If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Oh, "women do this", do they? Thanks for letting me know, it's so hard to keep on track of what we women are doing these days.
Women should indeed take responsibility for their own safety; I wasn't suggesting otherwise.
I was merely angry at the suggestion that short skirts and alcohol inherently signal a disregard for your own safety, or somehow make you more deserving of being raped than a woman walking down the road clothed from head to toe and stone-cold sober. They do not.
That's obviously the solution, why didn't I think of that earlier...
lets add a little spice and inflame the topic
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21502
but girls are still going to be raped while under the influence, charge and because they were too drunk to remember if they consented...the rapist will still get off.
A bit of personal responsibility is needed here, along with some education. Amnesty International released the results of a study recently, which showed some very worrying ideas. I don't remember the exact results, but some people had the idea that a woman in revealing clothes was "fair game" or "asking for it". Such attitudes are disturbing and have no place anymore.
My only problem remains this; how does a man prove he's received consent from a woman? Currently, it's his word against hers. What is he meant to do? Is a lawyer meant to get them to sign a contract saying "I consent to sexual intercourse with this person"? The Government has no place interfering in people's bedrooms. It does not reduce the seriousness of rape, a heinous crime, but as always, this government's solution is more meddling, more work for jobsworths, more intereference.
How about they encourage men AND women to show some responsibility for their own actions? How about making sure that people who falsely cry rape are punished harshly? And how about giving anoymity to those involved in court cases so we don't see the spectacle of men being ripped to pieces in the media? For instance, when John Leslie was accused of rape, he was torn to pieces by the tabloids, thrown to the wolves. When I saw him being acquitted and in tears, I felt incredibly angry at the way he had been treated. Yes, his attitudes towards women were questionable, but he did not deserve to be shredded through trial by media.
And that reminds me... how about the government impose restrictions on media reporting of rape cases? The press needs to be put in its place at times. But no, that would bring in the claim "oh, Labour's trying to censor the press", wouldn't it? :rolleyes: Frankly, the way media outlets like The Sun and the Daily Mail report these things, a bit of censorship would be in order!
My point is, everyone has a part to play in this. The law needs to provide anonymity until cases are finished, found either guilty or not guilty. The media needs to report on these things without hysterical sensationalism. The politicians need to encourage personal responsibility instead of a sexual free-for-all and the people need to exercise more personal responsibility and abandon these stupid ideas that somehow, women dressed in next to nothing are asking for trouble.
http://www.sex-contract.com/
so cant a contract on a house or a mortgage, or anything in the financial and business world be forged then?
Technically yeah she has the right to not get raped, but I doubt a rapist is going to stop and think that, same way as a mugger isnt going to stop and think "Oh, that old lady has the RIGHT to keep her life savings, I'll just leave her alone." The world aint like that. Thats why the old lady keeps her purse hidden, rather than waving it about to see.
Its a hard fact that if you choose to walk around dressed in nothing showing off every primitive sex signal you have, then youre going to attract every creep and try-it-on in town.
The counter-argument would be that men should take care not to get so drunk that they are unable to judge whether their potential partner is too inebriated to have their rational faculties about them when consenting.
Maybe everyone needs to drink a bit less, and think a bit more.
Saying that one sex is to blame more than the other probably isn't helpful, everyone needs to take responsibility for themselves, influenced by alcohol or not.
You're being serious? Switching innocent unless proven guilty around would provide massive scope for deceitful accusations, it's almost a free reign to send anyone off to jail for a few years. Surely you can see that? No responsible legal system could work like that.
What you're suggesting is one sure way of setting up a culture of legal deceit and in doing so tarnishing the public perception of rape victims as a group.
It's not the solution.
Is it preferable to automatically disbelieve a woman until she can provide solid physical (or other) evidence? No wonder so many attacks (of males and females) go unreported.
Neither is ideal, of course. To be honest, I don't have a clue what the solution is (or even what a step in the right direction is), it's a minefield.
Then you'd be an idiot.
It;'s that very attitiude that means that shit sticks.
I got flasley accused of grabbing a girls arse the other day, becuase it suited her to get me kicked out of the pub. Infact I was arrested for it. Is it then for me to proove that I didn't do it?
Fucking right it should be. Just because a lot of rapes don't lead to a conviction does not mean less notice should be taken of this most vital principle.
Never should it be assumed that somebody is guilty.
Yeah, you might consider it genuine on a personal level, but legally it has to be treated differently. If legally the woman was always believed de facto then only an accusation is effectively required for most cases to result in a jail term. That's blatantly fucked up, because although at the moment false accusations may be a tiny minority (i'll take people's word for it, although i don't quite see how that can exactly be known as people making false accusations are hardly likely to admit so), such a change would undoubtedly cause a massive increase in deceitful claims.
The crux of the matter is that there's no protection of the innocent. Let's face it, whether you're talking about men or women the collective moral conscience is dubious at best. A society where one person can have another jailed for an unsubstantiated accusation is absolutely insane imo, whether it's over rape, assault, theft...whatever.
The counter-argument is obviously that women should take responsibility for how drunk they get and who they consent to fuck. Why is responsibility entirely with males, as you suggest?
Even a small amount of alcohol changes mental functioning, so that's really a non-point. Consent is consent, end of. How wrecked you get on a night out and who you fuck about with consensually is your responsibility and yours alone.
I have every sympathy for rape victims but none for drunks who regret their consensual actions the next day - everyone knows the effects of alcohol and if you can't handle it, don't do it.