Women say some rape victims should take blame...

Another complex issue (we are good at bringing these up, are we not ).

Each case depends on it's merits, there is really no one size fits all. Also, each of us is only really able to judge based on our own experience, in my case, I did respectfully and without question withdraw on the one occassion that a woman I went to bed with changed her mind last minute when I was on full heat - actually I was very hurt mentally, I went right off heat and felf disgusted (with myself) for whatever I had done and in fact I would go so far as to say that I felt "mentally raped" myself by the experience. I do know however, that some other men would have reacted differently to me in these circumstances.

To conclude, women must take some responsibility overall, they can't just blame men 100 per cent in every case.

Plim

Yep sort of sums it up for me.

Each case is different BUT why do some women cry rape when in fact they have never been raped at all?

That does not help the cause of women who have been, it is those women that must bear the brunt of a lot of bad press some rape victims get, where in my view rape victims should be given all the help they need.

But the ones that cry rape should be jailed for a long time.

But does "no" mean "no" ?
Or maybe "no" means "no" at the time but "maybe later", later ?
Or maybe "yes" does not mean "yes", but means "no" ?
Whatever.
An allegation of rape against a man means he will be arrested.
That's the bottom line.
That arrest will affect the rest of his life.
Irrespective of what the police believe to be the truth, upon an allegation being made he WILL be arrested.
Hornets nest anyone ?

A strange one....This was in the Mail today...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251201/Young-woman-cried-rape-sex-public-toilet-escapes-jail.html


Certainly does not help matters!

As long as it is "No" BEFORE the event, then that's a 'NO'.
Clear and emphatic.

However ......

If it turns out to be a "No, I didn't really want to do that" AFTER the event, what then ? This is a very real and dangerous situation that does occur.

Very dodgy ground.

Maybe a pre-sexual agreement is what's required ?
(OK, only kidding !)

I know you'll think I'm being antagonistic, but in what way does this thoughtful and carefully reasoned decision to impose a community sentence not help matters?

Well, obviously all bisexuals are evil sex-obsessed liars, Kaznkev.

Back to the OP... I think that you're always responsible for your actions but not for anyone else's. So if you put yourself in a vulnerable position by drinking so much you can't stand up and then blundering your way home down darkened back streets... t will have to be admitted that you did a stupid thing. Doesn't mean you deserve to be raped, or that someone else's decision to rape you is in any way less wrong, but it is definitely true that you did a stupid thing and you bear responsibility for that. In the same way that if you leave your front door open and get robbed, the thief has still committed theft and can be prosecuted for that, but your insurance considers you responsible for compromising your security and won't repay you for the goods.

Foxy, I agree that someone who gets themselves drunk is liable for their actions in that even if they were too drunk to control their actions after becoming intoxicated, they still chose to get intoxicated and this applies to rapists as well.

The one exception is if they (back to victims now) didn't choose to get intoxicated:



Clear, people normally get drunk through their own actions and do therefore have to accept responsibility for shoving the booze down their necks.

Raping a drunk person is still rape and it's still wrong. Having consensual sex with a drunk person is clearly not a crime, or else we would all be guilty. Having consensual sex with someone who is going to regret it in the morning is also not a crime, or else I've been raped quite a few times. Having sex with someone who is soooooo drunk they can hardly talk, move or respond to the world around them is... pretty bad. In fact I'd say it's rape. But, it's not always easy to tell how drunk someone else is, particularly given that people continue becoming drunker as alcohol works its way into their system. I had quite a rational conversation with someone on Saturday night who can't remember it at all now, because she was hammered.

Anywhere between mildly tipsy with reduced inhibitions and comatose, there lies a grey area, if someone appears to be consenting (of course if they're drunkenly refusing there's no grey area at all). It's not very ethical to be taking advantage of someone who's really drunk, unless you're sure they want to be taken advantage of. But at exactly what stage a person becomes incapable of consenting is a really hard issue to define in court, which is why you shouldn't take yourself too close to that line unless you know you're in a safe environment.

If the victim is drunk it's still rape, and it's still wrong, but they are going to have difficulty making their evidence credible in court if they can't remember what they said; and if they appear to have said yes it becomes a hard case to win. Bottom line, you're responsible for your own safety. If you don't walk down dangerous streets alone late at night, and if you don't get massively drunk unless you're with people who are looking out for you, you are less likely to be raped. And at the end of the day not being raped is much better than being raped and winning the trial. If you expose yourself to risk, you are responsible for your actions in doing that. If someone else takes advantage of it, they're responsible for their actions in raping you.

Never entered my head for a second.

I would not refer to the kind of radical femminists who advocate castration as left wing,

mind you i prefer not to refer to dworkin and her ilk at all as i am a traitor in so many ways