Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
What? This doesn't make any kind of sense.
High profiles murders in the U.S: what is going on?
- Thread starter nomadthethird
- Start date
What? This doesn't make any kind of sense.
swears
preppy-kei
I'm all for these ideas, I hope that they can be implemented in the future. There was a campaign in Britain a few years ago that spelled out "If she says no, it's rape, no ifs or buts..." But these are few and far between. There should also be education on the personal safety side of things in a way that doesn't apportion blame to the victim.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
In court, if a mesothelioma victim sues their employer, the jury does not listen to hours of testimony in which the victim's employer says "well, they shouldn't have worked for us." Nope. Instead, the mesothelioma victim is awarded damages because it was the employer's responsibility to ensure that there was no exposed asbestos in the workplace.
But when it comes to rape, the suggestion that a woman was drunk was all but proof that SHE didn't take the proper precautions to ensure that she not be victimized, simply by going about her daily activities.
This was the defense in the landmark case "The Casablanca 5" in my hometown, wherein Krista Absalon (my next door neighbor) was gang raped by men (some of it with broken bottles) at a restaurant/bar. There were several witnesses. The men admitted that they had forced themselves upon her while she was too drunk to open her eyes, communicate, or be responsive.
But all five were cleared of serious charges because Krista was known to have sex with men while drunk in the past, and in her passedout state did not say "no."
But when it comes to rape, the suggestion that a woman was drunk was all but proof that SHE didn't take the proper precautions to ensure that she not be victimized, simply by going about her daily activities.
This was the defense in the landmark case "The Casablanca 5" in my hometown, wherein Krista Absalon (my next door neighbor) was gang raped by men (some of it with broken bottles) at a restaurant/bar. There were several witnesses. The men admitted that they had forced themselves upon her while she was too drunk to open her eyes, communicate, or be responsive.
But all five were cleared of serious charges because Krista was known to have sex with men while drunk in the past, and in her passedout state did not say "no."
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
This was not in 1910, it was in the mid 90s. I wish it were an aberation, but it's a daily occurence.
Hey, here's a paper about Krista's story and "rape victim culpability":
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/mawhatley/7670/sampaper.htm
Hey, here's a paper about Krista's story and "rape victim culpability":
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/mawhatley/7670/sampaper.htm
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Right, thought so. So apparently I think "sex and rape are interchangeable terms"? I find that a rather repellent personal slight.
jambo
slip inside my schlafsack
Thanks but I think you just can't see what I'm saying.
And thanks for the further pedantic lesson on drugs. I say kilos because you know in a lot of places an ounce isn't going to *cause* you trouble, but it's no big deal.
You miss the point, the examples were presented in a slightly humorous way so it's easy to see why. I'm referring to this idea that we can not *cause* the actions of others. That may well be the case, we don't, although I'm not sure it's actually that clear cut, but as keeps being said here no-one is claiming that and it's not the issue. Anything we do can make it more or less probable that something else might or might not happen. This is a general point and it's applicable to any action. Would you like to argue about this?
I've already acknowledged what you have said about the circumstances of the majority of rape attacks. But of course you seem to have no problem arguing with people who agree with you.
I said it wasn't an analogy, or did you miss that? And yes, it was supposed to be a bit ridiculous, I should think that was obvious.
I think it shows where your mind is at really tbh.
Presumably you can't read this then but it's good to know that wilful ignorance is alive and well.
Found this, which may be of interest in the rape vs sex discussion
"Some feminists argue that rape is the violent expression of sex. This for me makes it sound like something that is done together, and clearly, it is not a mutually shared experience. Further deconstruction is necessary. For the victim it is a defilement of their civil rights and therefore acutely violent. However, it may be sex for the man. For full penetration to take place he needs an erection. Arousal is mediated though the brain by internal (fantasy) and external sexual stimuli and in this way it becomes a blood lust, a joy in violation and destruction, he becomes sexually aroused by power and violence, brutal, and often mutilating, whether inflicted on a male or female victim (Paglia, 1990, Ussher, 1991). "
From http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0205b.html
"Some feminists argue that rape is the violent expression of sex. This for me makes it sound like something that is done together, and clearly, it is not a mutually shared experience. Further deconstruction is necessary. For the victim it is a defilement of their civil rights and therefore acutely violent. However, it may be sex for the man. For full penetration to take place he needs an erection. Arousal is mediated though the brain by internal (fantasy) and external sexual stimuli and in this way it becomes a blood lust, a joy in violation and destruction, he becomes sexually aroused by power and violence, brutal, and often mutilating, whether inflicted on a male or female victim (Paglia, 1990, Ussher, 1991). "
From http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0205b.html
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Seeing as women are statistically far more likely to be raped while at home with someone they know, why aren't men in this thread/the media, if they're *really* *actually* concerned with lowering a woman's chances of being raped, telling women to go out and drink MORE, because a woman's chance of being raped while out of the home drinking is far less (with a ratio of 3:1 rapes committed in the home versus out of the home/out with a boyfriend) than a woman's chance of being raped while at home with a friend/family member or on a date with a boyfriend?
Answer: because it's not "real" concern they're expressing, it's a fantasy about the inherent "vulnerability" of women over/against which they've defined their own sexuality and masculinity. It's threatening to their "female protectionist" posture to admit that it's actually men in positions of trust who usually rape woman, and most of these rapes are disavowed by rapists. The media myth of the foaming at the mouth monsterous stranger rapist needs to be laid to rest, if we really want to lower women's chances of being raped.
Everyone is inherently vulnerable to injury and sexual assault. Women are more vulnerable to rape. Men are more likely to commit rape while drunk. They are also more likely to assault other men in a fight or brawl while drunk. Women are less likely to be raped while drunk. A female rape victim is less likely than her rapist to be drunk. Yet it's women, rather than men, who should avoid alcohol?
Check the links I've already posted if you don't believe me.
Answer: because it's not "real" concern they're expressing, it's a fantasy about the inherent "vulnerability" of women over/against which they've defined their own sexuality and masculinity. It's threatening to their "female protectionist" posture to admit that it's actually men in positions of trust who usually rape woman, and most of these rapes are disavowed by rapists. The media myth of the foaming at the mouth monsterous stranger rapist needs to be laid to rest, if we really want to lower women's chances of being raped.
Everyone is inherently vulnerable to injury and sexual assault. Women are more vulnerable to rape. Men are more likely to commit rape while drunk. They are also more likely to assault other men in a fight or brawl while drunk. Women are less likely to be raped while drunk. A female rape victim is less likely than her rapist to be drunk. Yet it's women, rather than men, who should avoid alcohol?
Check the links I've already posted if you don't believe me.
Last edited:
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
This is interesting, but as you pointed out in an earlier post, date rapists often don't resort to violence (maybe because they don't have to, the woman is already alone with the person which makes it tougher for her to get away) and other research suggests that they rarely will admit that they've committed rape.
So even though date rape is also a violent act, it's hard to say whether the date rapist understands that his own sexuality is warped toward victimization and sexual violence. This doesn't mean that the violence isn't there, just that it's probably difficult to convince date rapists that they've done something wrong, given society's propensity toward victim blaming.
It's not about the drinking though, it's about the vulnerablility. A woman in the home alone clearly has no-one else around if the rapist decides to rape. I'd imagine a fairly large percentage of those also involve alcohol too. Judging by the domestic abuse cases we get coming through my work, alchohol taken by both parties seems to be a contributing factor, for the abuser because it disinhibits their urge to violence and for the abused because it makes them easier to attack.
Chatting to one of the female lawyers at work a while back, and she said that one of the best ways to combat domestic abuse was to build girls' self-esteem when they were younger so they could recognize these scumbags earlier and not feel that being beaten and possibly raped was all they were worth.
You're still wrong. Endless, increasingly tedious repetition will not change this. Seems to me you're projecting your negative concept of what you'd like us to be, regardless of whether we say otherwise in a desperate attempt to appear right. Basically your theory only stands up if we're all liars. Very scientific, not to mention offensive to everyone you've just slated.
Chatting to two women friends last night about this discussion, and they think that it's women constantly projecting narrow stereotypes of men (and quite often women too) and their emotionally-laden but analysis-lite theories that have actually caused far more damage to the feminist cause than most men could ever do. Most men don't have a problem with equal rights for women, most think that violence against women is wrong, most feel repulsed that rape occurs. Most however are unlikely to align themselves with branches of feminism that tell them they are something they're not, or damn them for the actions of a few. That is a losing game.
I haven't once said that I was going to be protecting anyone, I said that women should protect themselves, and drink responsibly if they're out on their own which is exactly the same advice my female friends would give to women. Obviously though, given that I'm a man, when the advice comes from me it's patriarchal flexing, when it comes from them it's sensible advice.
Which is to say that those forms of violence that are already inscribed into the symbolic order, that is to say, structural injustice, are not considered to be violent at all. ("She was asking for it", "She's only a slut", "I just did what I'm supposed to do in that situation" etc).
Shonx said:
Yeah, but is it really just transparent 'advice'? Is there really anyone - other than the imaginary stereotype of the idiot zombie drunk - who thinks it's a bright idea to deliberately binge-drink to the point of chronically impaired senselessness? The implication, here, again, is that an inebriated person (male or female) who is raped is implicated in the crime by virtue of their drunken over-indulgence, just as a scantily-clad ("provocative") woman might be, or - in the extreme case - a prostitute (What are a prostitute's chances of convincing anyone that she's been raped, much less mounting a successful prosecution? Or, indeed, of a male-rape victim?).
As regards scapegoating/fetishizing alcohol ("It's the drink that done it"), there's a telling double move here: if a woman is raped while drunk, she's implicated; if a man rapes while drunk, it's an alibi. Rather than the reverse.
Really, alcohol is not the central issue here; or rather, it's a symptom of the structural prejudice/obsession.
Nicolas Roeg remembers. 'The actors were frightened when they realised the disgust you feel when you can't control yourself. It's an extraordinary, horrible crime, rape. And you don't often see the rape of the unconscious. Usually it's someone dragged screaming into the bushes. There's a lot of acting going on. There wasn't a lot of acting in that scene."
jambo
slip inside my schlafsack
Waffle, presumably you acknowledge that a great many people do deliberately binge-drink to the point of chronically impaired senselessness? Do you mean to say then that they don't expect to get that wasted, or do you mean that they don't think it's a bright idea but choose to do it anyway?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well many thousands of people, men and women, do it every weekend in this country alone. Their intentions when they set out for the night are pretty irrelevant from the point of view of their vulnerability to predatory criminals, pointless brawls, motor traffic or liver disease.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Yeah sure, I was talking more to him than to you. My point was that 'idiot zombie drunks' do exist and are indeed fairly commonplace.
Last edited:
Shonx was claiming that condescendingly lecturing to women about the dangers of drunkeness (public or private) will help protect them from being molested/raped, implying that those women who do get plastered only do so on account of their ignorance or a lack of knowledge of the perils of unrestrained drinking.
This fails to acknowledge the formal omnipresence, in consumer society, of fetishistic disavowal: the inconsistency between knowledge and behaviour ... knowing something is wrong but doing it anyway (and the more repressive the 'lecturing', the greater the contrary 'rebellious' behavioural response). The environmentalist who travels on airliners regularly, drives a gas-guzzler, etc in spite of himself; the smoker who knows that smoking is potentially lethal but continues smoking nonetheless; the critic of advertising who nevertheless buys all the 'right' brands; the 'anti-capitalist' who takes a job in a bank; Bob Geldof accepting £100,000 for himself every time he's invited to make an after-dinner speech in which he rant's incoherently about 'poverty'; etc, etc (the current financial meltdown has unleashed a million more).
This was, for the most part, a discussion about rape, concerning which alcohol is largely a red herring, yet it insists on returning as a topic. So maybe you should ask ...
"OK, most people who rape excessively think it's not such a good idea but do it anyway.
What then would the perils of unrestrained raping be understood to be?"
jambo
slip inside my schlafsack
That's not the quesion I'm asking, I ask it for a reason, it's pertinent to this discussion which has moved on a number of times. Do you really want to make a case for the equivalence of the two questions?
But OK, we have established that most drinkers who drink excessively do so with an awareness that it is wrong or perilous.
You go on to say.
But OK, we have established that most drinkers who drink excessively do so with an awareness that it is wrong or perilous.
In other words they know what they are doing, we don't need to tell them, it's condescending.waffle said:
You go on to say.
So what is meant here? That we can not claim there is culpability and responsibility on the part of these excessive drinkers for placing themselves in peril and doing something they understand to be wrong because 'disavowal' in various forms is all over the place? Or is it that to do so would be hypocritical or somehow unfair?waffle said: