So according to some feminists, this anti-rape ad campaign is sexist
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
No, it's not talking about "regret sex" (god I hate the whole idea and mindset behind that), it's saying "If you drink you will not be able to fight off rapists and it will be your fault"Nocola said:
I don't think that two drunk people having sex should be illegal.
Nor do I think that a drunk and a non-drunk person having sex should be illegal.
Hypothetically, I have a girlfriend, and we have sex all the time. If one night I'm drunk and we have sex, why should that be illegal if both are consenting at the time? Additionally, I see no difference from a legal standpoint between this (which obviously shouldn't be illegal) and a drunk girl having sex with some guy she just met while drunk.
If you don't specifically say no, either, then there is no way for the other person to believe that you don't want to if you're going along with the actions. There is no such thing as "she wanted to say no but couldn't" unless she was drugged very heavily (unbeknownst to her) or was coerced into it, both of which are illegal themselves. It's also very sexist against men, and the endorses the idea that men can't be raped or have similarly regretful drunken sex, or that these instances "aren't the same" as for a girl.
EDIT: Realize now that I interpreted the sign totally wrong, that it's about whether or not it's okay to tell a girl to be safe to help avoid rapeful situations.
Of-fucking-course it is. Don't go driving in a shitty part of town if you know you're likely to get robbed there. It's not "your fault," but you certainly helped cause it by being retardedly unsafe about it. Obviously excludes date-rape and situations that couldn't be reasonably avoided.
Nor do I think that a drunk and a non-drunk person having sex should be illegal.
Hypothetically, I have a girlfriend, and we have sex all the time. If one night I'm drunk and we have sex, why should that be illegal if both are consenting at the time? Additionally, I see no difference from a legal standpoint between this (which obviously shouldn't be illegal) and a drunk girl having sex with some guy she just met while drunk.
If you don't specifically say no, either, then there is no way for the other person to believe that you don't want to if you're going along with the actions. There is no such thing as "she wanted to say no but couldn't" unless she was drugged very heavily (unbeknownst to her) or was coerced into it, both of which are illegal themselves. It's also very sexist against men, and the endorses the idea that men can't be raped or have similarly regretful drunken sex, or that these instances "aren't the same" as for a girl.
EDIT: Realize now that I interpreted the sign totally wrong, that it's about whether or not it's okay to tell a girl to be safe to help avoid rapeful situations.
Of-fucking-course it is. Don't go driving in a shitty part of town if you know you're likely to get robbed there. It's not "your fault," but you certainly helped cause it by being retardedly unsafe about it. Obviously excludes date-rape and situations that couldn't be reasonably avoided.
The basic feminist logic is that if a woman goes home with a guy while she is drunk and decides to have sex with him while she is drunk then it's the guys fault for taking advantage of her, but if a guy who is drunk takes home a girl who is drunk and decides to have sex with her it's the guys fault for taking advantage of her...
So basically it's the guys fault no matter what. Girl goes to a guys hotel room at 3am in the morning to take drugs and drink then ends up being "raped" It's the guys fault.
I say, follow the feminist advice and leave the stupid drunk bitches on the side of the road to get run over by a bus or get taken home by a real rapist, it's not worth the risk anymore to even be alone with a girl because they will cry rape on you.
So basically it's the guys fault no matter what. Girl goes to a guys hotel room at 3am in the morning to take drugs and drink then ends up being "raped" It's the guys fault.
I say, follow the feminist advice and leave the stupid drunk bitches on the side of the road to get run over by a bus or get taken home by a real rapist, it's not worth the risk anymore to even be alone with a girl because they will cry rape on you.
This, right here. We shouldn't blame the person being raped. The wrong person is being judged, here - the person who did the raping should be condemned. It's like saying a jewelry store deserves to be robbed because it puts jewelry on display - that's hardly the case. The person robbing the store is entirely to blame.SuperMse said:
The unfortunate stigma these days is that if you are sexually assaulted, you somehow brought it upon yourself. Somehow, you asked for it. And that is really upsetting.
EDIT: Also, I really hate the instant labeling people give to someone arguing for rights as an extremist or something equally negative. Do women not have the right to speak up, anymore? One day we'll look back on this and laugh, like we do at the "Enlightenment Age" where people had some stupid idea of races and hierarchy.
You forget, if a sober girl convinces a drunk guy to have sex with her, it's not rape, since he probably liked it anyway.Partezan said:
False analogy. We're saying that, if a jewelry store owner not only puts their jewelry on display, but also right on the counter, not behind glass, with no cameras, and then leaves the store for awhile.Volan said:
The LEGAL responsibility is purely on the person committing the action, but the jewelry store is just as much the CAUSE of the robbery as the robber.
We should absolutely convince girls to lesson the chances of rape happening with ads like these. It's about being safe/responsible, same as ads saying not to go wandering around crack houses at night. Is it your legal responsibility if you're killed? No. Is it your own goddamn fault? Kinda, yeah.
Yeah I get it but I don't get it. It's like...telling a Rwandan women not to go out to do chores because she might get raped and when she does you say, "you should have thought twice about getting water from that well or trying to sell some things at the market or anything else necessary to...live." Of course the two situations of drunkenness versus men with guns who do basically whatever they want. Yeah...I understand both sides but the aggressor is *always at fault in my opinion.
*most of the time...
*most of the time...
I still think that blaming someone for something bad happening to them is, well, not wrong but certainly not helpful or beneficial, or even effective. I maintain that the person who did the crime should be punished, not the victim.chadachada123 said:
But I definitely agree with you in terms of teaching safety. There's no way we can iron out the issue itself by telling people no.
Maybe it's more a question of morals, and those stupid enough to go against them.
Exactly, because guys never have regrets about who they go to bed with.... If a guy regrets having sex with a girl it's pretty good advice for him not to drink so much, but if a girl goes home with a guy she regrets sleeping with, it's time to call the police and don't even think about telling the girl to stop drinking
Thirty years or so ago, the United States started an enormous media campaign against illegal drug use, hand in hand with stricter laws and enhanced law enforcement efforts to curtail drug crimes. There were posters and presentations in schools, after-school specials and cartoons, advertisements on the radio, on television, in magazines and newspapers. "Just Say No." "This is your brain on drugs". "Winners Don't Use Drugs."peruvianskys said:
For thirty years, people have been carpet-bombed with messages that they shouldn't use drugs, information about how drugs can harm them, and a pretty clear understanding that the powers that be felt that you should be ashamed of yourself if you used drugs.
The number of people who come into emergency rooms for drug overdoses have steadily climbed over the last three decades. So have the number of teenagers who admit to using drugs. So have the number of drug-related deaths. And if you ask someone in one of the border towns in Mexico about the success of the "War on Drugs", they will probably be too busy ducking bullets to talk to you.
The "War on Drugs" did not fail because people hadn't been told that they shouldn't use drugs.
Your statement is that rape occurs because rapists haven't been sufficiently educated. This does not follow. One would not conclude that everyone who commits murder is unaware that murder is wrong, or that everyone who commits arson is unaware arson is wrong, or that everyone who commits grand theft auto is unaware that grand theft auto is wrong. And none of those crimes- at least, usually- have anything like someone's sex drive backing them.
In matters of sex, people are perfectly capable of doing things they know are wrong. Indeed, some people specifically gravitate toward sexual acts because they know they are wrong. And that's even before alcohol or drugs enter the picture.
I'm not adverse to reasonable campaigns reminding men, especially in the teen years, that they have a responsibility to receive active consent rather than merely overcome resistance to sex. But I strongly feel that failing to advise women that some actions may put them at greater risk of sexual assault out of fear of mis-assigning blame is grotesque. If our goal is to prevent sexual assault- and if it isn't, it should be- then heaping disdain against one message about avoiding risky behavior skirts dangerously close to saying that it's acceptable that some women be raped, so long as we aren't offended by the tone of the message.
I think that it is entirely the rapists fault if a girl gets raped, BUT there is definitely some good in teaching young girls that hey, maybe it's not a good idea to get black out drunk at a club.
No rapists = no rape, that's a given. If the guy wasn't gonna rape the girl the issue would be solved, but purposely getting yourself absolutely destroyed isn't gonna help your odds. Does that make sense?
It's not blaming the victim to teach girls how to have a good night AND protect themselves from rapists by not putting themselves in such a vulnerable/risky position, or if you do - AT LEAST have some friends around or something to keep an eye on each other.
No rapists = no rape, that's a given. If the guy wasn't gonna rape the girl the issue would be solved, but purposely getting yourself absolutely destroyed isn't gonna help your odds. Does that make sense?
It's not blaming the victim to teach girls how to have a good night AND protect themselves from rapists by not putting themselves in such a vulnerable/risky position, or if you do - AT LEAST have some friends around or something to keep an eye on each other.
I think it is entirely the girl's fault if she chooses to get drunk enough that she would agree to have sex with someone she really didn't want to have sex with. Really, it's disgusting that "rape" can just be used as a justification by women to remove blame for their own actions. That shit really needs to stop.Nocola said:
Given that we hold people accountable for their actions while drunk in every other department, I really don't see how women keep getting away with this.
Say I got drunk, and gambled all my money away at the Casino. Would I be able to go back to that casino the next day and say "Look, I know I lost all my money here, but I was drunk at the time so give it back". Of course not!
The main difference between the war on drugs and rape is that while drug use is a personal choice that does not violate the rights of others, rape is not. Telling people what they can and can't do to their own bodies is a surefire way to breed contempt and disrespect for authority. Telling men that women do not exist as their own playthings is a completely different message.Callate said:
It's a strawman anyway though - I doubt anyone really supports a "Just Don't Rape" campaign or signs that remind men simply that rape is bad. I'm suggesting we put half the effort that goes towards teaching women how to avoid getting the attention of rapists (treating the symptom, if you will) and instead focus on making sure young men know about consent and what is and isn't appropriate (addressing the disease itself). Obviously if we want to reduce sexual assaults, then there is a place for teaching women how to avoid them; I'm simply saying that there should be a far bigger emphasis on making sure we raise young men in such a way that fewer and fewer rapists are out there in the first place. You're right that knee-jerk "YOU CAN'T TELL HER TO NOT DRINK YOU VICTIM BLAMER" is counter-productive, but so is refusing to address the root of the problem. It's great to teach children in Cambodia how to avoid landmines, but if you don't get people in there to root them out in the first place, all that effort won't do anything in the end.
Which is exactly the situation the ad is detailing. The ad is telling people to watch out for their friends when they drink, but a lot of people here can't see past "TELLING THE WOMAN TO TAKE PRECAUTIONS WHEN SHE GOES OUT!? YOU'RE BLAMING WOMAN FOR GETTING RAPED!!!!!!!"Nocola said:
Is it really fair to compare someone who had sex with a drunk girl with someone who forces a woman to the ground, forcibly removes her clothes and shoves his penis into her while she begs him to stop? Because that's basically what this is doing here.
I thought the ad was detailing a girl that got forced to the ground and raped? Or is it detailing a girl that gets drunk and sleeps with a random guy, because the first situation is rape. The second one is a drunken one night stand.MasochisticAvenger said:
EDIT: On further examination of the ad, it seems you're right. It's depicting a drunken one night stand, and once again I am confused. That's not rape. That's just 2 people hooking up... Albeit, that's stupid behaviour and it shouldn't happen, but it's not rape in the sense that she was forced or coerced into sex.