouldn't be involved in this area, but on the assumption that the survey was conducted properly, and that the results actually do reveal the attitudes they describe, surely they should be commended for bringing the results to light? If there really is such an appalling level of entrenched unenlightenment in people's attitudes, shouldn't it be publicised more? :confused: :confused:

As you say:

... so why are Amnesty taking such a beating for this?

This seems a case of "shooting the messenger" to me.


Well on the assumption it was carried out properly the results only show the thoughts of 1,000 people and we don't know from what walk of life. If the government actually act on any findings and do something about where they are failing the victims then Great......but many other organisations carry out the work the surveys on a wider more accurate scale .....wouldn't just have made sense to have someone who has done this to carry out there poll for them........:mad:

What gets me is that so many people do work there ass off and nothing gets done about it then amnesty carry out a rather small poll and the findings are on the news in the papers and every where not always a good thing............

El Salsero Gringo
22nd-November-2005, 01:30 PM
Can I please ask why you would fabricate and distribute such a survey? What was your objective?I didn't distribute the survey, there never was a survey. I distributed a press release, to get free publicity. It worked very well, too.

Pretty much *every* story you read, be it political, commercial, or whatever has someone somewhere driving it - chatting up journalists, feeding them facts, and trying to get their message 'out'. You might think I'm overly cynical, but that's how things work - I have friends working in public affairs who command very high salaries for being able to place and drive news stories to their client's advantage.

Even if the poll is by ICM, it's still totally rigged. It was dreamed up by an Amnesty Public Affairs officer, simply to produce coverage for their campaign, and you would never have heard about it if the results weren't sufficiently interesting to meet those needs.

El Salsero Gringo
22nd-November-2005, 01:36 PM
What gets me is that so many people do work there ass off and nothing gets done about it then amnesty carry out a rather small poll and the findings are on the news in the papers and every where not always a good thing............Actually anyone can use the right techniques to get good publicity. Journalists are a lazy bunch - do them a favour by showing them a good story (write it yourself, if you have to) and they'll do you a favour by giving your cause or business free publicity. It's worth more than advertising, pound-for-pound, by degrees of magnitude, since Joe (and Jo) Public think that if it comes out of the mouth of a journalist it must be firstly accurate, and secondly impartial. False, on both counts.

It's not a desperately difficult technique - you just need to spot the 'angle' to make whatever you want to say sound interesting.

Icey
22nd-November-2005, 01:48 PM
I didn't distribute the survey, there never was a survey. I distributed a press release, to get free publicity. It worked very well, too.

Pretty much *every* story you read, be it political, commercial, or whatever has someone somewhere driving it - chatting up journalists, feeding them facts, and trying to get their message 'out'. You might think I'm overly cynical, but that's how things work - I have friends working in public affairs who command very high salaries for being able to place and drive news stories to their client's advantage.

Even if the poll is by ICM, it's still totally rigged. It was dreamed up by an Amnesty Public Affairs officer, simply to produce coverage for their campaign, and you would never have heard about it if the results weren't sufficiently interesting to meet those needs.

I used to be a PR secretary and the company I worked for had the contract for the PR of a teach yourself typing program. The executives did a quick run around the office to ask all the girls if they thought that a guy who could type was sexier than a guy that couldn't. The 'results' were written into a press release and sent out, from that press release there was coverage in many local papers and nearly all of the tabloids. I believe it also got talked about on some of the big London based radio stations like Radio 1, Virgin, Capital and Heart.

stewart38
22nd-November-2005, 02:02 PM
I used to be a PR secretary and the company I worked for had the contract for the PR of a teach yourself typing program. The executives did a quick run around the office to ask all the girls if they thought that a guy who could type was sexier than a guy that couldn't. The 'results' were written into a press release and sent out, from that press release there was coverage in many local papers and nearly all of the tabloids. I believe it also got talked about on some of the big London based radio stations like Radio 1, Virgin, Capital and Heart.

and they found men really sexy if they cant spell or cant be arsed to check their spelling or grammar before they post right ?? :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
22nd-November-2005, 02:06 PM
I used to be a PR secretary and the company I worked for had the contract for the PR of a teach yourself typing program. The executives did a quick run around the office to ask all the girls if they thought that a guy who could type was sexier than a guy that couldn't. The 'results' were written into a press release and sent out, from that press release there was coverage in many local papers and nearly all of the tabloids. I believe it also got talked about on some of the big London based radio stations like Radio 1, Virgin, Capital and Heart.... and many years ago, a friend of mine was a junior at a well-known London arts and entertainment PR company. They were representing (for some reason) the manufacturer of the game Kerplunk (the one where you pull out straws one by one until someone lets all the marbles in a tube drop). They put out a press release one dull weekend about the Kerplunk World Championships (ahem) - with the result that she herself was whisked off to the Sky News studios that very evening to be interviewed purportedly as the newly crowned winner. Loads of free publicity. I went along to watch - it was hilarious.

El Salsero Gringo
22nd-November-2005, 02:10 PM
However, attitudes at home are basic indicators of levels of where humanity is the fact that there is so little concern for the victims of sexual violence here is a mattter of concern. How do you deduce what the level of concern for the victims of sexual violence are? Even if I believe the survey (which I don't, for an instant - ICM or not) I'm not able to deduce anything about the level of concern for the victim from the results.

David Bailey
22nd-November-2005, 02:11 PM
Even if the poll is by ICM, it's still totally rigged. It was dreamed up by an Amnesty Public Affairs officer, simply to produce coverage for their campaign, and you would never have heard about it if the results weren't sufficiently interesting to meet those needs.
Sure - hence my "Of course, it's obviously a PR exercise" comment.

If you look at the press release (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16618.shtml), it's interesting how it's phrased. All the percentage figures I quoted at the start are phrased as simple "1 in XXX" numbers, then as percentages - obviously, this is done to provide easy headline-fodder to journalists.

For example:
a third (34%) of people in the UK believe...
... more than a quarter (26%) of those asked said ...
more than one in five (22%) held the same view ....
Around one in 12 people (8%) believed that ....

A friend of mine works in PR - a few years ago, she was promoting Bananarama's comeback tour (it didn't work!), and as part of the publicity drive she placed a totally fictitious story about them needing to take a cigarette machine on tour with them, so great were their nicotine cravings. Complete rubbish of course, but it was taken up by lots of papers and magazines because it made good copy.

One of the reasons I intensely dislike the Mail is that it clearly relies on this type of "journalism" for many of its shock stories - and when you try to dig deeper, you realise all these stories are being promoted / spun / made up. Remember the St. George's pin controversy?

As for poll reliability, there's a good sketch in Yes Prime Minister about this somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up online...

Lynn
22nd-November-2005, 02:15 PM
As for poll reliability, there's a good sketch in Yes Prime Minister about this somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up online...Please do. I used to really enjoy the series and a friend in Nigeria loaned me the books - whiled away several evenings sitting alone in a power cut (a regular, usually daily, occurance) with my candle.

David Bailey
22nd-November-2005, 02:28 PM
Please do. I used to really enjoy the series and a friend in Nigeria loaned me the books - whiled away several evenings sitting alone in a power cut (a regular, usually daily, occurance) with my candle.
Here you go, good old IMDB:

-------------
[Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.

[survey two]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
[does a double-take]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.
-------------

Usual payment, Lynn :whistle:

Hell, I've got to get those episodes on DVD now; I'd forgotten how good they were...

DianaS
22nd-November-2005, 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DianaS
However, attitudes at home are basic indicators of levels of where humanity is the fact that there is so little concern for the victims of sexual violence here is a mattter of concern.



How do you deduce what the level of concern for the victims of sexual violence are? Even if I believe the survey (which I don't, for an instant - ICM or not) I'm not able to deduce anything about the level of concern for the victim from the results.

The tendency to proportion blame on the victim, indicates a lack of concern for the victim.

Not difficult.:flower:

Dreadful Scathe
22nd-November-2005, 02:42 PM
It does reveal an interesting phenomena:-
terrorism abroad is condemned
whilst terrorrism at home is quietly colluded with

You should all be publicly flogged
Except Cheeks Chris and Rebecca that is
I think you've missed the point about what we were complaining about. I should be puiblicly flogged for disliking tabloid-rousing made up surveys from a group that i previously had a lot of respect for?

David Bailey
22nd-November-2005, 03:04 PM
I think you've missed the point about what we were complaining about.
I think "ranting" is more appropriate to describe my comments, if you please Mr Smurf.


I should be puiblicly flogged for disliking tabloid-rousing made up surveys from a group that i previously had a lot of respect for?
Well, if you want - I'm a big believer in choice... :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
22nd-November-2005, 03:15 PM
The tendency to proportion blame on the victim, indicates a lack of concern for the victim.

Not difficult.:flower:I'm unable to draw that conclusion. To take some extreme examples:

Victims of attempted suicide are, at least in the first instance, 100% to blame for their injuries. However, that does nothing to diminish my concern for them or their welfare.

Smokers are responsible for many of their own health problems. They are still treated on the NHS.

Thinking about it, that's probably the point that you are missing - someone can be partly or responsible for their own situation. That doesn't necessarily diminish they way we respond to them.

David Bailey
22nd-November-2005, 03:25 PM
Thinking about it, that's probably the point that you are missing - someone can be partly or responsible for their own situation. That doesn't necessarily diminish they way we respond to them.
It's a good point - another example from the world of criminality is burglary.

If you leave the front door to your home open in the day and come back from work to find you've been burgled, or you leave your keys in the car and it gets nicked, you were a bit silly. But that doesn't make the burglar / car thief any less of a criminal - the crime is still the same, no matter what the victim did or did not do to prevent it. "The victim was silly" should never ever be considered a defence.

And yes, an unscrupulously-worded poll could certainly confuse "Being a bit silly" with "Having some esponsibility for the crime committed on you"...

LMC
22nd-November-2005, 03:34 PM
Ironically, the YPM exerpts (I have the book, it's fab :grin: ) made me wonder about the exact wording of the survey.

After all, a statistician is someone who can lie with his head in an oven at Gas Mark 9 and his feet in a freezer at -25degC and say that on average his body temperature is quite normal :rolleyes:

Swinging bee
22nd-November-2005, 03:47 PM
From my days in "the job" I seem to remember that points to prove in rape
were that intercouse took place by force, fear, or fraud, against the will and that it was required to prove "penetration to the slightest degree " The verbatim definition escapes me at present , would have to dig out my law books for that! If points to prove cannot be met then it's not rape. (other offences may apply under a different Act and section of course ) Maybe this helps in understanding the problems sometimes met.

cheeks
22nd-November-2005, 04:24 PM
From my days in "the job" I seem to remember that points to prove in rape
were that intercouse took place by force, fear, or fraud, against the will and that it was required to prove "penetration to the slightest degree " The verbatim definition escapes me at present , would have to dig out my law books for that! If points to prove cannot be met then it's not rape. (other offences may apply under a different Act and section of course ) Maybe this helps in understanding the problems sometimes met.
:flower:

Some slight changes stated made to include oral penetration as rape also!
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/sexual-offences/
Sexual Offences Act 2003-
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030042.htm

Rebecca
22nd-November-2005, 04:33 PM
Pretty much *every* story you read, be it political, commercial, or whatever has someone somewhere driving it - chatting up journalists, feeding them facts, and trying to get their message 'out'. You might think I'm overly cynical, but that's how things work - I have friends working in public affairs who command very high salaries for being able to place and drive news stories to their client's advantage.

Even if the poll is by ICM, it's still totally rigged. It was dreamed up by an Amnesty Public Affairs officer, simply to produce coverage for their campaign, and you would never have heard about it if the results weren't sufficiently interesting to meet those needs.

I find this slightly sad, and VERY irresponsible if this were the case. :sad:

The cognitive distortions rapists hold in order to justify their own behaviour contribute significantly to their risk of further offending and to their ability to respond to interventions aimed at reducing such. If I believed that an action of mine were justified, and then I heard that most other people agreed with me I'm more likely to continue behaving in such a way - in fact it might increase the likelyhood that I would.

I hope that you are cynical ESG, maybe I'm just naive :( but surely in a world of research ethics and responsible journalism this wouldn't happen - Ker Plunk championships is one thing, this is something completely different. :mad:

David Bailey
22nd-November-2005, 04:48 PM
I find this slightly sad, and VERY irresponsible if this were the case. :sad:
...
I hope that you are cynical ESG, maybe I'm just naive :( but surely in a world of research ethics and responsible journalism this wouldn't happen - Ker Plunk championships is one thing, this is something completely different. :mad:
I think ESG's just saying (and I'm seconding) that you can't trust everything you read. You need to question things, and not take them as granted just because they're written down in print somewhere. There's clearly different degrees of trustworthiness in different publications.

I'm reminded of a classic line, from the then-editor of the Sunday Sport, on Have I Got News For You a few years back. When questioned on something, he said, straight-faced: "I'd stake my professional reputation on it". That still cracks me up :rofl:

I don't think it's sad to advise people to question what they read - in fact, I think it's essential to do so.

And the older I get, the less trust I have in institutions and professions. Trust people, not institutions, and use your own judgement, is the only advice I can give on that one.

Oh, and "trust DavidJames and rep him lots" - that's also a good idea.

LMC
22nd-November-2005, 04:53 PM
I hope that you are cynical ESG, maybe I'm just naive :( but surely in a world of research ethics and responsible journalism this wouldn't happen - Ker Plunk championships is one thing, this is something completely different. :mad:
Try reading Piers Morgan's diaries - scary :(

Selling news seems to be more important than reporting it for far too many media groups.

ChrisA
22nd-November-2005, 05:06 PM
Incidentally, on the subject of credulity, and the explosion of righteous indignation expressed on this thread about all things rape-related, I wonder whether there would be a gender imbalance in the tendency of people to believe one party or the other in these "his word against hers" cases.

You know, where the sequence of events is more or less along the lines of:

- bloke and girl meet
- bloke and girl go off somewhere and do it
- girl cries rape, guy cries "she was up for it"

There have been some quite notable cases where the girl has subsequently been shown to have been lying, in order to preserve existing relationships.

Doubtless, of course, there have been some cases where the guy has wrongly got off, and maybe, despite the burden of proof, there have been convictions when the lies were not shown to be so.

But what's the betting that women in general would be a lot more inclined to believe (in the absence of other evidence) the woman, and men the men, in cases like this.

I was kinda tempted to invent a survey, a la ESG, but that would have been fibbing :innocent:

cheeks
22nd-November-2005, 05:33 PM
Incidentally, on the subject of credulity, and the explosion of righteous indignation expressed on this thread about all things rape-related, I wonder whether there would be a gender imbalance in the tendency of people to believe one party or the other in these "his word against hers" cases.

You know, where the sequence of events is more or less along the lines of:

- bloke and girl meet
- bloke and girl go off somewhere and do it
- girl cries rape, guy cries "she was up for it"


There have been some quite notable cases where the girl has subsequently been shown to have been lying, in order to preserve existing relationships.

Doubtless, of course, there have been some cases where the guy has wrongly got off, and maybe, despite the burden of proof, there have been convictions when the lies were not shown to be so.

But what's the betting that women in general would be a lot more inclined to believe (in the absence of other evidence) the woman, and men the men, in cases like this.

I was kinda tempted to invent a survey, a la ESG, but that would have been fibbing :innocent:


Really not on any scale to what is being discussed in many survey's and posts but yes this does happen. Cases have shown that vulnerability can lead to many false accusations,sometimes due to a history of events, previous rape or abuse of some form, depression and mental health issues.
Many a person may have been victimised in a way that they felt violated by a partner but legallly does not necessary fall in to the category of rape but another form of physical, mental or sexual abuse.

Although probably Yes there are cases where people have cried Rape as a revenge at a partner but from what you are trying to say the fact that a female would believe the female victim and the male would believe the accused is completely unfounded so if we turn it around and its the male that cried rape your telling us that it would be more likely that the male would then defend the male and the females would believe the female accused.......come on what a lot of bull :angry:

I have worked with more male survivors who have not been believed( and a higher percentage that have possibly never disclosed or never will) than female survivors, from this it helps you take a wider look at statistics when looking at the male and female victims as more resources have been around to allow, females to speak out than males although through many organisations and hard work there is a wider recognition on

"Anyone can be a victim of rape no matter what sex,age, race or religion!

Rebecca
22nd-November-2005, 05:33 PM
I don't think it's sad to advise people to question what they read - in fact, I think it's essential to do so.


I agree, only sad that we have to really in the cases where poor journalism about important issues is motivated by someone's attempt to get free publicity :mad:


Selling news seems to be more important than reporting it for far too many media groups.

Exactly :confused:

El Salsero Gringo
22nd-November-2005, 05:53 PM
I find this slightly sad, and VERY irresponsible if this were the case. :sad: Sorry to disappoint you, Rebecca, but it *is* the case. Have you never noticed that terrorism scare stories arise in the media the day before a big vote in the House of Commons on another piece of draconian legislation? Or how identity fraud always gets mentioned just before the ID card bill gets debated? This is not coincidence - it's government press departments feeding stories to their pet journalists to manipulate the news agenda to further their own ends. If you go through a daily paper and work out who's made to look good by any particular story - that tells you where the story came from.
I hope that you are cynical ESG, maybe I'm just naive :( but surely in a world of research ethics and responsible journalism this wouldn't happen - Ker Plunk championships is one thing, this is something completely different. :mad:No, it's just two sides of the same thing. Small time PR agencies place stories about Kerplunk; the big-boys place stories about national and international politics, national governments and Big Business.

I may be cynical - but I know for a fact that this is how the news media works. If you don't believe it, then, yes, you are being naive.

El Salsero Gringo
22nd-November-2005, 06:01 PM
I think ESG's just saying (and I'm seconding) that you can't trust everything you read. You need to question things, and not take them as granted just because they're written down in print somewhere. There's clearly different degrees of trustworthiness in different publications.It's not even a case of trusting or mistrusting what you read - and judging it 100% right or 100% wrong.

You have to ask yourself, why does a particular story appear at the time it does? How are the background facts framed? How could the story have been presented differently - given exactly the same material - to give a different emphasis? Why was this emphasis chosen? And most importantly of all: What other stories could have been covered in that same time-slot or newspaper column, but weren't?

ChrisA
22nd-November-2005, 06:02 PM
Although probably Yes there are cases where people have cried Rape as a revenge at a partner but from what you are trying to say the fact that a female would believe the female victim and the male would believe the accused is completely unfounded so if we turn it around and its the male that cried rape your telling us that it would be more likely that the male would then defend the male and the females would believe the female accused.......come on what a lot of bull :angry:

Erm, please don't put words in my mouth. You obviously have strong feelings on this subject, but it doesn't justify a rant at me based on something I haven't even said.

I didn't say it was a fact, I said "what's the betting".

And I'm not saying anything at all about what may or may not be the case if a man is raped.

All I am saying, is that I would guess that there is a natural tendency for a woman, given another woman's claim to have been raped by a man, to feel sympathy for the woman, knowing how horrible it would be if it was true.

And probably an equivalent natural tendency for a man, given another man's claim to be a victim of a false accusation, to feel sympathy for the man, knowing how horrible it would be to be falsely accused.

Are you suggesting that that this would not be the case?

Obviously any such sympathy would disappear in the presence of any actual evidence - no decent bloke would feel any sympathy for another bloke who had raped someone, and no decent woman would feel any sympathy for another woman who had ruined a guy's life by falsely accusing him.

I hope...

I also hope that this thread starts generating a bit more light and a bit less heat.

ChrisA
22nd-November-2005, 06:07 PM
"Anyone can be a victim of rape no matter what sex,age, race or religion!
Actually I'd be interested to know how a man can be raped by a woman.

In the conventional sense, that is. I mean, I can imagine a situation where a woman or women might manage to force a guy to go down on them (at knifepoint, for instance, or by blackmail), and obviously if he's suitably restrained he could be, ahem, assaulted with something, erm, suitable.

But otherwise, and please forgive my ignorance, I don't understand how a man can be raped by a woman :eek:

bigdjiver
22nd-November-2005, 06:27 PM
The number of rape convictions in this country is woefully low compared to the number of alleged and estimated rapes. It is worse in many other countries. I have had someone close to me who lost her virginity and was made pregnant after being raped whilst unconcious under the influence of a spiked drink. This rape was not reported. I have known another Christian couple who had not, at last report, consumated their marriage because the woman had been so traumatised by being raped. It is a form of torture, it is international, and, IMO, it is the business of Amnesty International.

Cruella
22nd-November-2005, 06:51 PM
Actually I'd be interested to know how a man can be raped by a woman.

In the conventional sense, that is. I mean, I can imagine a situation where a woman or women might manage to force a guy to go down on them (at knifepoint, for instance, or by blackmail), and obviously if he's suitably restrained he could be, ahem, assaulted with something, erm, suitable.

But otherwise, and please forgive my ignorance, I don't understand how a man can be raped by a woman :eek:
I too am ignorant as to how this could happen!

bigdjiver
22nd-November-2005, 07:14 PM
Men are sometimes raped by other men.

Cruella
22nd-November-2005, 07:20 PM
Men are sometimes raped by other men.
Yes, we understand that, but how can a woman rape a man?

bigdjiver
22nd-November-2005, 07:37 PM
Some of my experiences:

A woman means "No": On an early date I went exploring, and the girl said "STOP IT", so I stopped, somewhat miffed, because all of the lights had appeared green. Then she said, rather crossly, "Do you always do what you are told?". (:confused: I was out of there ...)

A woman means "Yes": The Daily Mirror reported a woman confessing to making a false allegation of rape because she did not want the guy telling anybody that she had surrendered her virginity in the back of a car. He had spent years in custody.

"Befordshire on Sunday" reported that a woman had confessed to a false allegation of rape when she heard her farmer husband returning whilst in the act with her lover. That guy spent even longer in jail because she waited until her husband died before confessing.

A 15 year old schoolmate of my son spent two years in custody before his accuser admitted she had made a false accusation. After they had done the deed she said "I am so glad that we are girlfriend and boyfriend." and he had replied "The **** we are.".

Not only did those women put innocent men in jail, but their example has probably helped the guilty go free, as has every woman who has ever made a false accusation against a man. (Men lie too.)

responsibile behaviour: Heard on a bus: "Don't leave me alone with **** tonight. I told you last time. It was the third time he has raped me."

I read a quote something like: "When drunk men and women do things that they would not do sober. That is one reason why they drink. That is one reason they keep the company of drinkers."

Rebecca
22nd-November-2005, 07:38 PM
Sorry to disappoint you, Rebecca, but it *is* the case. {-cut stuff-} If you don't believe it, then, yes, you are being naive.

Of course I am naive - I wear high heels after all :wink:

Ghost
22nd-November-2005, 07:38 PM
Yes, we understand that, but how can a woman rape a man?
With a long blunt object - I think it's referred to as sodomy.

Be Well,
Christopher

El Salsero Gringo
22nd-November-2005, 08:25 PM
Under the updated Sexual Offences act, rape can involve penetration of any part of the body by someone else, or with an object.

So if someone sticks their finger or a pencil in your mouth, that now counts as rape.

David Bailey
22nd-November-2005, 08:48 PM
It is a form of torture, it is international, and, IMO, it is the business of Amnesty International.
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow the logic here.

Where does "international" come into it? And, for that matter, torture?

If by torture you mean the trauma, then yes, any form of violent crime is of course traumatic for the victim, both at the time and afterwards.

But you could use that logic to say that Amnesty International should be campaigning against murder, happy-slapping, war, GBH and for that matter school bullying and workplace harassment. Where do they stop and say "No - this isn't what we do"?

Or are they just trying to act like a company and "diversify", using their brand as leverage and gaining publicity on the back of it? (OK, you can guess which side of the debate I'm on here)

--------------------------------
Please note: and this is to everyone: I'm not making value-based comparisons here; I'm not saying one cause is "better" or more "worthy"; and I'm not trying to downplay the unique awfulness of rape.
--------------------------------

I'm just saying that AI should not be doing this work, it's not what they do best.

Caro
22nd-November-2005, 09:10 PM
Ultimately it's the rapist that is 100% the cause of the rape. There's no grey areas when the victim does not consent, no matter what he/she has been doing before this point.

However, there's a factor of personal responsibility, and not putting yourself in danger. If I went out to some parts of Glasgow tonight carrying my laptop in its case, listening to my ipod, while texting someone on my expensive phone I shouldn't be too surprised if I get mugged – especially if I didn't have my wits about me, perhaps because I was falling down drunk.

Nothing I will have done will imply consent to being mugged, and I don't think the police or the courts would call me in any way partly responsible for being mugged, but I'd bet both they and the jury trying my attacker will be thinking it. I'm sure the defence lawyer will be using that to his client's advantage.

I'm not sure what to conclude from this though.

Am I an insensitive sexist pig?


Well I'm a woman and I don't think you're an 'insensitive sexist pig'.
I think that makes sense: without taking the blame of the rapist, as a woman you've got to think about your own safety/security.
For example, in France (that's were I am from), when we girls go out, the dress code is somewhat 'more clothes' that in Scotland, i.e. you won't see a girl in high heels with a micro skirt and micro top - unless may be she's with a bunch of male friends who can look after her. And very few girls walk home alone at night - just because it is not safe.
And I can tell you that if any girl was to wear the usual sexy party dress (we see in scotland) in France, she's bound to get into trouble - that's sad and wrong yes, but that's true.
So I guess my message here is that there are a few elementary precautions to take if you do intend to go partying in that very sexy dress and get totally ****ed (to the stage at which you don't know what you're doing and with whom); i.e. make sure some friends will look after you, book a taxi home, etc.
I have to say I am amazed sometimes when I see those girls totally wasted walking alone... there're such an easy prey for anybody with a sick mind. I don't really understand why they do this?

bigdjiver
23rd-November-2005, 02:55 AM
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow the logic here.
You do not.


Where does "international" come into it? Official figures and guestimates show rapists have the best of the deal under our legal system in that very few appear to be found guilty.The situation in many other countries is far worse. If AI gets enough people up in arms about the situation here it can then move on to "but over there it is far worse".


And, for that matter, torture?

If by torture you mean the trauma, then yes, any form of violent crime is of course traumatic for the victim, both at the time and afterwards. You seem to follow that logic.


But you could use that logic to say that Amnesty International should be campaigning against murder, happy-slapping, war, GBH and for that matter school bullying and workplace harassment. I could not use my logic to say all of those things, and it is a disreputable form of argument to try and undermine my argument by such methods. IMO AI has a proper interest where any state uses, or turns a blind eye, to any form of human degradation. Some states have endorsed, or turned a blind eye to, murder, GBH and rape.


Or are they just trying to act like a company and "diversify", using their brand as leverage and gaining publicity on the back of it? (OK, you can guess which side of the debate I'm on here)I do not know. I hope I guess right and it is focusing our attention on what happens elsewhere by first drawing it to what happens here.


I'm just saying that AI should not be doing this work, it's not what they do best.So, who should they be leaving it to that is doing such a magnificent job?

I remember a reported case where a rapist was convicted at the fifth attempt after he had got off four times by telling more or less the same story. At each trial there was the usual slating of the womans character whilst the victim could not call any of the previous alleged victims as character witnesses in the opposite direction. (The law has been changed since, but I am not aware of how it stands now.)

David Bailey
23rd-November-2005, 10:07 AM
I could not use my logic to say all of those things, and it is a disreputable form of argument to try and undermine my argument by such methods. IMO AI has a proper interest where any state uses, or turns a blind eye, to any form of human degradation.
Well, we may have to agree to differ on that one - I think that's taking their eyes off the ball - "human degradation" is such a wide term, it can be used for a number of things.


Some states have endorsed, or turned a blind eye to, murder, GBH and rape.
I'm sure they have, and do - the world's a nasty place, and there are evil practices everywhere. But are you seriously suggesting the UK government does this? If not, I return to my original rant - why are Amnesty doing this survey about public attitudes in the UK?


I do not know. I hope I guess right and it is focusing our attention on what happens elsewhere by first drawing it to what happens here.
Well, in that case it's failed miserably; in all the reams of discussion and press coverage about this, there's not been a single word about attitudes outside the UK. And certainly

Re: rape charities:

So, who should they be leaving it to that is doing such a magnificent job?
I don't know; I know nothing about rape charity organisations. But I believe that several posters on this thread already work in this area; I believe they do good work, and possibly they prefer to actually help people rather than grab headlines with sensationalist surveys.

Oh, by the way, I've just noticed something from the Amnesty International web site (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16618.shtml):
Later this week (Thursday 24) Amnesty International is also unveiling a new audio-visual art exhibition in the Bargehouse gallery on London’s South Bank, where artists and the public have contributed to a set of ‘imaginings’ of what a world without violence against women would mean and what it would look like.

Far be it from me to draw the obvious conclusion about pre-publicity...

jivecat
23rd-November-2005, 10:12 AM
.....However, there's a factor of personal responsibility, and not putting yourself in danger.........

Am I an insensitive sexist pig?

Possibly an insensitive, sexist pig with loads of common sense?

I think there's a continuum in types and causes of rape e.g.

1.Giving in to your husband's pestering for sex even though you're completely tired out and really don't want to.

2.Where sexual activity has already taken place but consent for penetration has been refused/withdrawn at a late stage.

3.Having sex with a stranger you've just met in a club, (who is also drunk)because you are too drunk to give/withhold consent.

4.Being the victim of a predatory stranger walking home late at night or some other public place.

5.Being attacked by a stranger in your own home or going about normal daily business e.g. in a carpark whilst walking to your car.

6.Being raped by soldiers as part of their invasion of your country.

(And many more scenarios besides.)

I'm not making any judgements about the severity of the effect on the victim. But I do think there's certainly some difference between what is going on in the mind of the attacker, say, between 1 and 2 above and 4 and 5.
1 & 2 you might put down to lack of self-control and a lack of respect for the physical autonymy of others. #4 & 5 I would ascribe to a psychopathic desire to hurt and dominate others. The last scenario would also have this feature but would be considered an act of war rather than as the perverted act of an individual.


I think public judgement of blame shifts considerably depending on which scenario they are being asked to consider. Mostly I would consider the rapist 100% to blame, but perhaps not where there has been contributory negligence on the part of the woman, as in #3, in that she has not taken care to avoid danger. If I, personally, was involved in #2, I would also consider that I had to accept some blame for personal lack of judgement in my behaviour, even though ultimately the responsibility lies with the man to hear the word, "no".

I think Amnesty is totally right to get involved in issues concerning rape as an act of war, but I don't think they should waste their money trying to protect daft, feckless lasses who walk home ****ed at all hours of the night.

Bigdjiver - I'm a bit offended by your litany of tales about lying, scheming women, when most surveys point to a massive under-reporting of rape, with the odds firmly stacked in favour of the rapist getting off scot-free.

David Bailey
23rd-November-2005, 10:32 AM
{ snip very sensible "continuum" list }
Nice description.

I remember one possibility mooted the last time this issue was discussed (focussing on the shamefully low conviction rate in the UK as I recall, a year or two back), was introducing "lesser" rape offences.

The theory was that juries were more reluctant to convict for rape if they had some doubts, because the crime generally carried such a high penalty - so introducing lesser offences might give prosecutors more choice and up the general conviction rate. There was some evidence from other countries (Canada? Can't remember now) that this had some effect.

Note: I don't really have an opinion on that, but I could see the logic.


I think Amnesty is totally right to get involved in issues concerning rape as an act of war
Yeah, I can see that's an argument - but they're not doing that, they're promoting their new gallery.

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-November-2005, 11:05 AM
Bigdjiver - I'm a bit offended by your litany of tales about lying, scheming women, when most surveys point to a massive under-reporting of rape, with the odds firmly stacked in favour of the rapist getting off scot-free.Be offended then - that's your choice.

The more people bang on about how most people accused of rape are guilty, even when not found so by a court, the more people feel the need to point out that even the accusation of rape against many men is a traumatic and punishing experience. False accusations *do* happen, and they don't need to form a statistically high proportion of rape accusations to be worrying to many people including me. Rape itself is rare, but that is no excuse for hiding it or ignoring it. False accusations of rape may be rarer, but exactly the same applies.

cheeks
23rd-November-2005, 11:08 AM
Erm, please don't put words in my mouth. You obviously have strong feelings on this subject, but it doesn't justify a rant at me based on something I haven't even said

Apologies :flower: I do feel strongly about this subject and it was not meant to be rant at you personally.



All I am saying, is that I would guess that there is a natural tendency for a woman, given another woman's claim to have been raped by a man, to feel sympathy for the woman, knowing how horrible it would be if it was true.
And probably an equivalent natural tendency for a man, given another man's claim to be a victim of a false accusation, to feel sympathy for the man, knowing how horrible it would be to be falsely accused.

Are you suggesting that that this would not be the case?

I guess there are a lot of factors that would come in to it but generally I find in my line of work and with the victims I work with males and females do not believe or disbelieve either party without evidence but this possibly is different out with this field



Obviously any such sympathy would disappear in the presence of any actual evidence - no decent bloke would feel any sympathy for another bloke who had raped someone, and no decent woman would feel any sympathy for another woman who had ruined a guy's life by falsely accusing him.

I hope...
Unfortunately this isn't always the case and it is scary but to sympathise with someone tends to mean you had went through a similar experience but to empathise we can but try to understand and help( thats my opinion anyway not meant as dig at anyone else)

Oh on the subject of male raped by women there is a high number of young men raped by women and the general Myth seems to be

Myth:Adult men cannot be raped or assaulted by a women!


Reality- Although the majority of perpetrators of male rape are male 97-98% of women can, and do, sexually assault men if you include emotional blackmail as a way to give the victim no choice, then the number greatly increases.

Men do not have to penetrate the woman , there are many cases where a vibrator or another object has been used.


If a man is penetrated by an object it puts pressure on the prostate gland and will cause an erection!

(any male who has had a digital rectal exam and confirm this:blush:

cheeks
23rd-November-2005, 11:14 AM
Rape itself is rare


Unfortunately Rape is far from rare ESG and we probably meet a rape victim every other day without knowing it!:sad:

It's just still one of those subjects that is not first topic of conversation and very rarely the last, many victim's past and history remains exactly that to those on the outside including family friends and future partners.

DianaS
23rd-November-2005, 11:53 AM
Be offended then - that's your choice.

Rape itself is rare, .

Every year I when teaching in FE I dealt at least one student come forward with an experience of having being raped. At least one...
The pregnancy testing and VD clinic knew me by name...
A nasty business, not so rare..

MartinHarper
23rd-November-2005, 12:08 PM
Myth: Women say no when they mean yes.
Fact: .... when a woman says "no" she means "no".

Ho ho ho.

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-November-2005, 12:14 PM
Unfortunately Rape is far from rare ESG and we probably meet a rape victim every other day without knowing it!:sad: If we don't know it - then how can *you* possible know to say that?

BTW, did you know we probably meet a Martian every other day, without knowing it....?

cheeks
23rd-November-2005, 12:38 PM
If we don't know it - then how can *you* possible know to say that?....?

I guess to some ignorance is the easiest way :angry:

When you meet a new victim everday working through many issues yes you know it!:angry:
when many families deal with the suicide of a victim they know it! :angry:
When a victim cannot go a second without feeling dirty used and abused they know it!:angry:

No wonder Amnesty survey results came up with the results it did!

Did you participate ESG or is it confidential!:whistle:


BTW, did you know we probably meet a Martian every other day, without knowing it....?

Yes met a few in my time!:whistle:

cheeks
23rd-November-2005, 12:39 PM
Ho ho ho.


Your point is? :confused:

DianaS
23rd-November-2005, 12:40 PM
If we don't know it - then how can *you* possible know to say that?

BTW, did you know we probably meet a Martian every other day, without knowing it....?
OK you go by stats
In a group of 30 students at least 4 are likely to be gay ( you take this into account when teaching about aspects of sexuality) and three are likely to have had unwanted sexual experiences (which may range from minor sexual assault to having been raped). When touching on areas that are likely to bring these experiences to the forefront you offer phone numbers and advice lines at the end of the sesssion or include them on handouts. You also make sure that you pick up on visual clues and give the students time to talk to you after or between sessions.

SO how many people do we meet in a day and how many have had unwanted sexual experiences or experienced forible intercourse..
Work out the numbers

David Franklin
23rd-November-2005, 01:05 PM
OK you go by stats
In a group of 30 students at least 4 are likely to be gay ( you take this into account when teaching about aspects of sexuality) and three are likely to have had unwanted sexual experiences (which may range from minor sexual assault to having been raped).

SO how many people do we meet in a day and how many have had unwanted sexual experiences or experienced forible intercourse..
Work out the numbersIt might be illuminating:

On the assumption that 3 in 30 people have had an unwanted experience, it works out that if we meet six people, the chances at least one has an unwanted experience is 46.9% and if we meet seven, the chance is 52.1%.

You didn't give an indication of the probability of rape, but my knowledge leads me to expect at least 1 in 30 women. In which case if you meet 21 women, the chance is just over half that at least one has suffered rape.

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-November-2005, 01:06 PM
I guess to some ignorance is the easiest way :angry:

When you meet a new victim everday working through many issues yes you know it!:angry:
when many families deal with the suicide of a victim they know it! :angry:
When a victim cannot go a second without feeling dirty used and abused they know it!:angry: I would (gently) suggest that if your daily work is in those areas then it's natural to assume that the whole planet has the same problems, and to the same extent. Just like policemen "know" that everyone is a criminal, social workers "know" that every family is dysfunctional, and doctors "know" that everyone is sick.
No wonder Amnesty survey results came up with the results it did!...and no wonder you are so ready to believe them.

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-November-2005, 01:10 PM
It might be illuminating:

On the assumption that 3 in 30 people have had an unwanted experience, it works out that if we meet six people, the chances at least one has an unwanted experience is 46.9% and if we meet seven, the chance is 52.1%.

You didn't give an indication of the probability of rape, but my knowledge leads me to expect at least 1 in 30 women. In which case if you meet 21 women, the chance is just over half that at least one has suffered rape.As your calculations show, David - but you didn't point out explicitly - the probability of meeting someone who has suffered a rare crime, event, or a rare disease says more about how many people we meet in a day than anything else. This "meet in a day" argument is a classic misuse of statistics to get a result that sounds startling but is in fact meaningless. (I suggest some people arguing in this thread get on to the Amnesty press office right away with an idea for their next buzz-line.)

David Franklin
23rd-November-2005, 01:19 PM
This "meet in a day" argument is a classic misuse of statistics to get a result that sounds startling but is in fact meaningless. Of course, that isn't actually the case. If you want to, you can model the distribution of "people met in a day" as well and end up with a justifiable statement.

Though I'd be interested in the assumptions you have to make to justify your Martian statement... :whistle:

TiggsTours
23rd-November-2005, 01:25 PM
Well I'm a woman and I don't think you're an 'insensitive sexist pig'.
I think that makes sense: without taking the blame of the rapist, as a woman you've got to think about your own safety/security.
For example, in France (that's were I am from), when we girls go out, the dress code is somewhat 'more clothes' that in Scotland, i.e. you won't see a girl in high heels with a micro skirt and micro top - unless may be she's with a bunch of male friends who can look after her. And very few girls walk home alone at night - just because it is not safe.
And I can tell you that if any girl was to wear the usual sexy party dress (we see in scotland) in France, she's bound to get into trouble - that's sad and wrong yes, but that's true.
So I guess my message here is that there are a few elementary precautions to take if you do intend to go partying in that very sexy dress and get totally ****ed (to the stage at which you don't know what you're doing and with whom); i.e. make sure some friends will look after you, book a taxi home, etc.
I have to say I am amazed sometimes when I see those girls totally wasted walking alone... there're such an easy prey for anybody with a sick mind. I don't really understand why they do this?
:yeah:

I would never say that a woman is at all to blame when she is raped, any more than anyone is to blame if they are mugged, but everyone has a responsibility for their own safety.

A woman should be allowed to wear what she likes, get as drunk as she likes, walk home on her own at any time of night and flirt with whoever she likes, but its a sad fact that she can't. Just like I would never let a child of mine go and play in the street, out of my sight in an area that has many cars driving around, and any number of people walking around, I would also never get drunk, and totter home on my own at 3 o'clock in the morning in my mini-skirt and high heels. That said, if my child was abducted, or hit by a car, it would not be my fault, and if I were raped, it would not be my fault, but I wouldn't exactly have helped prevent it either!

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-November-2005, 01:26 PM
Though I'd be interested in the assumptions you have to make to justify your Martian statement... :whistle:I won't bore you with the full calculations, but it starts off "Let's assume that 3 in 30 people are not human but aliens from the planet Mars, instead."

cheeks
23rd-November-2005, 01:28 PM
I would (gently) suggest that if your daily work is in those areas then it's natural to assume that the whole planet has the same problems, and to the same extent. Just like policemen "know" that everyone is a criminal, social workers "know" that every family is dysfunctional, and doctors "know" that everyone is sick....and no wonder you are so ready to believe them.


Now who's making assumptions!

Okay so on your planet is everything rosey if we pretend it doesn't happen!
and surely that is a very narrow minded judgement as if that was the case Law would always support the victim, Social workers would have no job as everyone is dysfuctional and doctors...well what would be the point save tax payers money as everyone sick.......

Never assume only makes an Ass of you!

David Franklin
23rd-November-2005, 01:30 PM
I won't bore you with the full calculations, but it starts off "Let's assume that 3 in 30 people are not human but aliens from the planet Mars, instead."My faith in your analysis is now, um, just about what it was before...

Baby Peaches
23rd-November-2005, 01:39 PM
I won't bore you with the full calculations, but it starts off "Let's assume that 3 in 30 people are not human but aliens from the planet Mars, instead."

And by the way your harpin on mate....You are one of those 3!!

TiggsTours
23rd-November-2005, 01:44 PM
It might be illuminating:

On the assumption that 3 in 30 people have had an unwanted experience, it works out that if we meet six people, the chances at least one has an unwanted experience is 46.9% and if we meet seven, the chance is 52.1%.

You didn't give an indication of the probability of rape, but my knowledge leads me to expect at least 1 in 30 women. In which case if you meet 21 women, the chance is just over half that at least one has suffered rape.
Probably true.

TiggsTours
23rd-November-2005, 01:47 PM
I would (gently) suggest that if your daily work is in those areas then it's natural to assume that the whole planet has the same problems, and to the same extent. Just like policemen "know" that everyone is a criminal, social workers "know" that every family is dysfunctional, and doctors "know" that everyone is sick....and no wonder you are so ready to believe them.
The number of women raped each year, bearing in mind the majority go un-reported, is said to be around 60,000. The population of the UK is currently a little over 60 million, so lets say half that population is female. That would mean that 1 in 500 women are raped, in this country, every year. Around 5% of reported rapes (12,354 last year) result in a conviction. How many of the men that are cleared will rape again? If, when cases go to court, the woman is held up to be responsible for the rape, it is even harder to gain a conviction.

This doesn't look at all at the number of reported, or unreported rapes of men.

Perhaps it wouldn't be right to start a private poll on this forum, to find out just how many people have been affected by this viscious crime, just amongst ourselves, I expect you'd be staggered!

cheeks
23rd-November-2005, 01:55 PM
The number of women raped each year, bearing in mind the majority go un-reported, is said to be around 60,000. The population of the UK is currently a little over 60 million, so lets say half that population is female. That would mean that 1 in 500 women are raped, in this country, every year. Around 5% of reported rapes (12,354 last year) result in a conviction. How many of the men that are cleared will rape again? If, when cases go to court, the woman is held up to be responsible for the rape, it is even harder to gain a conviction.

This doesn't look at all at the number of reported, or unreported rapes of men.

Perhaps it wouldn't be right to start a private poll on this forum, to find out just how many people have been affected by this viscious crime, just amongst ourselves, I expect you'd be staggered!


:yeah: :yeah:

WittyBird
23rd-November-2005, 01:58 PM
Perhaps it wouldn't be right to start a private poll on this forum, to find out just how many people have been affected by this viscious crime, just amongst ourselves, I expect you'd be staggered!

Maybe you should. Might bring it closer to home for a few people. A friend of mine was raped by a woman a few years ago and she still hasnt fully got over it.:sad:

Baby Peaches
23rd-November-2005, 02:05 PM
Maybe you should. Might bring it closer to home for a few people. A friend of mine was raped by a woman a few years ago and she still hasnt fully got over it.:sad:

Rape is definitely not a rare occurence!!!

cheeks
23rd-November-2005, 02:15 PM
Maybe a poll would not be the option as many victims do not wish to publicly announce and it may have happened a long time ago although so many are sensitive to the subject it is still taboo for many and ignorance can sometimes be a coping mechanism .....

Many victims are raped or abused by someone they know, father, mother,Step parent,Brother, Aunt, Uncle, grandad, boyfriend, husband, teacher, partner, foster parent, parents or siblngs friends etc .

No matter what argument we have over whether statistics carried out by one organisation or another are accurate sometimes many people need to open ther eyes as to what is going on around them.
It's not about placing people in categories either, many of us now someone who suffers from nightmares,flash backs,eating difficulties, solvent/drug misuse,have overdosed,experienced a death by suicide or have attempted it, homeless, panic attacks,low self esteem, negative body image,Self Harm, post traumatic stress disorder,depression the list could go on and on

And the fact that these can all be caused by a sexual assault or rape at any point in there life is to frightening for many to imagine. But True!

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-November-2005, 09:14 PM
The number of women raped each year, bearing in mind the majority go un-reported, is said to be around 60,000. I'm not disputing your figures, but I'm curious as to who says the number of women raped each year is around 60,000, who decides that the majority go unreported, and how they know. Can you elaborate? I'm also curious as to which of many different possible definitions of rape they're using.

And I suppose if we're going to debate whether rape is a 'common' or 'rare' occurence, we ought to agree first on what constitutes 'rare'. Anyone want to suggest a definition?

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-November-2005, 09:20 PM
No matter what argument we have over whether statistics carried out by one organisation or another are accurate sometimes many people need to open ther eyes as to what is going on around them.
It's not about placing people in categories either, many of us now someone who suffers from nightmares,flash backs,eating difficulties, solvent/drug misuse,have overdosed,experienced a death by suicide or have attempted it, homeless, panic attacks,low self esteem, negative body image,Self Harm, post traumatic stress disorder,depression the list could go on and on

And the fact that these can all be caused by a sexual assault or rape at any point in there life is to frightening for many to imagine. But True!Given this litany of desparation and despair, what's to be done about it? Something must be done, after all, surely?

bigdjiver
23rd-November-2005, 10:58 PM
Bigdjiver - I'm a bit offended by your litany of tales about lying, scheming women, when most surveys point to a massive under-reporting of rape, with the odds firmly stacked in favour of the rapist getting off scot-free.I have posted that my interest in rape originated from my teens when someone close to me was raped whilst under the influence of a spiked drink and made pregnant. I believe that her friend was also raped. I believe that neither of the reported it at the time because they did not want to admit to underage drinking at a party. Neither rape was reported to the police. A good while later two memebers of their party set were convicted of other similar rapes. If you had assimilated my posts you would have realised I was giving some reasons why there was such a poor rate of conviction, and that is a situation that I lament.


I think Amnesty is totally right to get involved in issues concerning rape as an act of war, but I don't think they should waste their money trying to protect daft, feckless lasses who walk home ****ed at all hours of the night.Or daft feckless lasses that drink at a party with "friends"?

By exposing the "blame the victim" attitudes that make rape more acceptable to some Amnesty are exposing those arguments to attack. If they can change the attitudes then they can perhaps change the consequences.

The method used is "make it relevant". Our papers use big headlines for a UK soldier killed by a bomb, and smaller type for the many foreigners that also died. What happens to "us" is more relevant. Whilst we are doing something about the death of "our boy" it is possible to make a pitch to do something about the deaths of the other victims. I see nothing wrong with the Amnesty approach, and applaud any successful effort to get the issues debated and bad attitudes changed.

MartinHarper
24th-November-2005, 01:56 AM
The number of women raped each year, bearing in mind the majority go un-reported, is said to be around 60,000.

For ESG and others, the 60,000 figure probably comes from the Home Office report on the subject. You can view that page here:

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page60.asp

It's decent reading, and probably more informative than this thread.

David Bailey
24th-November-2005, 09:30 AM
Oh well, looks like the anti-Amnesty ranting has subsided (I still hate them, but I suspect I'm in a minority here)...


Or daft feckless lasses that drink at a party with "friends"?
Adding fuel to the fire - there's a BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4464402.stm) about a recent rape case, which collapsed because the woman in question had been "too drunk to remember whether or not she had agreed to have sex."

The judge ruled that "drunken consent is still consent", which sounds reasonable to me.

But of course, his ruling also implied that if she didn't remember consenting, then consent was assumed - or at least, that lack of consent could not be assumed. And that second part seems more dodgy to me; the obvious parallel here is with rape drugs etc.

I'm going to take a wild guess, and assume people have opinions on this one... ? :whistle:

TiggsTours
24th-November-2005, 10:07 AM
Maybe a poll would not be the option as many victims do not wish to publicly announce and it may have happened a long time ago although so many are sensitive to the subject it is still taboo for many and ignorance can sometimes be a coping mechanism .....
The exact reason I suggested a private poll!


For ESG and others, the 60,000 figure probably comes from the Home Office report on the subject. You can view that page here:

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page60.asp

It's decent reading, and probably more informative than this thread.
Interesting reading indeed! Thank you Martin.


I'm not disputing your figures, but I'm curious as to who says the number of women raped each year is around 60,000, who decides that the majority go unreported, and how they know. Can you elaborate? I'm also curious as to which of many different possible definitions of rape they're using.
Perhaps the interesting thoughts would be, what would you not constitute as rape, that others would?

I have known of someone who was the victim of date rape, she was asked out by someone she knows well, she dressed nicely, some may say sexily, she was going on a date! She had a drink, not stupid amounts, but a drink, then, she got into his car with him, so he could drive her home. He took a detour, took her to an area that is notoriously bad, and then told her that if she didn't have sex with him, he'd kick her out the car there. So she did, he knew she didn't want to, she felt she had no choice, would you call this rape? I would!

I also have a friend who left her drink un-guarded in a club for about 5 mins, someone spiked it! She was the driver that night, so it was actually a soft drink, she was by no means drunk, luckily her friends realised something was wrong and got her home.

And the most shocking conversation I ever overheard was a young man telling his female friend of a party he'd been to at a friends house. At the end of the night, one girl was a bit the worse for wear, there were about 5 or 6 people left at the party, she was the only girl, she asked them to call her a taxi, she knew them all. One of the guys said he'd take her upstairs to "sleep it off", he came down half an hour later and told them what he'd done, when she came downstairs a bit later crying that he'd raped her, they laughed, he was still laughing whilst telling his friend the story a few days later, saying how this girl only had herself to blame, and how bad he felt for his friend, now that she'd reported it to the police. Seems from recent reports that he'll probably get away with it, afterall, she was drunk at a party, probably wearing sexy clothes, only herself to blame, wouldn't you agree?

LMC
24th-November-2005, 10:24 AM
... afterall, she was drunk at a party, probably wearing sexy clothes, only herself to blame, wouldn't you agree?
Absolutely not. The guy should not have "taken advantage" of her drunken state.

BUT did she say "no" at the time or was she just horrified after she had sobered up a little? Remembering having sex with someone who you would *never* have shagged when you are sober is no excuse to call rape. Unfortunately, when it's one person's word against another's, then without evidence of 'spiking' or physical injury, then it's very very difficult to judge.

Alcohol affects memory and judgement. I agree with jivecat that there may be "contributory negligence". However 'good friends' she thought she was with those guys, however much she trusted them, why did this girl get so drunk as to be incapable?

I cannot believe that so many women appear to have so little sense of self-preservation. I went out with a group of friends and friends-of-friends late last year. One woman who is a slight acquaintance, got so drunk that she was incoherent and practically unable to walk - a couple of the guys saw her home. What beggars belief is that this woman is in her 40s and works as a counsellor. She should have known better.

ChrisA
24th-November-2005, 10:29 AM
And isn't this topical...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4464402.stm

TiggsTours
24th-November-2005, 10:30 AM
Absolutely not. The guy should not have "taken advantage" of her drunken state.

BUT did she say "no" at the time or was she just horrified after she had sobered up a little? Remembering having sex with someone who you would *never* have shagged when you are sober is no excuse to call rape. Unfortunately, when it's one person's word against another's, then without evidence of 'spiking' or physical injury, then it's very very difficult to judge.

Alcohol affects memory and judgement. I agree with jivecat that there may be "contributory negligence". However 'good friends' she thought she was with those guys, however much she trusted them, why did this girl get so drunk as to be incapable?

I cannot believe that so many women appear to have so little sense of self-preservation. I went out with a group of friends and friends-of-friends late last year. One woman who is a slight acquaintance, got so drunk that she was incoherent and practically unable to walk - a couple of the guys saw her home. What beggars belief is that this woman is in her 40s and works as a counsellor. She should have known better.
I agree with that completely, and, going back to my first post in this thread, everybody has a responsibility to protect their own safety as much as they can, but that said, surely if a somebody can clearly see that someone is too incapacitated to be in control of making a decision for themselves, or defending themselves, then they also have the responsibility to not take advantage of that situation. I certainly would agree that she was a stupid girl to get herself into such a vulnerable situation, but I certainly wouldn't say she was solely to blame!

LMC
24th-November-2005, 10:40 AM
There was no need to quote my entire post it was the one right before yours.

I agree, which is why I said that the guy should absolutely not have taken advantage of her drunken state.

MartinHarper
24th-November-2005, 10:57 AM
his ruling also implied that if she didn't remember consenting, then consent was assumed - or at least, that lack of consent could not be assumed.

I think it's more along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty". Mr. Dougal said she had consented, she said that she couldn't rememember. Accordingly, Mr. Dougal was found innocent.

stewart38
24th-November-2005, 11:04 AM
I agree with that completely, and, going back to my first post in this thread, everybody has a responsibility to protect their own safety as much as they can, but that said, surely if a somebody can clearly see that someone is too incapacitated to be in control of making a decision for themselves, or defending themselves, then they also have the responsibility to not take advantage of that situation. I certainly would agree that she was a stupid girl to get herself into such a vulnerable situation, but I certainly wouldn't say she was solely to blame!

what if they were both drunk and not in full control ?

cheeks
24th-November-2005, 11:13 AM
who decides that the majority go unreported, and how they know.



there is higher percentage of survivors of abuse and rape able to talk with a support worker/ befriender, nurse, doctor, councellor, support groups/projects confidentially now and they be attending for other reasons due to symptoms, difficulties that may have been caused by the rape.it's numbers of referrals and nature of support( rather than the possible cause - rape, abuse etc) that are reported in annual reports etc, Due to the confidentiality the survivor is given that choice for the crime to go unreported and that has to be respected, unfortunately this does not assist the many people who may still think they are alone or who do not have an outlet to guide or support them and this can fester for years and years until the truth of the crime is finally exposed.

David Bailey
24th-November-2005, 11:16 AM
I think it's more along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty". Mr. Dougal said she had consented, she said that she couldn't rememember. Accordingly, Mr. Dougal was found innocent.
Sure - but again, rape is different from a lot of other crimes, because it often comes down to one person's word against another - which is where it starts getting tricky, and where juries have to try to judge characters and intent, which is maybe not their strongest point.

And it also feels to me like that case has shifted the burden of proof of consent to the victim rather than the accused.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that consent must be given in writing, signed, sealed, witnessed etc. But "I can't remember all the details" should not IMO be taken as equivalent to "I gave consent"...

I dunno, we're second-guessing a case here, we don't know the details, but it does raise a few hackles. I guess I'm still remembering the nutty old judges back in the 80's who kept spouting all that sexist cr&p about provocation all the time.

El Salsero Gringo
24th-November-2005, 11:38 AM
Perhaps the interesting thoughts would be, what would you not constitute as rape, that others would?

I have known of someone who .... {snip}

I also have a friend who ... {snip}

And the most shocking conversation I ever overheard was ... {snip}

wouldn't you agree?It's a pity you're trying to put words into my mouth by association with some extreme examples, because I think it weakens the very argument you're trying to make. Either way, though, I'll decline to engage on those particular terms.

Instead let's see what JiveCat wrote, earlier in this thread - and note that no-one took particular exception to it:

I think there's a continuum in types and causes of rape e.g.

1.Giving in to your husband's pestering for sex even though you're completely tired out and really don't want to.

2.Where sexual activity has already taken place but consent for penetration has been refused/withdrawn at a late stage.

3.Having sex with a stranger you've just met in a club, (who is also drunk)because you are too drunk to give/withhold consent.

4.Being the victim of a predatory stranger walking home late at night or some other public place.

5.Being attacked by a stranger in your own home or going about normal daily business e.g. in a carpark whilst walking to your car.

6.Being raped by soldiers as part of their invasion of your country.

(And many more scenarios besides.)If you include all these acts in your definition of rape, then I would suspect that the 1 in 30 figure is too low. You could no-doubt come up with an even wider definition that would make rape more common than eating breakfast. But would it be useful?

Assault is a also crime - but we categorise violent behaviour towards other people, legally speaking, as common assault, actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm etc. all the way to murder, recognising that there's a continuum of offenses and appropriate penalties. Even a threatening word from someone - 'merely' assault - can cause a traumatic reaction in the victim. Far be it from me to try to categorise a person's reaction to any of the variety of sexual assaults that are lumped together as 'rape' - but don't we do exactly that for other crimes?

Given that there's a mandatory life sentence upon convction for rape, or for assault by penetration, don't you think that lack of distinction might contribute towards the low conviction rate?

Dreadful Scathe
24th-November-2005, 02:03 PM
I won't bore you with the full calculations, but it starts off "Let's assume that 3 in 30 people are not human but aliens from the planet Mars, instead."
Got a magazine/catalogue from PC world yesterday. Apparantly 1 in 20 (it didnt even specify 'internet users') have fallen victim to an internet phishing scam at soem point and half of those have not been recompensed by the bank/card company. Thats just got to be true. So if you have 20 friends, one of them is clearly a complete idiot who has entered personal credit information into some dodgy badly spelt website they got from an unexpected email. ;)

I feel sorry for Rebecca :) :kiss:

bigdjiver
24th-November-2005, 02:04 PM
...Given that there's a mandatory life sentence upon convction for rape, or for assault by penetration, don't you think that lack of distinction might contribute towards the low conviction rate?I certainly do. Some suggest the death penalty or castration. That is why I posted my rag-bag of observations. At one extreme I have the girl on the bus who seemed to regard being "raped" as a bit of a downer on a night at a disco. At the other extreme rapes with consequences on the entire life of the victims. If there was the possibility of a drunken "tumble" resulting in "only" a suspended sentence a jury might well be more inclined to convict. There would be outrage at the lightness of the sentence, and the politicians passing such a law could not expect to see office again. Nevertheless more convictions might deter a few rapists (drunks do not weigh consequences) and encourage a few more reports and prosecutions. The big effect would probably be on those who make it a regular practise. The jury who are more prepared to convict expecting a "slap on the wrist" might well find that the guilty party had "previous", the behaviour and cover story was pre-meditated, and the convicted gets what he deserves.

Sometimes, even in law, "less is more".

Dreadful Scathe
24th-November-2005, 02:15 PM
e. He took a detour, took her to an area that is notoriously bad, and then told her that if she didn't have sex with him, he'd kick her out the car there. So she did, he knew she didn't want to, she felt she had no choice, would you call this rape? I would!

I wouldnt. Yes he threatend her but didnt apparantly force himself on her - she agreed to his terms. Id be interested to hear of anyone reading this who would have also agreed to his terms ?

LMC
24th-November-2005, 02:46 PM
If I had been stupid enough to be stranded with such a nasty person (however well I knew him) without being in possession myself of a) cash b) a mobile phone (or both) then I'd still take my chances of leaving the car, finding a phone box and calling the police. I don't condone using the police as a free taxi service, but in these circumstances I'm sure they would rather see me safely home than taking up even more of their time as a victim of crime...

ChrisA
24th-November-2005, 02:58 PM
I wouldnt. Yes he threatend her but didnt apparantly force himself on her - she agreed to his terms. Id be interested to hear of anyone reading this who would have also agreed to his terms ?
Hmm.

"Have sex with me or you'll have to get out of the car and walk back through this really bad neighbourhood where you might get killed etc..."

or

"Have sex with me or I'll cut your throat with this knife".

She might say "ok" in either case.... but in the second example I can't imagine you'd say that she agreed to his terms and therefore he didn't rape her.

Where do you draw the line?

LMC
24th-November-2005, 03:03 PM
Looks like a full risk assessment is in order :whistle:

stewart38
24th-November-2005, 03:06 PM
Hmm.

"Have sex with me or you'll have to get out of the car and walk back through this really bad neighbourhood where you might get killed etc..."

or

"Have sex with me or I'll cut your throat with this knife".

She might say "ok" in either case.... but in the second example I can't imagine you'd say that she agreed to his terms and therefore he didn't rape her.

Where do you draw the line?

Is raped defined somewhere ?

There must be case law on this ?

I would have thought first one isnt but if she or he is so scared out of their wits re being left in place she/he didnt know ,who knows ?? Not sure if its black or white

El Salsero Gringo
24th-November-2005, 03:10 PM
Is raped defined somewhere ?Rape is defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030042.htm):

<table cellpadding="2" width="95%"> <tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="top">PART 1</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td align="center" valign="top">SEXUAL OFFENCES</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td><td align="center">
Rape</td></tr> <tr><td align="right" valign="top">1 </td><td valign="top">Rape
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> (1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top">(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top">(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top">(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> (2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> (3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.</td></tr></tbody> </table>

I imagine if the woman persuaded the court that she had no alternative but to consent to sex with the man, through fear of the consequences if she refused, then that would not count as consent and the man could be convicted. I expect the jury would have to decide whether being left alone in the dark in an unfamiliar area was acceptable.

TiggsTours
24th-November-2005, 03:28 PM
If I had been stupid enough to be stranded with such a nasty person (however well I knew him) without being in possession myself of a) cash b) a mobile phone (or both) then I'd still take my chances of leaving the car, finding a phone box and calling the police. I don't condone using the police as a free taxi service, but in these circumstances I'm sure they would rather see me safely home than taking up even more of their time as a victim of crime...
The incident was about 15 years ago now, I don't believe she owned a mobile phone at the time, not that many people did, the area he took her to is in the middle of nowhere, God only knows how far away the nearest phone box is, or how far a walk it was. She was scared out of her wits, give in to his demands so she can get away, or get out and walk, not knowing which would be the best direction, and knowing it would be at least half an hour, in the dark, before she reached anywhere near civilisation.

El Salsero Gringo
24th-November-2005, 03:33 PM
Rape is defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030042.htm):
...Incidentally, the self-same act states that sex with a live animal is an offence, as is sex with a dead person. But it doesn't say anything about sex with a dead animal. So you can all continue to enjoy a nice bit of chicken at the weekend :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
24th-November-2005, 03:40 PM
"Have sex with me or I'll cut your throat with this knife".

She might say "ok" in either case.... but in the second example I can't imagine you'd say that she agreed to his terms and therefore he didn't rape her.

Where do you draw the line?Read the act: Sections 75 states (my ellisions):

<table cellpadding="2" width="95%"> <tbody><tr><td align="right" valign="top">75 </td><td valign="top">Evidential presumptions about consent
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top"> (1) If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved-
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
......</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
(b) that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
.....</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act ...
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top"> (2) The circumstances are that-
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
(a) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">....
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td align="right" valign="top">
</td><td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody> </table>

TiggsTours
24th-November-2005, 03:41 PM
It's a pity you're trying to put words into my mouth by association with some extreme examples, because I think it weakens the very argument you're trying to make. Either way, though, I'll decline to engage on those particular terms.
I apologise, that wasn't my intention, I was just wondering what you meant when you asked what people constitute as rape, and giving examples of some cases where some people would argue that the girl was to blame, where I don't believe she was.

LMC
24th-November-2005, 03:42 PM
Information which was not available to me at the time I made my post...
In that case it's a judgement call innit :shrug: - but I think I'd probably still take the "walk" option (and report him). Or get out of the car sooner. I expect you'll now tell me that said "dodgy area" was on the way to her home - but if someone who was giving me a lift went 'out of the way' I'd be out of that car sharpish.

Handy self-defence tip for passengers: grab driver's hand/wrist with your LEFT hand, turn it (in either direction) then bring your right elbow down HARD on the driver's elbow. Out of self-preservation they are more than likely to brake, giving you an opportunity to get out of the car.

TiggsTours
24th-November-2005, 03:44 PM
Hmm.

"Have sex with me or you'll have to get out of the car and walk back through this really bad neighbourhood where you might get killed etc..."

or

"Have sex with me or I'll cut your throat with this knife".

She might say "ok" in either case.... but in the second example I can't imagine you'd say that she agreed to his terms and therefore he didn't rape her.

Where do you draw the line?
:yeah:
Guys who comit date rape always come across as really nice people, then change when the girl is out with them. Which girl in her right mind would ever think "Ah, he seems nice, I bet he'd force me into sexual activity, against my will, I'd love to go out with him!"

TiggsTours
24th-November-2005, 03:46 PM
In that case it's a judgement call innit :shrug: - but I think I'd probably still take the "walk" option (and report him). Or get out of the car sooner. I expect you'll now tell me that said "dodgy area" was on the way to her home - but if someone who was giving me a lift went 'out of the way' I'd be out of that car sharpish.

Handy self-defence tip for passengers: grab driver's hand/wrist with your LEFT hand, turn it (in either direction) then bring your elbow down HARD on his elbow. Out of self-preservation they are more than likely to brake, giving you an opportunity to get out of the car.
Yes, I'd take the "throw myself out of a moving car" option too.

LMC
24th-November-2005, 03:52 PM
Hmm, maybe a "Self-defence" tips thread?

I never get into the back seat of a minicab either, even if I've telephoned for it - most modern cars have childlocks on the back doors. I occasionally get a strange look from the driver when I open the front passenger door, but none have ever "challenged" me on it.

El Salsero Gringo
24th-November-2005, 03:53 PM
I apologise, that wasn't my intention, I was just wondering what you meant when you asked what people constitute as rape, and giving examples of some cases where some people would argue that the girl was to blame, where I don't believe she was.I don't see that whether she was "to blame" changes whether it counts as rape or not. Questions such as "is she to blame?" and "is it rape?" are not connected.

I can be blamed for having my house burgled by leaving the front door open when I go on holiday - it's still unlawful for someone to come in and help themselves to my things.

El Salsero Gringo
24th-November-2005, 03:56 PM
Hmm, maybe a "Self-defence" tips thread?

I never get into the back seat of a minicab either, even if I've telephoned for it - most modern cars have childlocks on the back doors. I occasionally get a strange look from the driver when I open the front passenger door, but none have ever "challenged" me on it.Have you considered that they might actually be scared because from the front seat you're better-placed to assault them?

LMC
24th-November-2005, 04:01 PM
The donkey speaks rightly. Unfortunately, there is a plausible argument that since not every human being is honest, trustworthy and generally nice, you should have taken due care - in ESG's example, leaving your front door open constitutes negligence. Most insurance companies wouldn't pay up under those circumstances.

Does negligence equate to blame? It seems that many of the people who answered AI's survey think it does...

El Salsero Gringo
24th-November-2005, 04:03 PM
Does negligence equate to blame? It seems that many of the people who answered AI's survey think it does...It might well do. But not all the negligence in the world excuses someone else's criminal behaviour. It's still a burglary, or a rape, for all that. (Isn't this where we came in?)

LMC
24th-November-2005, 04:05 PM
Have you considered that they might actually be scared because from the front seat you're better-placed to assault them?
No, and that's not my problem - I'm paying. Refusing to sit in the back is my choice. They could always choose not to accept my custom under that condition... :innocent:


EDIT: I didn't say I agreed with the negligence=blame - I thought previous posts of mine made that clear. The argument might be plausible. But I don't subscribe to it - all theft (including the theft of someone's body, which is what rape is) is WRONG.

BTW ESG, call me pedantic, but you might want to change that "can" to "can't" if there's still time :wink: EDIT #2 - scrap that, blonde moment... :rolleyes:

TiggsTours
24th-November-2005, 04:18 PM
No, and that's not my problem - I'm paying. Refusing to sit in the back is my choice. They could always choose not to accept my custom under that condition... :innocent:
I've always insisted on sitting in the front too, for the very same reason.

stewart38
24th-November-2005, 04:22 PM
It might well do. But not all the negligence in the world excuses someone else's criminal behaviour. It's still a burglary, or a rape, for all that. (Isn't this where we came in?)

How hot is it in here now

Im leaving my front door open tonight (ill be in fulham i think ?)

Please someone come in and take my junk ill never throw it away

Ghost
24th-November-2005, 11:52 PM
Hmm, maybe a "Self-defence" tips thread?

If you've got a few hours to spare (it'll be worth it)

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/rape.html
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/victimhood.htm

The experience that's gone into making this website is staggering and frankly makes the CerocScotland Forum members' experience of dancing look like rank amateurs. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I'm just trying to get across that this isn't just some guy shooting his mouth off.

It is an American site, so the shift is more towards a higher level of violence, but I highly recommend it.

Take care,
Christopher

Dreadful Scathe
1st-December-2005, 12:55 PM
Hmm.

"Have sex with me or you'll have to get out of the car and walk back through this really bad neighbourhood where you might get killed etc..."

or

"Have sex with me or I'll cut your throat with this knife".

She might say "ok" in either case.... but in the second example I can't imagine you'd say that she agreed to his terms and therefore he didn't rape her.


Of course not. Threatening 'Ill make you walk home' is not nice, especially if its a bad area, but the odds are, no harm would come to her. Theres a big difference between that and actually threatening physical harm to her. I would say the line is when you personally threaten someone with actual physical harm.

Dreadful Scathe
1st-December-2005, 12:58 PM
Im leaving my front door open tonight (ill be in fulham i think ?)

Please someone come in and take my junk ill never throw it away

If you invite people in, theres no crime in them taking your junk away is there ? :)

bigdjiver
1st-December-2005, 02:20 PM
Of course not. Threatening 'Ill make you walk home' is not nice, especially if its a bad area, but the odds are, no harm would come to her. Theres a big difference between that and actually threatening physical harm to her. I would say the line is when you personally threaten someone with actual physical harm.So, how is he going to make her get out of the car?

TiggsTours
1st-December-2005, 05:30 PM
So, how is he going to make her get out of the car?
Physical force, perhaps?

I saw a case today in the paper of a girl who stopped to help someone who had apparenly broken down, and he was the bait for his friend who raped her, stabber her in the head and stomach and forced her back into her car to drive to a hospital. I wouldn't have stopped, as it would have worried me that it may be a ploy, after all, its not the first time this has happened. Would the same people who accuse people who are drunk of being to blame have blamed this girl too? Didn't she have a reposnsibility to not be so niaive as to trust this situation?

How about another case in the paper, a girl was killed in a car crash where the driver was way over the drink drive limit, and had taken a huge amount of ecstacy, she was made out to be the innocent victim of the killer driver. Didn't she have a responsibility to her own safety? Did she have to get in the car? I have refused lifts off people I believe have been drinking, I've even taken part in letting a friends tyres down to stop him driving home after he'd had too much to drink, if I'd got in the car, and something had happened to me, I would blame myself as much as him, if I'd got in a taxi with him, and when he dropped me off he'd forced his way into my house and raped me, I'd only blame him.

I saw a suggestion that men should carry breathalisers on nights out, to see if a girl is too drunk to be aware of what she's doing, if a girls so drunk she can't control her actions, or defend herself, you don't need a breathaliser to see it! She's stupid, she should have taken more responsibility for her own safety, but I don't in anyway think she is to blame if she is raped.

Dreadful Scathe
2nd-December-2005, 12:19 PM
So, how is he going to make her get out of the car?


Who knows, it didnt happen. Maybe he wouldnt have tried, maybe it was a bluff.

TiggsTours
2nd-December-2005, 12:23 PM
Who knows, it didnt happen. Maybe he wouldnt have tried, maybe it was a bluff.
Maybe it was a bluff, maybe in her terrified state of mind she weighed up her options, and wasn't prepared to find out.

David Bailey
11th-December-2005, 10:45 PM
OK, I've tried not to comment on this one again, but the last couple of weeks, the papers have been full of stories about "extra-ordinary rendition", and possible (hah!) UK and EU complicity in US torture flights, all driven and exposed by Liberty (http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/).

The Liberty front page has the following items:
- "08.12.05 Law Lords rule use of 'evidence' from torture unlawful "
- "06.12.05 Response to Condi Rice's defence of CIA flights"
- "06.12.05 New policy papers published"
- etc.

In other words, they have items of relevance to campaigning, dealing with matters of substance.

And in the meantime, the big news on Amnesty bloody International's website is, wait for it...:
"Amnesty International has launched Make Some Noise, a ground-breaking music download project inspired by John Lennon's solo songbook."

And most of the other items are about exhibitions, poetry readings, conferences, you name it.

I mean, ***, what are AI playing at? Do they not actually care about human rights anymore? Is torture not sexy enough as a brand name now? Is actual news boring to these people?

Rant, rant, rant. :mad:

Jazz_Shoes (Ash)
12th-December-2005, 11:25 PM
Ok peeps, i've only read about the first 5 posts, but i'm gonna write something down anyway :rolleyes:

Ok first, when it comes to rape I don't believe it's the girls fault (or guys). Just because I see a hot guy doesn't mean I need to get him into bed. As for the whole clothing issue...I can see why people would think it was an issue, but then again don't rapists also sometimes prey on the shy girls who DON'T dress provocitively, because they're quite and appear more weak? Clothing isn't always the issue, if a girl looks like she has alot of physical strength, but is wearing a miniskirt i'm sure a rapist would be less likely to "prey" on her.

When I was out with a mate about two weeks ago, I saw a girl dancing with a guy, he was feeling her up, but, well, I thought they were going out or that she liked that sort of thing, who knows, anyway I saw her again later, by this point he was practically undressing her in the middle of the dance floor! She looked drunk, infact i'm pretty sure she was. My point- should I have interveined? I mean is it really any of my business for all I know maybe they were going out together. I don't know about other people if they maybe would have thought the same, was I being a wuss not saying anything? Or was I being selfish for not getting involved incase it got ugly for me? What's the right answer? I agree with what Trousers said about going out dancing with other people so you've always got someone watching your back, but would you want to go out to a nightclub on your own anyway? :confused: I know I wouldn't, no fun!

Ok, there's a point in there somewhere.
Ash x

David Bailey
13th-December-2005, 09:50 AM
When I was out with a mate about two weeks ago, I saw a girl dancing with a guy, he was feeling her up, but, well, I thought they were going out or that she liked that sort of thing, who knows, anyway I saw her again later, by this point he was practically undressing her in the middle of the dance floor! She looked drunk, infact i'm pretty sure she was. My point- should I have interveined?
IMO, no, from the description you've given. But I wasn't there, I don't know the people or the situation. The only thing you can do is use your judgement, and do what you think is right at that time and place. Not very helpful I know :sad:

MartinHarper
9th-December-2006, 12:52 PM
So this and related surveys have been back in the news again. They were talking about folks being too drunk to consent to sex. One panelist commented on the possibility of "mutual rape". That is, if a man and woman both get too drunk to consent to sex, and have sex with each other, then the man has raped the woman (because he had sex with her without determining that she was consenting to sex), and the woman has raped the man (because she had sex with him without determining that he was consenting to sex).

Lee Bartholomew
10th-December-2006, 10:25 AM
Thats a very good point but the courts don't recognise rape of a man by a woman as the man would have to be turned on to perform and thereofore consents, even if he was drugged (ie spiked with viagra) :what:.

The most a woman would be charged with is sexual assualt.

When I spent some time studying for my Ilex (Institute of Legal Executives) exams, one of the first things we were taught is that it's a womans world in The Land of the Law.

MartinHarper
10th-December-2006, 02:13 PM
The most a woman would be charged with is sexual assualt.

She can also be charged with assault by penetration in some circumstances, I believe, but you're right that she can't be charged with rape.

Lee Bartholomew
10th-December-2006, 02:17 PM
She can also be charged with assault by penetration in some circumstances, I believe, but you're right that she can't be charged with rape.


Don't think I would want to meet that woman :sick:

MartinHarper
10th-December-2006, 02:34 PM
Don't think I would want to meet that woman :sick:

I imagine that assault by penetration is an unpleasant experience, certainly.

Lee Bartholomew
10th-December-2006, 02:36 PM
I imagine that assault by penetration is an unpleasant experience, certainly.

It not. i mean I err. :whistle: