i really am speechless

Um, although the headline is sensationalist and wrong, if you RTFA you'll notice that the views expressed are not nearly all that abhorrent. The article's author goes on to say that rapists bear the sole responsibility for their crimes and that he supports the restoration of compensation to the victims.

Um, although the headline is sensationalist and wrong, if you RTFA you'll notice that the views expressed are not nearly all that abhorrent. The article's author goes on to say that rapists bear the sole responsibility for their crimes and that he supports the restoration of compensation to the victims.

Yes in that one sentence he is supportive however throughout the entirety of the article he infers just the opposite. If women get drunk then what happens is their responsibility. If they want to be able to have plausible deniability in court the answer is that they must stay sober at all times because there is always the potential for rape. It smacks as a lesson in what "good girls do" vs "bad girls".

Wow... just wow.

Whatever the article says, the seemingly rhetorical question makes the guy look like an unforgivable jackass. In the soundbite culture, it's better to have some subtlety, some nuance and some common sense. This lacks all three.

And the victim blaming goes on. It seems only men can go out and get smashed without any severe consequences. Women can't go and drink, wear skirts, or be sexy with being subjected it seems. And yet the patriarchal woman but do all these things to please men. Double standards anyone?

It's a horrible headline to an article that actually is not so horrible. The author doesn't excuse rape, but he is being realistic about the judicial system and how rape cases are currently handled. I don't wish rape upon anyone, but we do take responsibility for our actions. A woman that gets drunk to the point of being unconscious, and who does it willingly, needs to understand that there are all kinds of consequences, which may include a car accident, a trip to the hospital from alcohol poisoning, injury, and yes rape. It's a very sad fact that we all live with. This is not a blame-the-victim mentality. I believe men hold sole responsibility for their actions, but until we live in a perfect world where every man is an angel, women need to be vigilant.

Aniri: I was just bringing up the same thing in the comments thread on "The Good the bad News on UK rape case"

How do we recognize this fact - that women can and should take responsiblity for putting themselves in dangerous situations, and in fact can prevent abuse and rape and injury, and yet not blame the victim?

Uugg. Renee got it right. He says that rapists bear full responsibility,

but the whole consent-when-drunk thing is soooooooo confusing

but women choose to get drunk

but women's memories get so blurry, who's to say what really happened

C.R.A.P.

the answer is to focus on those other issues: men, the judicial system, society, etc. and improve them so that women can go freely about their lives. Putting the impetus on women is unfair and they are not the problem.

That said, the article, while somewhat problematic, was nothing like what the headline implies, and I really cannot believe that the author chose or even approved that headline

Journalists often have no say on the headlines; that's important to note because it shows that maybe it's not the writer but the editor- whose job it is to display good judgment- who doesn't have a fucking clue.

The headline takes out the worst sentiment in what is often a strong article, but which, in the end, resorts to victim-blaming as a solution to the huge problem of binge-drinking in the UK.

I go to university in Ireland (at a uni which is basically populated with English people) so I see the 'ladette' culture that he's talking about. Although this culture does result in some of the most pitifully overdressed, over-tanned, overly made-up women getting completely trashed, and stumbling barefoot on Dublin's cobblestones, what Graef is essentially saying is that they're 'asking' for it. Nowhere does he discuss why these girls are doing the completely idiotic things they're doing; a very superficial survey of English and Irish society shows that the mother/whore dichotomy of identity for women is still very strong. They're not doing it because they want to get raped, asshole.

But the most glaring omission in the article, only obliquely alluded to, is the pro-rape lad culture fueled by macho-rampaging men. I think THAT culture, and its promotion of binge-drinking, is the real driving force behind normalizing rapists' predatory behaviour; it's what's "blurring the evidence" by making it okay to be hyper-aggressive towards a girl that can't stand, let alone consent to anything.

The bottom line really is: you can't consent when you're that drunk, and when in doubt, LADS, the rule is: if you're in doubt about your partner's ability to understand what's going on, THERE IS NO FUCKING DOUBT. She can't consent.

Have we not figured this out yet? Newspapers and magazines say the most outlandish thing they can to get us to pick up the damn thing. ("Christian Bale on Bail?" No, he's simply having legal issues. But I've picked up the rag and am now buying it because Katie Holmes has yet another fabulous haircut to take to my stylist.) And I bet, as a result of posting this, we all ran over to read the article and the site was bombarded by hits. Mission accomplished.

I like that: if a woman is that drunk, she CAN"T consent. That is clear direction, leaving no room for fuzziness and blurred memories.

We still advise our daughters against this kind of behavior, we still take personal responsibility for our actions, yet the law must not place responsibility on the victim.

*first sentence should read "....maybe it's not JUST the writer but the editor ALSO". oops.

hey Steph - it would be a lot easier for women to "avoid dangerous situations" (like, for example, their own homes) if sexually abusive men conveniently wore t-shirts that said "I AM A RAPIST."

the majority of rapes are committed by men known to the victims, often men they thought they could trust.

oh, and aniri? rape isn't a consequence of being drunk. it's a consequence of being a woman in the same space as a rapist.

That is a fucking ridiculous headline. But it's probably the fault of an rape-apologist editor, not the journalist. (note: NOT defending it! but, as stated above, reporters generally don't write their own headlines.)

Steph: How do we recognize this fact - that women can and should take responsibility for putting themselves in dangerous situations, and in fact can prevent abuse and rape and injury, and yet not blame the victim?

The problem arises only because we're trying to reconcile two completely different areas of thought. Yes, it may be true that, no matter what anyone else did ever, the rapist bears all moral blame for a rape, but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not consuming crippling doses of alchohal in a world known to contain potential rapists violates self-preserving good sense.

It's the classic confusion between "should" and "is." Is it morally desirable that the world would be such that a person can temporarily cripple their own brain without someone taking advantage of that fact? Yes. Is that the way the world actually is? Hell no, so don't do that!

Yeah... there's a reason the Daily Mail is known around these parts as the "Daily Hate Mail." Sensationalist headlines, misogyny, homophobia... I can't say that I know how the headline came about (not that the article itself is spotless) but I don't not suspect the editors.

I can say that the drinking culture here in the UK is more intense than anything I've seen at home in Canada. There just seem to be more people getting blind drunk on a regular basis, hobbling around on the cobblestones like Bambi taking those first few steps. Combined with the "lad culture" of bar brawls and machismo that kasia mentions above, it does seem to be a recipe for disaster.

Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely unequivocal on the issue of rape -- there is never anyone to blame but the rapist. I'll also be writing to the Daily Hate Mail to complain about this article. But just like I won't drive without a seatbelt, I wouldn't put myself in the line of fire by doing anything that would put me at a disadvantage with some of these losers. Women shouldn't have to worry about what will happen after their memory blanks, but given that we do, I'm not taking any risks.

Excellent- so lets' get some succinct language around it so we can argue the points clearly in a court of law and advise our daughters.

Let's be able to quickly and clearly differentiate so we don't get muddy thinking from the patriarchy and end up blamed.

And what about women who are raped while completely sober? Are their rapes somehow more wrong, or more valuable than the rape of an intoxicated woman?

One must keep in mind that writers are not in complete control of the headline that goes with their story, though in this case, the headline may have originated with the writer's rhetorical question, "Don't women who get plastered beyond control have any responsibility for what happens to them?" I don't know how much control he had over those photos and captions, either.

As a matter of fact, the article is largely in support of rape victims and the explicit right of women to consent in all situations, (as well as "enjoy themselves") with the realistic recognition that a "blurred" memory may not hold up in court, true of many other crimes. The writer's claimed body of work appears to be anti-rape and supportive of rape victims, particularly regarding treatment by police. His statement that "date rape" drugs are rarely detected in blood tests on rape victims (2%, in one UK study) is also accurate, even if they are widely used, because they are difficult to detect and rapidly metabolized. Particularly when alcohol itself may be considered a "date rape" drug, one answer to a "blurred" memory may indeed be underestimating one's consumption or one's tolerance for it, as has been proposed, and studied. The writer explicitly recognizes there is still no excuse for rape, even in "ladette" culture.

"How do we recognize this fact - that women can and should take responsiblity for putting themselves in dangerous situations, and in fact can prevent abuse and rape and injury, and yet not blame the victim?"

When 70-80% of women are assaulted by partners, former partners, relatives, friends and other acquaintances, and 90% of victims under 12 are assaulted by someone they know, a full 34% by family members, according to research cited by the Sex Abuse Treatment Center of Hawaii:

http://satchawaii.com/statistics.html

one questions how "responsible" one can be to prevent themselves as a child ("Of all sexual assault victimizations reported to law enforcement agencies, 67 percent of victims were under 18 years of age, 34 percent were under 12 and 14 percent were six years old or younger") or a woman ("67 percent of women who were raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 were assaulted by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner or date") from being sexually assaulted.

A woman being raped is different from the sometimes argued scenario of a man "stupidly" walking down a dark alley with money hanging out of his pockets and being robbed. It is not a comparable kind of "responsibility" because women aren't stupid for being raped, particularly when about 70% of it is committed by people they have chosen to or should be able to trust, "a current or former husband, cohabiting partner or date", impaired or not. If I can't trust my wife (or a blood relative or friend) NOT to abuse me, even if I am physically or mentally incapacitated, whom am I supposed to trust? A doctor? A priest? Someone in uniform? Ha.

I feel a little bit bad for the journalist in this case - it's never the journalist who pens the headline in the UK, it's the sub-editors. It's still a shitty article, but that headline makes it seem infinitely worse than it ends up being.

Also, the writer is explicitly against reducing compensation for rape if a woman was drinking, despite his one liner about women taking responsibility for drinking (as opposed to responsibility for being raped).

I feel a little bit bad for the journalist in this case - it's never the journalist who pens the headline in the UK, it's the sub-editors. It's still a shitty article, but that headline makes it seem infinitely worse than it ends up being.

I feel a little bit bad for the journalist in this case - it's never the journalist who pens the headline in the UK, it's the sub-editors. It's still a shitty article, but that headline makes it seem infinitely worse than it ends up being.

My favorite comment on the original article: "When you?'re intoxicated you?'re venerable".

I think I'll start calling myself "Sot Christine the Venerable" next time I go out. :P

"Hey Steph - it would be a lot easier for women to "avoid dangerous situations" (like, for example, their own homes) if sexually abusive men conveniently wore t-shirts that said "I AM A RAPIST."

the majority of rapes are committed by men known to the victims, often men they thought they could trust."

I know - I was abused as a child and have been raped many times - by "friends". However, since I have stopped drinking, I have not been abused or raped by close acquaintances.

I don't think it was my fault I was abused or raped. But that's cold comfort.

I am interested in guiding my daughter - teaching safe and self-respectful behaviors while at the same time, not blaming her for the actions of another party.

I kind of see where he's coming from.

He's not saying it's our fault if we are raped.

We cannot really call him an asshole for saying that we should be aware of a very real possibility that someone might take advantage of our weakened state when we go out to drink.
When we tell each other all the time not to go to a party, have a drink, go off somewhere and come back to that same drink, for fear someone might've slipped something in it. Or that we shouldn't let people make our drinks when we aren't looking.

We can't call him a jerk for saying be careful when people are constantly telling us to avoid empty parking lots or to walk home with keys in our hands and always look alert and aware of our surroundings when we are alone.

Are they blaming us for what might happen if we don't implement these precautions? Of course not but they are saying to look out for potentially dangerous situations.

I know it's nice to say that women should be able to get drunk whenever and they should be able to (if men can why can't we?) but it is irresponsible to act like men don't take of advantage of drunk women and that we shouldn't think about this before getting shitfaced.

Once again I am an 18 y.o. woman and I think that rape is one of the worse things someone could possibly do to a woman and it is in no way her fault if it does happen but I'm not for not informing women that being sober and in control of their bodies would lessen the chances of them getting raped at a party.

Women have the right to drink as much as we want but we also have the right to know that some men are on the prowl for drunk women.

It's so hard not to sound accusatory when discussing precautions.

Let's say, I get drunk pass out in the street. Woman or man this probably is not a very responsible act but that doesn't mean someone should steal from me or rape me.

He's just saying that we should be responsible enough to know that not everyone is a trustworthy person to be around when alcohol enters the equation.

And for people who blame "promiscuously" dressed women or women with a "history" fuck that. Idc if I walk into a room naked if a guy tries to so much as touch me all hell will break loose. It doesn't matter what a woman wears or how many people she has sex with she still has a right to decide what goes on with her body but drinking makes it hard for us to register what's going on enough for us to coherently articulate our feelings and we need to be aware of that.

"In so many of today's cases, alcohol has become the element that literally blurs the evidence. "

Ummm.. hate to be a grammar nerd.. but unless alcohol spills onto some documents so that the text blurs, then alcohol does not LITERALLY blur the evidence. Geesh.

"I certainly defend women's right to enjoy themselves and, in all cultures, men must always take responsibility for their behaviour.

There is never an excuse.

But so must women - and brewers and publicans who ply them with cheap drink.

Women always retain the right to say no whatever condition they are in.

But if they have been drinking, they may not be able to make that clear to someone stronger than them who doesn't wish to hear it. "

It seems like he doesn't know WHAT he believes.. one line is anti-rapist, the next line is anti-women.. he keeps changing his mind. From what I know of rape victims, more often than not they do not just shutup and "take it", it is quite clear when a woman is saying no and meaning yes, and when a woman is just plain saying no. And if a guy really respects women, and this idea confuses him, then he should play it safe and not sleep with her until she says yes. It's that simple. Women have as much right to get blind drunk as any man does, and to say that they SHOULD NOT be able to (or not be LET do it by the presumably male "brewers and publicans who ply them with cheap drink" - do I hear the body control squad coming?) is to adhere to a form of rape apologist ideology. PARTICULARLY in saying that a "woman must take responsibility for her actions" and yet "there's no excuse" for rape. What?? I agree that people need to take responsibility for their actions, be they male or female, but in this case it definitely sounds like he's alluding to a woman taking responsibility for her actions should a man rape her while she's drunk.

Frustrating, this writer is (yoda voice plz)

I'm sorry to hear it, Steph, and you're a brave person for coming out, but that's still your life. Children, women and men (like I was) are sexually assaulted while sober, in perfectly "safe" situations. I don't take myself for a typical victim or survivor, either.

I'll teach my children as well, while being careful of judging others. I won't fault them if victimized while impaired (or naive like I was, or my wife is) either. I will be pissed if they inflict damage like crashing my car while drunk, or being the aggressor, however.

"Women always retain the right to say no whatever condition they are in.

But if they have been drinking, they may not be able to make that clear to someone stronger than them who doesn't wish to hear it."

it's just like gladiating, only with wishes and rape! ladies, it's not your fault if you get raped--it's your fault you weren't strong enough to fight him off. by losing that fight, he wins the right to rape you!

I don't understand what's so hard about not having sex with someone who can't give you a clear answer as to whether they want to have sex with you or not. If they can't give you a good answer they probably aren't in any condition to be having sex.

Goanna: But so must women - and brewers and publicans who ply them with cheap drink.

Uh, NO! Don't infantalize women by saying they're helpless against an affordable drink with a clever commercial. If we can't expect that much, how can we hold someone accountable for anything?

"oh, and aniri? rape isn't a consequence of being drunk. it's a consequence of being a woman in the same space as a rapist."

Cedar, you totally took what I said out of context. I did not imply that rape is a consequence of getting drunk, but that it can be a very tragic consequence of being extremely drunk...and, as you said, "being a woman in the same space as a rapist." In my whole post not once did I blame victims of rape. As a matter of fact, I have been in situations where I barely escaped rape and I was completely sober. It wasn't my fault. And I don't blame drunk women either. But I do stand by what I wrote in my original post: drinking to the point of being unconscious can have horrible, tragic consequences. Please, take my post in the context of the article.

I think the personal responsibility crowd always forgets that personal responsibility applies fully to the rapist. They always pontificate about how the woman should take the personal responsibility to "act and behave respectably", but where are the sermons about how men should take the personal responsibility to prevent rape? Where are the self-righteous rants about how men should take full responsibility for their actions? Why does it seem that this crowd is excusing the rapist for his despicable actions?

I'm not really talking about those who say that women should be careful, but rather those who blame the victim right off the bat...

You know, men go and get smashed and nothing happens to them. If we want gender equality, women should be able to go and get smashed without fear or being taken advantage of. And I read that article. It was the most wishy-washy piece of work. If you're going to have an opinion, then write it. If not, don't waste space on the internet.

Goanna,

"It seems like he doesn't know WHAT he believes.. one line is anti-rapist, the next line is anti-women.. he keeps changing his mind."

Anti-women? I'm having a really hard time seeing that in the bit you quoted.

I also really don't see any contradiction between saying that a only a rapist at fault for the rape and saying that a woman who is massively intoxicated will likely have a harder time defending herself against a rapist than a sober one.

I guess I'm just saying that I think it's hard to have an honest discussion about this when simply pointing out the fact that people who are drinking heavily are typically more vulnerable than those who aren't is considered "anti-woman."

And this from ariel: "You know, men go and get smashed and nothing happens to them."

Again, I think this statement is completely off-base and patently false. Recognizing misogyny and the unique effects it has on women's daily lives (drunk and sober) does not mean we have to act like nothing bad ever happens to men ever.

(forgive me if you were being sarcastic. Sometimes it's hard to tell.)

Steph and Aniri,

Of course, on an individual basis, we've got to be careful.

But when the /legal system/ takes any credance away from the victim, whatsoever, b/c of their actions (like getting drunk, etc.) that's a serious problem. And it does. It's a really big problem.

In no way should a woman be considered a less credible victim b/c she was drinking.

And I think jurors, judges, etc. that live in this culture hearing people talking about all the things women are "supposed" to do to be safer, wind up thinking that somehow makes a difference legally. So = problem.

"And this from ariel: "You know, men go and get smashed and nothing happens to them."

Again, I think this statement is completely off-base and patently false. Recognizing misogyny and the unique effects it has on women's daily lives (drunk and sober) does not mean we have to act like nothing bad ever happens to men ever."

Let's rephrase that for you then, 'k? Men go and get drunk and are not victimized by other human beings /nearly as often as women in their situation are/. K, happy now?