'Rape victims can be partly responsible

[SilentHunter]

You are ridiculous. Not once have you acknowledged that adult females may have personal responsibility. You want equal rights in every sense of the word, which I support fully, but somehow...

even if the woman consents

even if she's aware of her situation

even if it's someone she's in a relationship with

Someway, somehow, it's still the man's fault for being a horrible rapist. Does that logic not seem faulty to you?

It isnt equal rights its creep around the women on eggshells just incase you offend them or do something to upset them. They on the other hand have no accountability.

...where did "way younger" become part of the conversation?

A Freudian slip lol

[Mabon]

Dark Grey,

When I construct statements about rape I intentionally leave gender neutral unless it is germane to or as a response to a direct gender related statement such as Silent Hunter made. If a man or anyone intentionally gets another person to the point of inebriation with the intent of having sexual relations with that other person then they are rapist. They are controlling another person through alcohol with a specific outcome in mind (sex), control is the key word. You could substitute drugs, violence or blackmail because these all remove honest consent (clear reasoning).

It's like the New Richard Nixon stated in an earlier post. Not all rapes are committed across the gender line. Same sex rape happens too and I don't discount that from the topic, never had, never will. I hope that clears things up for you.

Mabon.

[little_dreamer]

Hewson is a "human rights and civil liberties" lawyer too. How refreshing!

So what's her ulterior motive or agenda, since it clearly isn't logic.

[Dark_Grey]

If a man or anyone intentionally gets another person to the point of inebriation with the intent of having sexual relations with that other person then they are rapist. They are controlling another person through alcohol with a specific outcome in mind (sex), control is the key word. You could substitute drugs, violence or blackmail because these all remove honest consent (clear reasoning).

See, there you go again, refusing to acknowledge that the woman (or man, if you will,) may have intentionally gotten drunk and may have intentionally sought sex with a stranger.

Why are you so adamant that someone has to be manipulating someone else?

[Mabon]

See, there you go again, refusing to acknowledge that the woman (or man, if you will,) may have intentionally gotten drunk and may have intentionally sought sex with a stranger.

Why are you so adamant that someone has to be manipulating someone else?

I'm failing to understand why you are taking offense to my responses about rape. We aren't talking about adults going out for sex with a stranger the subject is about rape and situations where rape occurs and OP article if the victim is 'morally responsible' in some instances of rape (of which I have made my position very clear). If two reasoning adults to consent to a night of wine and whoopie, good on them. Get your freak flag flying! However, if at anytime the word no is used or no longer can be used and sexual contact is made it's rape. I don't know how much clearer I can get.

I know a lot of people have trouble understand how a social setting like having a few drinks at a bar or with friends (for example) can lead to rape allegations or charges if two people seem to hook up and it's because sex between consenting adults should be about a mutually wanted and shared experience. Instead of thinking was the person too drunk to say no, did they actively consent vocally throughout the experience. Sex is something two people share, rape is something a person unwillingly experiences.

Mabon.

[progressivegamer44]

The idiocracy has had moronic opinnions like this, ever since rape became a crime. You people are just now getting around to being mad about it?I guess I shouldn't be surprised or bewildered. Idiotic **** like this is said constantly.

Either way, she's an idiot with a moronic opinnion that is not new,

Ignore her and let her fade away into irrelevancy..

Edited November 4, 2013 by progressivegamer44

[SilentHunter]

I'm failing to understand why you are taking offense to my responses about rape. We aren't talking about adults going out for sex with a stranger the subject is about rape and situations where rape occurs and OP article if the victim is 'morally responsible' in some instances of rape (of which I have made my position very clear). If two reasoning adults to consent to a night of wine and whoopie, good on them. Get your freak flag flying! However, if at anytime the word no is used or no longer can be used and sexual contact is made it's rape. I don't know how much clearer I can get.

I know a lot of people have trouble understand how a social setting like having a few drinks at a bar or with friends (for example) can lead to rape allegations or charges if two people seem to hook up and it's because sex between consenting adults should be about a mutually wanted and shared experience. Instead of thinking was the person too drunk to say no, did they actively consent vocally throughout the experience. Sex is something two people share, rape is something a person unwillingly experiences.

Mabon.

No offence but if she's obliterated to the point she cant even say no then I'm quite sure she isnt going to be able to walk back to someones flat. In all likelyhood she'd be in a coma. The danger with what you're saying is the women could get drunk, go back to someones flat, sobber up in the morning and suddendly decide that she regreats sleeping with him. She may then get funny ideas in her head such as - 'hang on a minute I never actually said yes so I shall cry rape'.

Finally, despite been drinking vast amounts of alcohol, I have never actually not known what I was doing. Its alcohol not lsd. If she isnt unconscious she knows what is going on.

Edited November 4, 2013 by SilentHunter

[Leonardo]

I am aware that within the format of structured debate, a person may be given a position to defend and be expected to make their best argument in that defense, so I am wondering if these views are Ms Hewson's actual personal views, or whether they were put forward by her purely for the purpose of fulfilling her role in the debate and are picked up and sensationalised by the news media?

Saying that, were I invited to a debate and given such a position to defend, I think I would decline as I would find that position indefensible.

[libstaK]

The evolution of this topic to other levels of personal responsibility just makes me want to point out a fundamental aspect of the criminal mind - it is the other person's fault.

Lack of taking responsibility for one's own actions and mindset is at the heart of all this.

Take bullying - a bully will attack another because the other person is "weak" in their mind. As far as the bully is concerned, and also far too often public opinion, the bullied is at fault for not standing up for themselves and for the behaviours or personality traits that make bullying them possible. Basically a bully believes the other person is "asking for it" just as is so often attributed to rape and assault victims, those that are robbed etc.

This is backward - it is not the person to which something is done that is responsible, it is the person doing something to someone else who is responsible.

If we base our laws and morals on the responsibility of the person who commits the action on another person, be it assault, theft, abusive language etc we can more clearly understand what is acceptable and right in our treatment of each other in every level of interaction in life.

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

She may then get funny ideas in her head such as - 'hang on a minute I never actually said yes so I shall cry rape'.

Finally, despite been drinking vast amounts of alcohol, I have never actually not known what I was doing. Its alcohol not lsd. If she isnt unconscious she knows what is going on.

You do realise that if she didn't consent or couldn't because she was drunk, then it is rape and it is in within her right legally to report and start proceedings. And no, go back and read my post -- the law recognises that people can lose coherency to such a degree that they are rendered incapable ( lawfully ) to sign contracts, make agreements, or consent. That doesn't imply they are unconscious before this comes into affect.

That is why at medical clinics, hospts, dentists that if someone has to have drugs, sedation or an anaesthetic the person is made to sign a contract BEFORE the procedure/ before altered consciousness takes place, that they will not sign any contracts, agreements or consent to anything for the duration of 24 hrs after gaining full consciousness again. They must be taken home and looked after by an adult who can verify their safety and that they will not breach or anyone will else will not breach that contract.

As for saying that alcohol is not LSD, hey --your personal consumption and tolerance level is not any bench mark, that is a terrible thing to base it off, its not about you, so what you have a stone sturdy tolerance that doesn't mean everyone else has. Come on you are wiser than that to know that firstly women have lower tolerances than men, due to biological reasons, and secondly alcohol like any drug does not always metabolise normally - it can cause all range of issues in people, mental issues including psychosis and emotional breakdown. Alcohol is one of those drugs that the biology of the person affects very much, if a person has not eaten all day or taken antihistamines or certain antibiotics, that can increase a persons sensitivity enough to cause issues that that can take a person by surprise. Other biological factors such as weight loss or certain diets like the Atkins diet increases sensitivity to alcohol, it completely alters a persons tolerance.

I don't know why you and dark grey are getting so defensive towards mabon, it is not an opinion, it is telling you where the law stands on these things.

Edited November 5, 2013 by bLu3 de 3n3rgy

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

If she isnt unconscious she knows what is going on.

Wow, what a sad and scary world you live in.

[Skep B]

3 mods in a row involved in this thread?

[+joc]

The bottom line is this: if a woman wants to have sex with you...she will let you know...if she doesn't sign off on it...then it's rape. Period.

[Mr.United_Nations]

...where did "way younger" become part of the conversation?

thats why i put any age

[Frank Merton]

I think a woman who is intoxicated is the same as a woman who has been drugged or one underage. No matter what, if the man proceeds, it is rape. I suppose the same applies if the sexual roles are reversed, but that is not as likely because of the difference in the sexes here.

[seeder]

For a sense of balance, and for the males here... so, youre at a mates house, you either know him well, or you dont know him 'that' well,....youre playing pool, poker maybe...drinking beers... *snip*, whatever... good music in the background... nice and warm, and content...you have some food, drink some shots, coz us men do that manly stuff called boozing till we drop... and when youve had enough you pop a dvd on...relax... drink some more.. fall asleep

And then you wake a little - some time later....and realise your mates on top of you, *snip*... so you struggle up if you can, and beat the living daylights out of him...but... maybe tho, you cant, hes too strong, or you're too pished...drugged maybe..

Was it your fault you trusted him? Your fault you got wasted?

.

Edited November 5, 2013 by libstaK
explicit language

[SilentHunter]

You do realise that if she didn't consent or couldn't because she was drunk, then it is rape and it is in within her right legally to report and start proceedings. And no, go back and read my post -- the law recognises that people can lose coherency to such a degree that they are rendered incapable ( lawfully ) to sign contracts, make agreements, or consent. That doesn't imply they are unconscious before this comes into affect.

That is why at medical clinics, hospts, dentists that if someone has to have drugs, sedation or an anaesthetic the person is made to sign a contract BEFORE the procedure/ before altered consciousness takes place, that they will not sign any contracts, agreements or consent to anything for the duration of 24 hrs after gaining full consciousness again. They must be taken home and looked after by an adult who can verify their safety and that they will not breach or anyone will else will not breach that contract.

As for saying that alcohol is not LSD, hey --your personal consumption and tolerance level is not any bench mark, that is a terrible thing to base it off, its not about you, so what you have a stone sturdy tolerance that doesn't mean everyone else has. Come on you are wiser than that to know that firstly women have lower tolerances than men, due to biological reasons, and secondly alcohol like any drug does not always metabolise normally - it can cause all range of issues in people, mental issues including psychosis and emotional breakdown. Alcohol is one of those drugs that the biology of the person affects very much, if a person has not eaten all day or taken antihistamines or certain antibiotics, that can increase a persons sensitivity enough to cause issues that that can take a person by surprise. Other biological factors such as weight loss or certain diets like the Atkins diet increases sensitivity to alcohol, it completely alters a persons tolerance.

I don't know why you and dark grey are getting so defensive towards mabon, it is not an opinion, it is telling you where the law stands on these things.

Even in the most drunken of states I have never lost awareness of where I am and what I'm doing. Neither have I come across anyone else in that condition. Not unless the volume of alcohol drunken resulted in unconsciousness. If you arent unconscious you know whats going on. The law is nonsense and needs challenging. Both men and women go out and get drunk, lose their inhibitions and sleep with someone that they regret doing it with in the morning. Loss of inhibition isnt loss of awareness.

http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2013/rights-and-freedoms/is-it-always-rape-if-the-woman-is-drunk.html/

That link is someone else who thinks that you dont lose awareness or your ability to say no if sozzled. You only lose it when you have drunk yourself into unconsciousness.

[TSS]

I can't think why anyone would want to sleep with someone who is intoxicated anyway.....a sound clear mind, and there doing whatever they are doing precisely because that is exactly where they want to be, and you're exactly who they want to be with at that moment is the only 'encounters' I want (did want). Anything less then that would turn my stomach, and I certainly wouldn't be able to act on anything less then that.....(perhaps i'm just weird tho....)

[Bendy Demon]

What I am finding particularly creepy about this whole issue is the insistence, by some, that attire and/or a level of inebriation or cognition is somehow a rationalization and justification for committing a crime.

Yes, we have been talking about personal responsibility but apparently this only applies to the women. There is a seemingly frequently occurring mindset that it all rests on the woman yet little to nothing is said about the man.

Where is HIS responsibility? Where is his supposed "nobility" in all this?

It men want to be seen as more than just potential thugs yet many of the comments I see do not encourage such thinking.

So what if a woman is dressed in a way that a man thinks is "sexy" or "provocative"? That dress is not going to "make" you force yourself on her. Even if she throws herself on the man doesn't mean you should throw caution to the wind and give in to animalistic urges.

So if we are going to talk about responsibility here then both male and female need to be involved. Not just the woman.

And we need to stop using extenuating circumstances to justify this sort of crime.

P.S: If I confused anyone (as I am sure I did to myself already) then ask before anyone starts screaming at me because I mean no offenses.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Ryu

[libstaK]

What I am finding particularly creepy about this whole issue is the insistence, by some, that attire and/or a level of inebriation or cognition is somehow a rationalization and justification for committing a crime.

And we need to stop using extenuating circumstances to justify this sort of crime.

P.S: If I confused anyone (as I am sure I did to myself already) then ask before anyone starts screaming at me because I mean no offenses.

Precisely - well said Ryu.