So according to some feminists, this anti-rape ad campaign is sexist

[Lazier Than Thou]

-snip-

Okay, but here's a discrepancy:

Their definition for rape and their extrapolated numbers are completely unreasonable. Let's go back to the crime statistics from the FBI report I linked to that says approximately 90,000 rapes occurred in 2010. For the sake of argument, I'll concede that the numbers aren't 100% because they don't fit the whole bill. To that end, I suggest that the number be tripled despite the fact that I, personally, view them to be complete.

That's an end result of about 270,000 rapes in 2010. Huge number, lots of hurting people. But let's go back to the numbers from the study. How many rapes did they estimate for 2010?

1,270,000. One million in a 12 month period. Five times the number reported by the edited FBI.

Either a lot of people are being anally, orally, or unconsciously violated and aren't being included or that report is 100% BS.

 

[AquaAscension]

I fail to see why you guys are responding so vehemently against this. Is it because someone said the magic f word? No, not that one, the other one. Because this ad campaign is victim blaming at its best. It's telling women to avoid getting raped as opposed to telling men not to rape. It's making them the problem, not the rapists. That's wrong. Why make this ad as opposed to making ads saying "Don't get drunk and take advantage of women, ya prick." I mean, imagine if you were raped while drunk and then someone said it was your fault. How would you respond? All you were doing was having a typical fun night out. It's the rapists fault for raping you, not the other way around. Yes, you should always take precautions to protect yourself, but isn't always walking around in fear of rape counterproductive to having a fun night out? Should you not party on the grounds that you might be raped, just like you shouldn't drive a car in case a drunk driver hits you? Of course not.

Rape is the rapist's fault. Target your ads at them, not the victims.

I agree on most parts except a few.

This advertisement is putting all the onus of safety on the woman. I.e., if you don't watch yourself, you could have something terrible happen to you. The wording might be harsh, but this is actually an appropriate message. When driving your car, you ought to be taught to be a defensive driver regardless of your sex/gender. You ought to leave yourself a way to get away so that you may, if need be, avoid being plowed by some drunk on the road. This is called awareness. It is necessary for safety.

However, telling people to be in control of their safety is not the same as telling others to be conscientious of others' safety as well. In other words, teaching people to be a defensive driver does *NOT* make it okay for people to drink and drive (the logic fallaciously applied as "it's okay if I drink and drive, because everyone else is looking out for him/herself.")

Now the analogy starts to fall apart a bit because let's say that now men are the only ones who are capable of drinking and driving; they're the only ones who get drunk on the road. They're the only ones who can be dangerous. It's not that women don't drink, it's that they aren't dangerous when they're drunk. I would feel very insulted if people told me, "Hey, don't drink and drive" because this is something I already know. It is an ideal already woven into my moral fiber. Same with "Don't rape." You don't need to tell me this.

In fact, even saying "Don't rape" misses the issue entirely. It implies that men have the urge to do such and only after they're told not to do they ascent to give up their primal urges. That's crap. Saying "Don't rape" I'm arguing is just as silly as saying "Don't get raped."

What ought to happen instead is a radical reevaluation of how we talk about sex and how intercourse is thought of - i.e. when it becomes okay to have sex - what is consent.

I think the onus for this ought to be on men. Men should have to ask, "Would you like to have sex?" (Or some variation that doesn't sound so creepy?) This firmly places the act of consent into a dialogue. The woman must either ascent to his request or reject it.

Current sexual standards seem to play out as the guy essentially forcing himself onto the girl until the point at which she says, "No" or just lets it happen. This is problematic for several reasons. Primarily, it is problematic in that saying nothing does not equal consent. If the man asks first, then there is a clearly defined consent or rejection.

It may sound less romantic, and it may be depending on your definition of romance, but relationships are acts of communication. Intimate relationships have way more at stake than friendships do. If a friend showed up at your house and ate your food until you told them to stop, that person would be a terrible friend most likely.

I think we need to decouple this idea that sex is magical from the act of sex itself. Sex is strange, passionate, violent (at times), kinky, awkward, and so many other things. But it is a standard biological procedure. Talking about it doesn't destroy its sanctity. Asking about it doesn't lessen its appeal. And, I'll be honest, asking a woman to have sex and hearing her say yes is kind of akin to that first time you ask a girl to dance. Except with sex. Nothing sexier than having a woman say she wants you.

*Note*: This does not apply when alcohol is involved. The simple rule should be: If you drink, don't ask for a ride... Err... You know, something that says "Don't drink and sex." But with a rhyme. Preferably.

Agree/Disagree/Neither/Both?

 

[LiquidGrape]

"Alcohol is definitely a huge factor when it comes to sexual assault, but in no circumstances is it ever the victim's fault" I see these two as kind of contradictory, take some responsibility ... if I leave my front door open and I get robbed, it is partly my fault for doing that.

Should I have to lock my door? No 'cos everybody should be decent enough not to steal but people do steal and people do rape, so stop being stupid and getting so boozed up you become a target!

Using the same analogy, imagine if the police showed up to my flat.

"was your door locked?"
"no"
"why?"
"people should be decent enough not to rob me"
" ....... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

"were you drunk?"
"yes"
"ok, were you wearing reveling clothes?"
"yes"
"ok, were you leading guys on only to turn them away?"
"yes"
"ok, were you alone in a dark alley?"
"yes"
"damn those rapists! Picking on a poor innocent woman ..."

I am not saying they were asking for it or encouraging it but they made themselves a target.

Let me extend that analogy to show you the problem with it.

"So you were walking at night."
"Yes."
"Wearing a rolex"
"Yes."
"With someone you'd met at a bar and had been talking to for a while."
"Yes."
"They saw what was in your wallet when you were buying drinks?"
"Well, yeah?"
"So why were you surprised when this person you met mugged you? I mean, you should've been more careful."

You see, the vast majority, 70-80 or so % of sexual assaults occur when the perpetrator knows the victim. This can be met at a party, known for years, someone the perpetrator cares for etc. Hell, it can happen within marriages because consent is never automatic.

The reason that feminists have a problem with this as victim blaming is that it doesn't address the root of the problem, which is a wildly unhealthy attitude to consent especially among young people. We've had the "no is no" campaign for a while which is good, but it needs to extend to "yes is yes, and only yes is yes." Not silence, not begruding acquiescence because of perceived favours owed, not semi-conscious quavering. Yes. Consistent, happy and persistent yes, however that is communicated throughout all of the proceedings. That yes does not have to be verbal, it can be communicated through eager and willing participation, it doesn't have to be phrased like that, it can be negotiated beforehand then maintained by the opportunity to use a safe word if that consent is withdrawn, but communication is essential whichever way.

That add says "She couldn't say no." What it should say was "She didn't say yes." This goes for all people involved. There was a case a few years back in Australia where a woman was gang raped in a hotel room. She believes she did say no at one point, drunkenly, passing in and out of consciousness. They didn't stop. This was a football team and became a massive scandal because it laid bare a very problematic culture in the sport and in the wider community.

Personally I don't understand the appeal. Sex when semi-conscious cannot be as good as sex when entirely conscious with eager participants. Ad campaigns doing this are much harder because unless it's a date-rape drug or something similar, I doubt anyone goes out to a party with the idea of "Yeahhhh, I'm gonna totally rape someone tonight. It'll be awesome." The ambiguity is the issue for all parties involved. If people communicate better about consent and are aware of these issues it will mean that there's less fear about becoming a victim, less fear about becoming a perpetrator, fewer difficult and ambiguous cases, and a much healthier culture all around.

Give yourself a gold fucking star, trophy, or medal for hitting this one so precisely.

How did I miss this.
Post of the thread right there.
Thank you.

 

[R Man]

The problem with the 'blame the rapist' issue is it robs women of any agency. In this portrayal men are still cast as the actors who can choose either to rape or not to rape. They still have all the power. Women are essentially cast as inert who must hope that the men around them are not rapists. By 'targeting the rapist' you are essentially saying that women are at the mercy of men.

So I ask, why is it bad to take precautions? Why shouldn't women take steps to protect themselves? Protecting yourself is not the same as accepting blame.


And I am aware that not all rapists are men and not all victims are women. For the record.

 

[Newtonyd]

I see a lot of tired robbing analogies in this thread. Let's take that a step further, shall we?

Man: Hello, I'd like to report a mugging.
Officer: A mugging, eh? Where did it take place?
Man: I was walking by 21st and Dundritch Street and a man pulled out a gun and said, "Give me all your money."
Officer: And did you?
Man: Yes, I co-operated.
Officer: So you willingly gave the man your money without fighting back, calling for help or trying to escape?
Man: Well, yes, but I was terrified. I thought he was going to kill me!
Officer: Mmm. But you did co-operate with him. And I've been informed that you're quite a philanthropist, too.
Man: I give to charity, yes.
Officer: So you like to give money away. You make a habit of giving money away.
Man: What does that have to do with this situation?
Officer: You knowingly walked down Dundritch Street in your suit when everyone knows you like to give away money, and then you didn't fight back. It sounds like you gave money to someone, but now you're having after-donation regret. Tell me, do you really want to ruin his life because of your mistake?
Man: This is ridiculous!
Officer: This is a rape analogy. This is what women face every single day when they try to bring their rapists to justice.
Man: Fuck the patriarchy.
Officer: Word.

It used to be more than just analogy, in the early days of America. For it to be considered rape, Common Law required the victim to fight with all their strength against the rapist, regardless of threat and so on.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Well, that depends. Did you ask two, maybe three times? Well then, you are just fine. That's just asking and respecting those no's, but know she's playing hard to get, I guess.

How about ten times, getting increasingly angrier with her? Ah, what do I know. I'm sure that every woman loves being asked repeatedly, day after day, from the same guy, if she will get him off. That's great, and totally not harassment. Or perhaps it is a boyfriend that is saying that if she loved him she would do this one thing, and asking for it again and again. That probably doesn't have any bearing on a woman's thought process.

Anyways, there are different classifications of rape. The type you are thinking of is forcible rape. That is the type where you hold them down and they physically try to fight you. There are other types, just like there is more than just physical abuse. Beating the person down by persistently asking for sex is also rape when they have told you no more than once. Using emotional appeals to get them to do things they don't want to do is also rape.

You can't rape someone without force. It can't happen. Force is necessary for rape to occur. Forcible rape is redundant.

Legal definition of rape taken from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will.

See how force is in there?

So, taking your meaning about the emotional appeals, when my kids come up to me and beg me for money, hanging on my leg with their "pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease" and when I eventually give in, that's theft? Because I lose my money against my will due to an emotional plea. Should I have my kids sent to jail because they mugged me with their big brown puppy dog eyes? I mean, they harassed me day after day after I got home from work. It wasn't a one time thing, it's a daily beat down where I have to struggle just to get in the door.

The evil bastards are probably plotting to do it again tomorrow. This is premeditated! I'm calling the police.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

i actually think that ad is helpful.
no, seriously.
if you take a drink from a stranger, then take more from them (which is basically what this ad is saying) you could get spiked and raped.
saying this ad is wrong is wrong. it tells people who are at risk to be safe. that isnt wrong. if i said to a woman "dont take drinks from strangers. they could drug them and rape you." would they expect me to instead go up to any guy offering her drinks and say "hey, dont offer her a drink. it could be drugged you rapist!" no, she wouldnt.
and it isnt sexist, because (at least in scotland) men can't get raped. so it cant have a second as with a man in that position.

anyway, why would an ad stop a crime? there are ads against knife-crime here, it still happens. there are ads against drunk-driving. still happens. the difference is you can prevent date-rape by teaching safety. you cant teach people 'dont get stabbed'.

 

[LadyRhian]

The statistic you are using is for "forcible rape", not rape as a whole. Your link even says so. Sorry, but that';s not the same thing, and your rant here is unfounded. And all your "NOT RAPE" declarations ARE RAPE. Just not "forcible rape". So I see equivocation on your part over statistics.

Let me get this straight. If I ask a woman to give me oral sex multiple times and she complies, I just raped her?

That is so absolutely insulting to every woman that has been forcibly held down against her will and penetrated. You would seriously compare the two? They are the same? The battered victim and the woman that gives in are the same?

That's, frankly, disgusting.

Yes. Hounding someone for any kind ofsex is disgusting. Especially if she is in a relationship with you, "No" should mean "No". Not all rapes are forcible. And they can lead to the same feelings of shame and disgust.

I like the idea of them telling people not to drink to the point of stupidity, call me jaded but because at that point you are just as responsible for what you do as the drunk driver who crashes their car.

I am sure there are some cases where women are taken advantage of because they are drunk, but there are also a disgusting number that will regret a decision they made while they are drunk and scream rape a day after the fact, which I have seen happen to a friend of mine.

(sarcasm) And your friend should have known better than to take someone who'd been drinking to bed-also a stupid decision on his own part. He should have known he could have been called a rapist when the girl sobered up. (/sarcasm) It's no better to blame the man for this than the woman, isn't it? And yet, men have been armchair quarterbacking the decisions of women who got raped for a long time now.

And everything any man has ever done is perfect fuel to ignore what men say now as "victim-blaming", right?

Perhaps you missed the point where I was sarcastically doing what other posters here have done, armchair-quarterbacking the man's decisions. Like I said, how much does it sting when it's applied to the male instead of the female. Quite a lot, from your reaction. And yet, blaming the woman for drinking or wearing provocative clothing is just the same. I just turned it around on the man, Obviously, if you don't like it when it's applied to a man, why should you do the same to a woman who has been raped? It's equally horrible in both cases. I can see I made my point here rather well.

Females should be free and are free to wear whatever they want to, as far as I'm concerned. I can honestly state, without lie or equivocation, that I find women of all size, shape, and color attractive. That does not change the fact that I would feel brilliant for wearing assless chaps and no shirt or underwear then getting completely hammerjacked in a bar alone at 0200 in the middle of Baltimore Harbor.

Begging for precautions to be taken and moderation (or at least having friends who would watch after you as you'd watch after them) is the point of the poster. That includes not wearing a dental floss dress everywhere. Life is not fair, and will never be so.

See, you are once again blaming the victim for what they are wearing. You seem to keep doing that. Once again, armchair-quarterbacking the decision of what someone wears as an excuse for their rape. (And incidentally, "Dental floss everywhere" is probably going to run afoul of the decency laws and get the person arrested for indecent exposure). You keep returning to the idea that what a person is wearing can excuse their rape. No other crime gets that as a reason to let the assailant off- only rape. And that's wrong. You say one thing, but the argument you keep making puts the blame for the rape of a woman squarely on what she is wearing. "Dental Floss Everywhere" as you quoted. What about a little black dress? Is wearing that also the fault of a woman who gets raped? Women at parties wearing dresses that cover them get raped, too. Or when they haven't been drinking. And get raped by people they know. Saying, "Oh, she totally wouldn't have gotten raped if she hadn't been drinking or wearing that skanky dress." is blaming the victim. That's counter-productive.

 

[Machiavellian007]

Hypothetical scenario: Your best friend's parents went out to a party, where they stayed until quite late at night. On the way home, they were hit by another car, whose driver was perhaps drunk, and were killed instantly.

Would you then go up to your friend and say, "Well, I'm sorry that your parents died, but it was really their fault. They shouldn't have been driving so late at night. It's when most car accidents occur."

Unless you are someone with no sense of empathy, no you wouldn't.

A girl, Jessie Cate, was murdered by her ex-boyfriend this past week in Australia. She knew how violent he was, but she still stepped into his car when he came to pick her up from work. By the logic in this thread, it was her fault for being murdered. But wait, you cry, that's not the same! Obviously it's the murderer's fault for killing her!

Why would you tell anyone that it was their fault for being raped, then?

Rape is primarily not about sex. It is about power. It is not the victim's fault; it is the rapist's fault for committing the crime.

 

[LadyRhian]

"Alcohol is definitely a huge factor when it comes to sexual assault, but in no circumstances is it ever the victim's fault" I see these two as kind of contradictory, take some responsibility ... if I leave my front door open and I get robbed, it is partly my fault for doing that.

Should I have to lock my door? No 'cos everybody should be decent enough not to steal but people do steal and people do rape, so stop being stupid and getting so boozed up you become a target!

Using the same analogy, imagine if the police showed up to my flat.

"was your door locked?"
"no"
"why?"
"people should be decent enough not to rob me"
" ....... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

"were you drunk?"
"yes"
"ok, were you wearing reveling clothes?"
"yes"
"ok, were you leading guys on only to turn them away?"
"yes"
"ok, were you alone in a dark alley?"
"yes"
"damn those rapists! Picking on a poor innocent woman ..."

I am not saying they were asking for it or encouraging it but they made themselves a target.

Let me extend that analogy to show you the problem with it.

"So you were walking at night."
"Yes."
"Wearing a rolex"
"Yes."
"With someone you'd met at a bar and had been talking to for a while."
"Yes."
"They saw what was in your wallet when you were buying drinks?"
"Well, yeah?"
"So why were you surprised when this person you met mugged you? I mean, you should've been more careful."

You see, the vast majority, 70-80 or so % of sexual assaults occur when the perpetrator knows the victim. This can be met at a party, known for years, someone the perpetrator cares for etc. Hell, it can happen within marriages because consent is never automatic.

The reason that feminists have a problem with this as victim blaming is that it doesn't address the root of the problem, which is a wildly unhealthy attitude to consent especially among young people. We've had the "no is no" campaign for a while which is good, but it needs to extend to "yes is yes, and only yes is yes." Not silence, not begruding acquiescence because of perceived favours owed, not semi-conscious quavering. Yes. Consistent, happy and persistent yes, however that is communicated throughout all of the proceedings. That yes does not have to be verbal, it can be communicated through eager and willing participation, it doesn't have to be phrased like that, it can be negotiated beforehand then maintained by the opportunity to use a safe word if that consent is withdrawn, but communication is essential whichever way.

That add says "She couldn't say no." What it should say was "She didn't say yes." This goes for all people involved. There was a case a few years back in Australia where a woman was gang raped in a hotel room. She believes she did say no at one point, drunkenly, passing in and out of consciousness. They didn't stop. This was a football team and became a massive scandal because it laid bare a very problematic culture in the sport and in the wider community.

Personally I don't understand the appeal. Sex when semi-conscious cannot be as good as sex when entirely conscious with eager participants. Ad campaigns doing this are much harder because unless it's a date-rape drug or something similar, I doubt anyone goes out to a party with the idea of "Yeahhhh, I'm gonna totally rape someone tonight. It'll be awesome." The ambiguity is the issue for all parties involved. If people communicate better about consent and are aware of these issues it will mean that there's less fear about becoming a victim, less fear about becoming a perpetrator, fewer difficult and ambiguous cases, and a much healthier culture all around.

Give yourself a gold fucking star, trophy, or medal for hitting this one so precisely.

Hear, hear!

 

[DementedSheep]

It raises a valid point tho I don't know that they presented it in the best way. It?s not the victims or the friends ?fault? if someone is raped and you can do everything right and still get raped but you should be taking precautions and being responsible so you don?t make you?re self a target. I?ve had to explain this sort of shit to some of my friends. Like how you shouldn?t be wondering thru a large park in the middle of the night by yourself. Had she been raped it would still have been the rapists fault but it is stupid of her to make herself such an easy target in the first place. It would be great if we didn't have to worry about this sort of thing but we do and you can't just ignore that.

 

[Newtonyd]

See, you are once again blaming the victim for what they are wearing. You seem to keep doing that. Once again, armchair-quarterbacking the decision of what someone wears as an excuse for their rape.

Okay, let's take a step back from the crazy accusations here. I understand this is a heated, controversial topic, but you are just firing a pistol into the crowd at this point.

You keep returning to the idea that what a person is wearing can excuse their rape. No other crime gets that as a reason to let the assailant off- only rape. And that's wrong.

Nowhere in this entire thread have I seen anyone post suggesting this. Cool off.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

Similar thing happened to a old friend of mine. He had just gotten back from boot camp and had 1 week for his birthday then he was being sent off. We were throwing him a party and other than one other girl the girl my friend brought was the only one their in a party of 8. She was all over him, and She had forced us to start drinking way to early(before 9.00 p.m) because she was bored. Well before 10 they were both drunk, and they went off to a room together. 2 hours later she comes down saying she has to leave and literally runs away into the forest, luckily before we decided to go look for someone came to pick her up. We weren't sure what happened but she wouldn't say and my friend didn't say anything about rape. Well a month later she threatens to get him kicked out of the military for rape. He says he didn't remember and I didn't think anything happened that she didn't want but I still felt kinda sick that it happened so close if it did.

Both sexes need to speak up and say yes or no.

 

[LadyRhian]

Well, that depends. Did you ask two, maybe three times? Well then, you are just fine. That's just asking and respecting those no's, but know she's playing hard to get, I guess.

How about ten times, getting increasingly angrier with her? Ah, what do I know. I'm sure that every woman loves being asked repeatedly, day after day, from the same guy, if she will get him off. That's great, and totally not harassment. Or perhaps it is a boyfriend that is saying that if she loved him she would do this one thing, and asking for it again and again. That probably doesn't have any bearing on a woman's thought process.

Anyways, there are different classifications of rape. The type you are thinking of is forcible rape. That is the type where you hold them down and they physically try to fight you. There are other types, just like there is more than just physical abuse. Beating the person down by persistently asking for sex is also rape when they have told you no more than once. Using emotional appeals to get them to do things they don't want to do is also rape.

You can't rape someone without force. It can't happen. Force is necessary for rape to occur. Forcible rape is redundant.

Legal definition of rape taken from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will.

See how force is in there?

So, taking your meaning about the emotional appeals, when my kids come up to me and beg me for money, hanging on my leg with their "pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease" and when I eventually give in, that's theft? Because I lose my money against my will due to an emotional plea. Should I have my kids sent to jail because they mugged me with their big brown puppy dog eyes? I mean, they harassed me day after day after I got home from work. It wasn't a one time thing, it's a daily beat down where I have to struggle just to get in the door.

The evil bastards are probably plotting to do it again tomorrow. This is premeditated! I'm calling the police.

Perhaps you should read the rest of the definition instead of just the first line. This is from Another site: Rape / Sexual Assault
Although the legal definition of rape varies from state to state, rape is generally defined as forced or nonconsensual sexual contact.
Rape and/or sexual assault is forced, manipulated, or coerced sexual contact by a stranger, friend or acquaintance. It is an act of aggression and power combined with some form of sex. A person is forced into sexual contact through verbal coercion, threats, physical restraint, and/or physical violence. Consent is not given.
Rape is also a legal term that is defined in Massachusetts by three elements:
Penetration of ANY orifice by ANY object,
Force or threat of force, or
Sexual contact against the will of the victim.
Consent cannot be given (legally) if a person is impaired, intoxicated, drugged, underage, mentally challenged, unconscious, or asleep.

See how it says "Forced OR Nonconsensual Sexual Assault"? Force is not necessary for rape to occur.

The rest of the definition from your own site of legal_dictionary:


Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent. Women who were raped were expected to have physically resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape. Additionally, a husband could have sex with his wife against her will without being charged with rape. Beginning in the 1970s, state legislatures and courts expanded and redefined the crime of rape to reflect modern notions of equality and legal propriety.

As of the early 2000s, all states define rape without reference to the sex of the victim and the perpetrator. Though the overwhelming majority of rape victims are women, a woman may be convicted of raping a man, a man may be convicted of raping a man, and a woman may be convicted of raping another woman. Furthermore, a spouse may be convicted of rape if the perpetrator forces the other spouse to have nonconsensual sex. Many states do not punish the rape of a spouse as severely as the rape of a non-spouse.

Many states also have redefined lack of consent. Before the 1970s, many courts viewed the element of force from the standpoint of the victim. A man would not be convicted of rape of a competent woman unless she had demonstrated some physical resistance. In the absence of physical resistance, courts usually held that the sexual act was consensual. In the early 2000s in many states, the prosecution can prove lack of consent by presenting evidence that the victim objected verbally to the sexual penetration or sexual intrusion.

Lack of consent is a necessary element in every rape. But this qualifier does not mean that a person may make sexual contact with a minor or incapacitated person who actually consented. Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or an incapacity to consent on the part of the victim. Persons who are physically or mentally helpless or who are under a certain age in relation to the perpetrator are deemed legally incapable of consenting to sex.

Italics mine. Force is no longer a necessary component of rape. The site you quoted even says so.

 

[The Dutchess]

I agree that women should be aware of the dangers and look after themselves on a night out etc just as people lock their doors when they leave their house to prevent theft ... but these rapists aren't all psychos waiting on a street corner for an inebriated woman to stumble by. A quick glance at statistics shows 2/3 of all rape victims knew their attacker and 38% of rapes are committed by a close friend or aquaintance. Also quite a large number of rapes occur when neither the victim nor the attacker have been drinking.

In the end it is never the victims fault. If there was an ad campaign telling us about the consequences of rape rather than telling women to watch out (which we shouldn't have to do!) maybe some people would think twice.

 

[Darkeagle6]

"Alcohol is definitely a huge factor when it comes to sexual assault, but in no circumstances is it ever the victim's fault" I see these two as kind of contradictory, take some responsibility ... if I leave my front door open and I get robbed, it is partly my fault for doing that.

Should I have to lock my door? No 'cos everybody should be decent enough not to steal but people do steal and people do rape, so stop being stupid and getting so boozed up you become a target!

Using the same analogy, imagine if the police showed up to my flat.

"was your door locked?"
"no"
"why?"
"people should be decent enough not to rob me"
" ....... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

"were you drunk?"
"yes"
"ok, were you wearing reveling clothes?"
"yes"
"ok, were you leading guys on only to turn them away?"
"yes"
"ok, were you alone in a dark alley?"
"yes"
"damn those rapists! Picking on a poor innocent woman ..."

I am not saying they were asking for it or encouraging it but they made themselves a target.

Let me extend that analogy to show you the problem with it.

"So you were walking at night."
"Yes."
"Wearing a rolex"
"Yes."
"With someone you'd met at a bar and had been talking to for a while."
"Yes."
"They saw what was in your wallet when you were buying drinks?"
"Well, yeah?"
"So why were you surprised when this person you met mugged you? I mean, you should've been more careful."

You see, the vast majority, 70-80 or so % of sexual assaults occur when the perpetrator knows the victim. This can be met at a party, known for years, someone the perpetrator cares for etc. Hell, it can happen within marriages because consent is never automatic.

The reason that feminists have a problem with this as victim blaming is that it doesn't address the root of the problem, which is a wildly unhealthy attitude to consent especially among young people. We've had the "no is no" campaign for a while which is good, but it needs to extend to "yes is yes, and only yes is yes." Not silence, not begruding acquiescence because of perceived favours owed, not semi-conscious quavering. Yes. Consistent, happy and persistent yes, however that is communicated throughout all of the proceedings. That yes does not have to be verbal, it can be communicated through eager and willing participation, it doesn't have to be phrased like that, it can be negotiated beforehand then maintained by the opportunity to use a safe word if that consent is withdrawn, but communication is essential whichever way.

That add says "She couldn't say no." What it should say was "She didn't say yes." This goes for all people involved. There was a case a few years back in Australia where a woman was gang raped in a hotel room. She believes she did say no at one point, drunkenly, passing in and out of consciousness. They didn't stop. This was a football team and became a massive scandal because it laid bare a very problematic culture in the sport and in the wider community.

Personally I don't understand the appeal. Sex when semi-conscious cannot be as good as sex when entirely conscious with eager participants. Ad campaigns doing this are much harder because unless it's a date-rape drug or something similar, I doubt anyone goes out to a party with the idea of "Yeahhhh, I'm gonna totally rape someone tonight. It'll be awesome." The ambiguity is the issue for all parties involved. If people communicate better about consent and are aware of these issues it will mean that there's less fear about becoming a victim, less fear about becoming a perpetrator, fewer difficult and ambiguous cases, and a much healthier culture all around.

Give yourself a gold fucking star, trophy, or medal for hitting this one so precisely.

Hear, hear!

Indeed. This needs to be said. Again and again.

 

[Newtonyd]

Hypothetical scenario: Your best friend's parents went out to a party, where they stayed until quite late at night. On the way home, they were hit by another car, whose driver was perhaps drunk, and were killed instantly.

Would you then go up to your friend and say, "Well, I'm sorry that your parents died, but it was really their fault. They shouldn't have been driving so late at night. It's when most car accidents occur."

This is a silly analogy, and a strawman argument. Try this:

Drunk driver hits my best friend's parents car and they die. His parents weren't wearing seatbelts. Maybe they would be alive today if they had worn them, maybe not. It's still the drunk driver's fault, but him being to blame doesn't make my friend's parents any less dead.

All I know is, I'm gonna tell people to take precautions and buckle up.

 

[Joshic Shin]

Spoiler: Lazier Than Thou said...

Well, that depends. Did you ask two, maybe three times? Well then, you are just fine. That's just asking and respecting those no's, but know she's playing hard to get, I guess.

How about ten times, getting increasingly angrier with her? Ah, what do I know. I'm sure that every woman loves being asked repeatedly, day after day, from the same guy, if she will get him off. That's great, and totally not harassment. Or perhaps it is a boyfriend that is saying that if she loved him she would do this one thing, and asking for it again and again. That probably doesn't have any bearing on a woman's thought process.

Anyways, there are different classifications of rape. The type you are thinking of is forcible rape. That is the type where you hold them down and they physically try to fight you. There are other types, just like there is more than just physical abuse. Beating the person down by persistently asking for sex is also rape when they have told you no more than once. Using emotional appeals to get them to do things they don't want to do is also rape.

You can't rape someone without force. It can't happen. Force is necessary for rape to occur. Forcible rape is redundant.

Legal definition of rape taken from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will.

See how force is in there?

So, taking your meaning about the emotional appeals, when my kids come up to me and beg me for money, hanging on my leg with their "pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease" and when I eventually give in, that's theft? Because I lose my money against my will due to an emotional plea. Should I have my kids sent to jail because they mugged me with their big brown puppy dog eyes? I mean, they harassed me day after day after I got home from work. It wasn't a one time thing, it's a daily beat down where I have to struggle just to get in the door.

The evil bastards are probably plotting to do it again tomorrow. This is premeditated! I'm calling the police.

Or, ya know, I could use just about any other source as a reference. Like this, or this, or maybe just leave it at something you would agree with. Rape is forcibly having sex with someone either through physical, emotional, or other means that would have otherwise been against that person's will. So, if someone is blackmailed into having sex with someone, that would not be a "forcible" rape, but it would be rape by most people's definitions.

That's why if you are forced into it by means outside your control, it is considered rape, doesn't matter if the woman fought back or not. That's why you can now call date rape what it is when someone purposely liquors someone up to attempt to rape them, or badgers them constantly through emotional pleas, or when a child is tricked into having sex but gives consent. In all of these examples the individual is raped because they could not give consent in good conscience, making it rape.

As for your kids, they aren't what many would call knowledgable enough to know what they are doing (despite what you and your bank account may think). You can badger someone though to do things they would not normally do, and that would be called harassment. If it wasn't your kids, but instead your neighbor asking for that money every day it would become a problem. You would probably tell him off, and if he didn't stop, you would get some sort of retaliation, right? That's the best non-rape analogy to the example you gave that I can give.