Women say some rape victims should take blame - survey (UK)

[California Girl]

What's the matter with you you stupid twat! NO ONE, regardless of circumstances deserves to be raped.

I find it pathetic that you would think any do, but have to say, only a bitch that has offered it up regularly and still gets no takers would take the position you do. Sorry your luck, but then who would want you ? ? ? ?

Exactly how stupid can one woman be? Where in my post did I claim she would deserve to be raped. You are one seriously stupid bitch. Neg repping me for something I didn't even say - what an idiot. Then instead of addressing the topic you indulge in your stupid 'insults' about me. Your stupidity is showing, cover it up, bitch.

And along with everythjing else you are a liar!

I lean towards attributing the 'but for your actions' role to a female...

When someone SAYS NO then it MEANS NO, NO MATTER WHEN... NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES, no bullshitting, and just because someone may have thought they wanted to, and for whatever reason changes their mind then that is the end of it. None of this Oh, but, oh but, oh but crap.

Life must be hard for you, being so stupid. In dumb-as-shit-land, 'but for your actions' might equate to saying someone deserves to be raped, but here, in the real world where the normal people live, it does not.

I have never claimed that no doesn't mean no.... I am differentiating between the circumstances in which a rape occurs. Sure, a woman is entitled to get into bed with a guy and then change her mind..... but.... that women, while she does not deserve to be raped... does actually bear some responsibility for putting herself in that situation. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions.

How the hell you equate that to saying she deserves it is completely beyond me. I can only assume that I am not stupid enough to relate to your ridiculous attitude.

Next time you call me a liar, have some evidence to back it up, you stupid moronic bitch. That means real, hard evidence.... not a post that is just beyond your somewhat limited comprehension skills. You will notice that the intelligent female posters - Emma, Goldcatt, etc - have managed to grasp the meaning.

 

[goldcatt]

I see what you're saying, and I agree women have to use their judgment and keep the risk in mind. On the other hand, both a woman and a man have every right to change their mind - even after hopping into the same bed. What happens if he starts to play too rough, or something else unexpected happens that makes her want to call it off? It's rather difficult to force a man, but a woman is vulnerable. Assigning blame or even "responsibility" based on them being in bed together is dangerous, if you ask me. We want rapes to be reported and prosecuted, and that means recognizing that NO means NO - regardless of the circumstances.

I have a much bigger problem with the irreponsibility of women who make false rape accusations. It doesn't get much lower than that.

I agree. I guess I'm not being clear.

As I said in the above post, it's naive to think that you can protect yourself against assault regardless of your actions by just saying no. Most men will stop; but not all.

True. You must first protect yourself against assault by knowing a person VERY well BEFORE jumping into bed. It reduces the chance of finding out at an awkward moment that he plays too rough or whatever.

I wouldn't say "must". Women have the right to go to bed with a total stranger if they want to, and if they say NO it's still NO. But I would agree it's wise to get to know what kind of person he is first and know you don't have to hold anything back. And if you ask me, that makes it better in other ways too.

 

[California Girl]

I agree. I guess I'm not being clear.

As I said in the above post, it's naive to think that you can protect yourself against assault regardless of your actions by just saying no. Most men will stop; but not all.

True. You must first protect yourself against assault by knowing a person VERY well BEFORE jumping into bed. It reduces the chance of finding out at an awkward moment that he plays too rough or whatever.

I wouldn't say "must". Women have the right to go to bed with a total stranger if they want to, and if they say NO it's still NO. But I would agree it's wise to get to know what kind of person he is first and know you don't have to hold anything back. And if you ask me, that makes it better in other ways too.

Yep. That is perfectly sensible.

 

[goldcatt]

Exactly how stupid can one woman be? Where in my post did I claim she would deserve to be raped. You are one seriously stupid bitch. Neg repping me for something I didn't even say - what an idiot. Then instead of addressing the topic you indulge in your stupid 'insults' about me. Your stupidity is showing, cover it up, bitch.

And along with everythjing else you are a liar!

I lean towards attributing the 'but for your actions' role to a female...

When someone SAYS NO then it MEANS NO, NO MATTER WHEN... NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES, no bullshitting, and just because someone may have thought they wanted to, and for whatever reason changes their mind then that is the end of it. None of this Oh, but, oh but, oh but crap.

Life must be hard for you, being so stupid. In dumb-as-shit-land, 'but for your actions' might equate to saying someone deserves to be raped, but here, in the real world where the normal people live, it does not.

I have never claimed that no doesn't mean no.... I am differentiating between the circumstances in which a rape occurs. Sure, a woman is entitled to get into bed with a guy and then change her mind..... but.... that women, while she does not deserve to be raped... does actually bear some responsibility for putting herself in that situation. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions.

How the hell you equate that to saying she deserves it is completely beyond me. I can only assume that I am not stupid enough to relate to your ridiculous attitude.

Next time you call me a liar, have some evidence to back it up, you stupid moronic bitch. That means real, hard evidence.... not a post that is just beyond your somewhat limited comprehension skills. You will notice that the intelligent female posters - Emma, Goldcatt, etc - have managed to grasp the meaning.

I'm gonna giver her the benefit of the doubt and say I think she's getting confused about the whole word "responsibility", thinking you're assigning blame. And you're NOT assigning blame here. Neither am I, neither is Emma, neither are any of the others who brought up the same concept.

The responsibility a woman has is to act wisely and keep the risk in mind, the same way you act wisely about locking your door at night knowing there are a few assholes out there who might walk in and steal your stuff. That doesn't mean if you forget to lock your door it's your "fault" if your house gets broken into. It also doesn't mean somebody who really wants to get in can't force the lock or break a window instead. It's just using a little common sense.

 

[Montrovant]

I wonder, if someone inebriated cannot give consent, when two inebriated people have sex, have they both been raped?

Just wanted to insert some levity into what has been, for the most part, an interesting discussion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Abso-fucking-lutely.

I'm not sure I agree about being drunk though. Voluntary intoxication isn't an excuse for any other crime, I don't personally see a reason to make an exception for rape. If you choose to get that loaded, you take on the risk of your behavior.

What I'm saying is if that both parties are intoxicated and had sex, it's unlikely in my opinion that it was rape if she calls it that.

Now if she's drugged, that's a whole different story. However, if she's slamming down shot after shot, then she knows the consequences of impaired thinking. Sex in this case would be one of them with a guy you may regret doing so in the morning.

Having regrets in the morning is probably the #1 cause of false rape claims, but it isn't rape if she consented at the time. You can't withdraw consent after the fact.

But whether both parties being drunk makes it more likely a rape claim is false is a question for me. Were they feeling good, being uninhibited and doing things maybe one or both of them wouldn't normally do - but with full consent? Or are we talking passing out, unaware of her surroundings loaded? Saying because they had a few drinks means she's more likely to be lying is a dangerous place to go.

I don't know that it ups the chance that she's lying, but it sure as hell lessens the chance that she made her wishes clearly known, or even remembers what happened very clearly.

 

[goldcatt]

What I'm saying is if that both parties are intoxicated and had sex, it's unlikely in my opinion that it was rape if she calls it that.

Now if she's drugged, that's a whole different story. However, if she's slamming down shot after shot, then she knows the consequences of impaired thinking. Sex in this case would be one of them with a guy you may regret doing so in the morning.

Having regrets in the morning is probably the #1 cause of false rape claims, but it isn't rape if she consented at the time. You can't withdraw consent after the fact.

But whether both parties being drunk makes it more likely a rape claim is false is a question for me. Were they feeling good, being uninhibited and doing things maybe one or both of them wouldn't normally do - but with full consent? Or are we talking passing out, unaware of her surroundings loaded? Saying because they had a few drinks means she's more likely to be lying is a dangerous place to go.

I don't know that it ups the chance that she's lying, but it sure as hell ups the chance that she made her wishes clearly known, or even remembers what happened very clearly.

Which does raise a question of credibility for anyone prosecuting a case, but what does it do to make a claim more or less likely to be truthful? We all know there are far more rapes than ever make it to prosecution - either because they are not reported, or because they are difficult to prove, or because the victim's credibility rightly or wrongly is considered suspect. Does that change whether a rape occurred?

 

[Anguille]

Maybe there are more Muslims there now.

About 3% of the population, moron. God forbid you run into something that can't be blamed on Muslims. You fucking idiots are out in full force today.

well, instead of cussing a blue streak why don't you explain why muslim women are required to cover every inch of their bodies except eyeball and fingertips? Why don't you tell us why we consistantly read stories about muslim women being raped and then stoned to death because she was to blame for her rape..

What perverse fantasy world do you inhabit?

 

[Anguille]

Woman says no and man does anyway.

Woman says I changed my mind for whatever reason and man does anyway.

Woman says pullout and man does not.

Female under a certain age.

Woman is drunk or otherwise incapacitated.

Woman says yes because of threat of violence.


All cases of rape. It's the same if the victim is a man.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree. I guess I'm not being clear.

As I said in the above post, it's naive to think that you can protect yourself against assault regardless of your actions by just saying no. Most men will stop; but not all.

True. You must first protect yourself against assault by knowing a person VERY well BEFORE jumping into bed. It reduces the chance of finding out at an awkward moment that he plays too rough or whatever.

I wouldn't say "must". Women have the right to go to bed with a total stranger if they want to, and if they say NO it's still NO. But I would agree it's wise to get to know what kind of person he is first and know you don't have to hold anything back. And if you ask me, that makes it better in other ways too.

I would say "must" if your goal is to be as safe from rape as you can.

And this isn't about "rights". People have the RIGHT to do all manner of dumbshit, self-destructive things. What they don't have is a right to have that stupid behavior be safe, or to have people smother them with sympathy and absolve them of any personal responsibility when their behavior, unsurprisingly, results in bad consequences.

The bottom line is, if you're counting on nothing more than "No means no" to protect you, then you're basically waiting for the universe to realign itself into a nice, safe womb for your benefit, and everyone in the world EXCEPT YOU to become your caretaker. And you're a fucking dumbass who is - I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it untrue - issuing an engraved invitation for something horrible to happen to you. (And no, I don't mean that "you" in a specific sense.)

 

[Cecilie1200]

I wonder, if someone inebriated cannot give consent, when two inebriated people have sex, have they both been raped?

Just wanted to insert some levity into what has been, for the most part, an interesting discussion.

No, dear, because in Liberal Land, non-whites can't be racist, men are always predators, and women are always victims.

 

[Anguille]

Which does raise a question of credibility for anyone prosecuting a case, but what does it do to make a claim more or less likely to be truthful? We all know there are far more rapes than ever make it to prosecution - either because they are not reported, or because they are difficult to prove, or because the victim's credibility rightly or wrongly is considered suspect. Does that change whether a rape occurred?

Good points.

I wonder how many people would be questioning rape if this was a discussion about child molestation.

 

[Anguille]

And you're a fucking dumbass who is - I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it untrue - issuing an engraved invitation for something horrible to happen to you.

Ugggh! I hope your species dies out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Having regrets in the morning is probably the #1 cause of false rape claims, but it isn't rape if she consented at the time. You can't withdraw consent after the fact.

But whether both parties being drunk makes it more likely a rape claim is false is a question for me. Were they feeling good, being uninhibited and doing things maybe one or both of them wouldn't normally do - but with full consent? Or are we talking passing out, unaware of her surroundings loaded? Saying because they had a few drinks means she's more likely to be lying is a dangerous place to go.

I don't know that it ups the chance that she's lying, but it sure as hell ups the chance that she made her wishes clearly known, or even remembers what happened very clearly.

Which does raise a question of credibility for anyone prosecuting a case, but what does it do to make a claim more or less likely to be truthful? We all know there are far more rapes than ever make it to prosecution - either because they are not reported, or because they are difficult to prove, or because the victim's credibility rightly or wrongly is considered suspect. Does that change whether a rape occurred?

What does it do to her claim that she was raped if she doesn't actually remember what happened? Or if she was so drunk she THOUGHT she said, "No, stop!" and what actually came out was "Nrzlfgmsn"? Seriously, you need me to answer that for you?

Men can barely figure out what women want when we explain it carefully with diagrams. They sure as hell can't read our minds. If you put yourself in a sexual situation with a man, change your mind, and don't communicate clearly to HIM that you changed your mind, then I'm sorry, but he didn't rape you. He can't be expected to stop if he doesn't know you want him to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Woman says no and man does anyway.

Woman says I changed my mind for whatever reason and man does anyway.

Woman says pullout and man does not.

Female under a certain age.

Woman is drunk or otherwise incapacitated.

Woman says yes because of threat of violence.


All cases of rape. It's the same if the victim is a man.

Sorry, but not quite. If they are both trashed and make a bad decision - as drunken people are wont to do - to have sex, then to my mind, no rape occurred, even if she looks back the next morning and says, "Oh, shit, I didn't want to do that." (This is presuming, of course, that she wasn't screaming, "No! Stop! Rape!" in the middle of their drunking fucking.)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Which does raise a question of credibility for anyone prosecuting a case, but what does it do to make a claim more or less likely to be truthful? We all know there are far more rapes than ever make it to prosecution - either because they are not reported, or because they are difficult to prove, or because the victim's credibility rightly or wrongly is considered suspect. Does that change whether a rape occurred?

Good points.

I wonder how many people would be questioning rape if this was a discussion about child molestation.

I KNOW you're not suggesting that women are equivalent to helpless children, unable to give consent under any circumstances, because if you were, I'd have to call you a misogynistic pig.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And you're a fucking dumbass who is - I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it untrue - issuing an engraved invitation for something horrible to happen to you.

Ugggh! I hope your species dies out.

I don't have to hope yours does. I just have to wait for it. People who entrust all the responsibility for their safety to anyone but themselves are lemmings looking for a cliff to throw themselves over.

 

[goldcatt]

True. You must first protect yourself against assault by knowing a person VERY well BEFORE jumping into bed. It reduces the chance of finding out at an awkward moment that he plays too rough or whatever.

I wouldn't say "must". Women have the right to go to bed with a total stranger if they want to, and if they say NO it's still NO. But I would agree it's wise to get to know what kind of person he is first and know you don't have to hold anything back. And if you ask me, that makes it better in other ways too.

I would say "must" if your goal is to be as safe from rape as you can.

And this isn't about "rights". People have the RIGHT to do all manner of dumbshit, self-destructive things. What they don't have is a right to have that stupid behavior be safe, or to have people smother them with sympathy and absolve them of any personal responsibility when their behavior, unsurprisingly, results in bad consequences.

The bottom line is, if you're counting on nothing more than "No means no" to protect you, then you're basically waiting for the universe to realign itself into a nice, safe womb for your benefit, and everyone in the world EXCEPT YOU to become your caretaker. And you're a fucking dumbass who is - I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it untrue - issuing an engraved invitation for something horrible to happen to you. (And no, I don't mean that "you" in a specific sense.)

I hardly think a woman going to bed with a man without a detailed agreement in advance and third-party references that he's not, in fact, a rapist means she's a "fucking dumbass" or that she's inviting something horrible to happen and expecting sympathy and absolution for it after the fact. That goes way beyond believing a woman should act wisely and into blaming the victim, IMO. Have you never once forgotten to lock your door at night? And if you did, does that mean you're looking for sympathy and somebody to take care of you?

And I sense some serious hostility toward men pouring out of that post. Most men are, in fact, decent. The fact that a few assholes out there are not doesn't mean trusting one means a woman wants the "universe to realign" and somebody to become her caretaker. That's reminiscent of the parents who want to accompany their kids everywhere until they're 18 because there's a molester in a van waiting to snatch them on every corner. Reasonable caution and paranoid hostility are two very different things. Good grief!

 

[Sherry]

I was thinking about this from the perspective of a parent. My daughter is 20 and I remember discussing this issue with her before she started dating, and again when she left for college. Reflecting on that conversation, I did put the burden of responsibility on her. My son is 11, and soon enough we'll be having a similar conversation. I will put the burden of responsibility on him, and instill that he should never make assumptions no matter the circumstances. No excuses and no justifications.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I'm gonna give her the benefit of the doubt and say I think she's getting confused about the whole word "responsibility", thinking you're assigning blame. And you're NOT assigning blame here. Neither am I, neither is Emma, neither are any of the others who brought up the same concept.

The responsibility a woman has is to act wisely and keep the risk in mind, the same way you act wisely about locking your door at night knowing there are a few assholes out there who might walk in and steal your stuff. That doesn't mean if you forget to lock your door it's your "fault" if your house gets broken into. It also doesn't mean somebody who really wants to get in can't force the lock or break a window instead. It's just using a little common sense.

I don't care if she is MARRIED to the male, even if she is at first willing and then he does or says something stupid, or she gets a real headache, or he starts sweating and smells like the asparagus she cooked, or just because she changed her mind she has the absolute right to tell him to get the fuck off, leave off, or whatever. People's bodies belong to themselves, themselves alone, period. The have an absolute right not to do, and no person has any right to force the issue, to entreat, to whine, or in any way object when a person says or indicates no, period.

All that should ever be necessary is "no."

As someone up here said, males who cannot control themselves are NOT REAL MEN.

I find the sort of female that does not get that a person's body is their own totally pathetic, and it is that sort of women that have always held other women back, forced them down, and made it possible for others to abuse at will.

As for locking doors in houses, we all do because we know that there are those out there who will enter and who will say. "BUT THE DOOR WAS OPEN..." A door may be unlocked, but SO FUCKING WHAT. There are lines that decent people never cross, and rape is one of them.

I find it even more pathetic that some women justify being raped as their own fault, that they are less than valuable, that being an object - not really a person but a thing is OK, because someone has "needs," and in this case, where it is mostly about women, just because women were once property, to be used, sold, traded is no excuse for other women to perpetuate that. Women like that are nothing but our own worst enemies.