AI poll: "women who flirt partially responsible for being raped"

[Phil]

Time to start off some discussion!

Amnesty International recently did a poll about what people think about rape. It concluded: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>A third (34%) of people in the UK believe that a woman is partially or totally responsible for being raped if she has behaved in a flirtatious manner.[/b][/quote]
In case you have no idea what I&#39;m talking about, here are a few news articles about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4453820.stm "Women &#39;get blame for being raped&#39;"
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_object...-name_page.html "Women In Skimpy Clothes Is Not A Green Light To Rape"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770 "Women &#39;to blame&#39; for being raped"
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/02...-name_page.html "Many believe flirts &#39;asking to be raped&#39;"

And the actual press release on the Amnesty International website: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16618.shtml


Well, there are, naturally, two sides to this argument...

If a woman does wear very revealing clothing, gets rather merry (or worse) and behaves very flirtatiously, a lot of people would see that as an invite for sex. Blokes naturally want to have sex (the old saying that blokes think about sex every whatever number of seconds isn&#39;t that far from the truth, if a little exaggerated&#33, and when women do a lot to make themselves particularly attractive, those urges get rather strong&#33; I&#39;m a young bloke - trust me - they do&#33; Whilst most of us would never even dream of acting on them, some, particularly those blokes who are also out, drinking a fair amount and are, shall we say, less reserved in their approach to life, will take this situation to it&#39;s natural conclusion, and get a woman to have sex with, drunk or otherwise. These men, and, in fact, many others if the survey is accurate, think that a woman who does put herself into that situation, and does have sex, does indeed carry part of the blame. The logic is quite clear for the reason for sex having took place - the bloke got aroused, the woman flirted, the bloke &#39;tried it on&#39;, the woman said yes, they had sex. The big question is did the man do something wrong in that situation: Should he have assessed her and decided that she was too drunk to properly consent to sex, and therefore not had sex with her?

The other side of the coin is that, quite simply, rape is rape. Rape is wrong, illegal, and blokes should have some restraint. It&#39;s everyone’s right to dress as they choose, regardless of how much flesh they show, and it&#39;s everyone’s right to have a good, fun night out, drinking and partying, and to get home safe and well (vomiting etc excepted if there is too much alcohol involved, and yes, that&#39;s also a voice of experience&#33.

Some points:

* In a perfect world, anyone should be able to go anywhere, wearing whatever they like (including wearing nothing if they wish). However, this world is not perfect.

* In a perfect world, men, despite their urges, should know that forcing themselves onto a woman who does not want to have sex is wrong. It shouldn&#39;t even be something in the category of "morally reprehensible" or whatever, it should simply not be a option in the first place and should be something that blokes just would not do. Once again, this world, or indeed us humans, are far from perfect.

* In a perfect world, people would always be in full control of their senses, able to understand the situation they are in, and say either "Yes, I do want to have sex with you", or "No, I don&#39;t want to have sex with you". In the same perfect world, these wishes would then always be respected. Sadly...

* Consent: What is consent? It&#39;s not as easy a question as you might think. Is a woman who is so drunk that she is unable to remember what occurred, actually able to consent to sex? She may say yes at the time, but is this consent? I don&#39;t mean what does the law say - lawyers can make up new rules till they are blue in the face, but it still doesn&#39;t change the golden question. Has the woman truly consented to sex if she says yes in that situation?

* And also, of course: If she does say yes to sex in that situation, and later, when much more sober, decides they she didn&#39;t want to have sex with that man, is it rape?

* For some situations, the logic is quite clear for the reason why sex took place - the bloke got aroused, the woman flirted, the bloke &#39;tried it on&#39;, the woman said yes, they had sex. The big question is did the man do something wrong in that situation? Should he have assessed her and decided that she was too drunk to properly consent to sex, and therefore not had sex with her? Or was he right to assume that, because she had said yes, she was sufficiently aware of the situation to know what she was consenting to, and therefore, it was perfectly acceptable for them to have had sex?

* Having said that, many cases happen where a woman has not said yes, but she was being very flirtatious. The bloke has assumed that the woman wants sex, and has sex with her. Was he wrong in that action? Some would say "of course", but others would counter with "Why was she dressed like that and flirting heavily if she wasn&#39;t out for sex? It&#39;s natural to assume she really wants sex, even if she doesn&#39;t say so."

So, over to you - what do you all think about the survey and the apparent thoughts of the public?

[diana_holbourn]

It seems that a lot of people are getting their wires crossed between sex and violence. From a synopsis of a book on Amazon.co.uk:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Sue Lees has spent the last four years conducting three separate pieces of research into rape and sexual assault in Britain. Drawing on unique data on rape trials, police records of reported rape and sexual assault, and detailed questionnaires filled in by women who have been raped describing their assailants, Lees comes to the conclusion that the motivation for rape is not passion but rather sadistic, dominating, aggressive or even murderous intention.[/b][/quote]

[Saffron]

This is a huge subject, and one which deserves more time than I have at the moment, but there is one point I must address:

Drunken consent is stil CONSENT, regardless of how drunk you were at the time, unless of course you were unconscious, in which case you are unable to give consent.

Drinking lowers our inhibitions, and we tend to do things that we would not normally consider doing in the cold light of day. however, if you agree to have sex with someone in the heat of a drunken moment, you have still given your consent. You cannot than wake up the next morning and decide you didn&#39;t want to do it after all.

I am sure that many many women (and men) have had pretty unsatisfactory, fairly grubby sexual encounters whilst drunk, and have woken the next day feeling disgusted with themselves and a bit dirty. It is called post coital regret, NOT rape.

(back again 4 hours later...)

Incidentally, I think Diana&#39;s point above about the difference between sexual gratification and rape is very valid. Having avidly followed a discussion on the BBC news website, there do appear to be many people confusing lust/sex and power. Rape is not necessarily about satisfying onesself sexually, but more to do with power.

However, I do also believe that women should take more responsibility for their own safety, and I refuse to subscribe to the "women should be able to walk naked down the street without fear of attack" party.

For starters, if a woman did walk naked down the street she would (quite rightly) be arrested for indecent exposure, and risk being placed on the Sex Offender&#39;s Register. Not only is it illegal, but it is also stupid. and it is stupid to go out, spend all night flirting with a stranger and getting drunk, and then agreeing to go home with this stranger.

The message is simple: we all have to take a certain amount of responsibility for our own safety. No-one DESERVES to be raped, of course not. But too many people allow themselves to get into a vulnerable situation where they are more likely to be at risk of a rape or an attack. Simply saying "rape is wrong, it shouldn&#39;t happen" is not enough. People shouldn&#39;t burgle, steal, deal drugs, mug old ladies, get drunk and drive cars, but they do. We all know there are dangerous people in our society, and generally we all do what we can to make sure we as individuals do not fall prey to them. Yet for some reason, there are some people who think this shouldn&#39;t apply to women and rape.

please note - I am trying to "blame" those poor souls who are held at knifepoint, or beaten before being raped, nor those subjected to brutal repeated rape and battery by partners. All I am saying is that as people we need to be realistic, and take reasonable steps to make sure we are safe. after all, you wouldn&#39;t leave you house unlocked,would you?

finally, there is a BIG difference between "blame" and "responsibility". The gutter press and media at large were guilty of grossly misrepresenting the AI survey. quotes such as "25% of people believe rape victims are "to blame" if they are drunk or provocatively dressed" are NOT what the survey stated. In fact the word "blame" was not mentioned anywhere in the survey. there is a big difference between blame and responsibility. For example:

"I am responsible for my kids&#39; behaviour"
"I am to blame for my kids&#39; behaviour"

which sounds derogatory?