Hey, Peter Hitchens, how about men who are raped? How about you? If you get drunk, do you deserve to get assaulted - or even sexually assaulted - because you did something that caused you to be less quick on your toes, or less able to fend-off attacks?

Rape apologists like this disgust me.

This stuff makes my blood boil. Doesn't Hitchens understand that alcohol is often used as a weapon (as much as GHB or other date rape drugs are)? That assaults goes down in this way because perpetrators structure them that way?

I think that the most interesting work on perpetrator behavior is being done by David Lisak. He found that the rapes committed by college aged perpetrators were almost always premeditated and that the perpetrators almost always committed multiple rapes. (The citation is below.) There is a really chilling video in which an actor re-enacts one of Lisaks' interviews; the guy talks about picking out a victim, inviting her to a party, getting her drunk, isolating her, and then assaulting her, including the violence he would use to subdue "targets" or "prey" (words that the guy actually used).

Lisak, David. “Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists.” Violence and Victims 17.1 (2002): 73 - 84.

I'd like to send a copy to Hitchens, but I doubt he'd read it.

Some people are just so off the mark when they talk about sexual assault that you have to wonder if they're purposely trying to say the rudest, most offensive things they can come up with.

An analogy for Mr. Hitchens:

You fall asleep. A burglar breaks in through an open window and robs you of your most precious belongings. Yes, you should have been more responsible and locked that window. However, I highly doubt that when they catch the burglar, you'd be okay with him keeping your stuff and not going to jail since that unlocked window meant you were asking to be robbed.

And this doesn't even TOUCH any of the harmful stigma that he's perpetuating with this inane and wholly unresearched article.

'Getting drunk is not something that happens to you. It is something you do.'

Well Peter Hitchens, good fucking point about drunk driving and by the way, GETTING RAPED IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS TO YOU, AND IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU DO!!

'Men who take advantage of women by raping them, drunk or sober, should be severely punished for this wicked, treacherous action, however stupid the victim may have been'

I assume this line was supposed to make him look like less of an asshole, maybe next time Pete you should try leaving out the 'however stupid the victim may have been' part. Asshole! Sorry but this is just irritating. Is it really so stupid for a woman to go out to a bar, get drunk and expect to be able to get home without incident. Or is it stupid for someone to turn around and tell her that she was asking for it. I'm just gonna end my rant here because I'm getting too worked up and I'm at work.

Monday feminist Fuck You to Peter Hitchens!

Agreed on all points, except that I would change the language from "getting raped is something that happens to you" to "getting raped is something that is done to you".

The people who wail about the collapse of sexual morality are failing to grasp a point that ought to be obvious: sexual morals are not vanishing, they are transforming. The standard used to be "reproductive good, non-reproductive bad"; it's changing to "consensual good, non-consensual bad".

Many rapists drink a lot also in the mistaken belief that society will excuse their crimes. Alcohol is a weapon of choice for many rapists. People like Hitchens and that other guy who wrote the article a few days ago, help legitimize rape by putting the onus of preventing rape on the women. Their silence when it comes to condemning rapists speaks volumes...

I guess the only comfort is that it's only in the Daily Fail which is, well, not the most well-respected of periodicals.

More rapists are intoxicated than their victims.

And yet none of us feminists are seriously arguing in favor of "no likker fer the menfolks." Maybe it is because we're not FUCKING STUPID.

This is great timing, I just had a similar discussion with my boyfriend last night. If it isn't too much of a hijack, perhaps someone could share some thoughts on this.

I asked him if an attractive young woman, who chooses to walk home alone late at night while she's drunk, is responsible at all if she is attacked and raped. (I know, way less likely scenario than acquaintance rape, and conventionally attractive women are no more likely to be raped than conventionally unattractive, elderly, or very young women.) He said that yes, she would bear part of the responsibility, just as he would if he went out late at night with his iphone and got mugged. Since he would be taking a risk by going out late at night, drunk, and carrying an obviously expensive item, so too would a woman, going out late at night, drunk, and carrying an obviously attractive...uh, body?

Yeah. So I argued that the burden of responsibility lies with rapists to, y'know, NOT RAPE PEOPLE. He agreed, but said that in the "real world" there are rapists, and minimizing risk (not walking home late at night alone and drunk) is the only way to prevent rape--we can't do anything else about it.

I really disagree with this line of thinking, but I really struggled to put it into words when we were discussing it.

But, if he's going to go down that line of thinking, then wouldn't it make sense that since most rape is not the stranger-in-the-dark-alley type, and in fact the most likely people to commit rape are regular, normal guys that the victim knows, a woman should avoid contact with males of the species to minimize risk? No one-on-one contact, no parties where there are likely to be males, no visiting friends with male relatives, and no dates. That would certainly minimize risk, and for a woman looking to avoid being raped, it would make sense that she should avoid contact with men that she knows, since they are statistically the most likely to rape her.

Personally, I don't think that the victim bears ANY responsibility. I think that I should be able to be lying passed out and naked in a gutter and not be raped. But, I do things to minimize risk, regardless. I don't accept drinks from strangers, I don't go to wild parties, I don't associate with men who don't share my views on women's rights.

So where does this "responsibility" begin and end?

Totally agree Ismone, and also, why are we not hearing cries about how men should also control their drinking? Perhaps they wouldn't get themselves in that situation where a rape might happen...

just turning back the rape apologists' rhetoric on them

The article and the comments on his page depressed the hell out of me. I don't understand why all these guys come out of the woodwork and think that women who report rape are just having "buyers remorse" from the night before and that they really wanted to have sex and now are feeling guilty and are crying rape. Are you fucking insane? who the fuck, in their right mind, would do that? It's not like going to the cops, getting a rape kit done are so easy and everyone there isn't biased against you already because of preconceived notions that all women who are raped are lying. Fucking drives me insane the way this system works. Why is everything focused on the women? What she did/didn't do/drank/wore/went/said etc. Why isn't a man ever scrutinized in such a way? I don't fucking believe in the "mixed messages" line of reason where the man "didn't understand" or some such nonsense. Men feel entitled to do whatever they want and it's fucking wrong and needs to stop!!

This is spot on:

"But, if he's going to go down that line of thinking, then wouldn't it make sense that since most rape is not the stranger-in-the-dark-alley type, and in fact the most likely people to commit rape are regular, normal guys that the victim knows, a woman should avoid contact with males of the species to minimize risk? No one-on-one contact, no parties where there are likely to be males, no visiting friends with male relatives, and no dates. That would certainly minimize risk, and for a woman looking to avoid being raped, it would make sense that she should avoid contact with men that she knows, since they are statistically the most likely to rape her"

That is *exactly* it... Most rapists pick their targets for being unsuspecting, with their guard down.

The article and the comments on his page depressed the hell out of me. I don't understand why all these guys come out of the woodwork and think that women who report rape are just having "buyers remorse" from the night before and that they really wanted to have sex and now are feeling guilty and are crying rape. Are you fucking insane? who the fuck, in their right mind, would do that? It's not like going to the cops, getting a rape kit done are so easy and everyone there isn't biased against you already because of preconceived notions that all women who are raped are lying. Fucking drives me insane the way this system works. Why is everything focused on the women? What she did/didn't do/drank/wore/went/said etc. Why isn't a man ever scrutinized in such a way? I don't fucking believe in the "mixed messages" line of reason where the man "didn't understand" or some such nonsense. Men feel entitled to do whatever they want and it's fucking wrong and needs to stop!!

Unbelievable; this not only makes me feel ashamed to be a man, but also to be British - a double whammy. Peter Hitchens - what a disgraceful waste of people's intellect to even have to respond to such horrifically appalling diatribe. Ugh.

Brothers? Really? Some people seriously shouldn't procreate.

I fucking hate Christopher Hitchens so much. I didn't even know about this other one.

I posted the following on Hitchens' page:

By Peter Hitchens' hare-brained logic, a woman who is raped by her dentist while she's under anesthetic deserves less sympathy, too.

But then, logic isn't exactly his strong suit, now is it?

@Mayfly

"But, if he's going to go down that line of thinking, then wouldn't it make sense that since most rape is not the stranger-in-the-dark-alley type, and in fact the most likely people to commit rape are regular, normal guys that the victim knows, a woman should avoid contact with males of the species to minimize risk? No one-on-one contact, no parties where there are likely to be males, no visiting friends with male relatives, and no dates. That would certainly minimize risk, and for a woman looking to avoid being raped, it would make sense that she should avoid contact with men that she knows, since they are statistically the most likely to rape her."

Actually, a number of cultures in this world go by that line of thinking. From what I have heard from a young American woman who lives with her (American) husband and kids in the Middle East, this is common thinking in Saudi Arabia. I believe it is called "purdah", or segregation by sex. The way of thinking rationalizes that no sexual assaults will occur if non-related men and women are not together in a social context. The "opportunity" is not there, so no crimes are committed (in theory--- I'm sure there are instances that are kept under wraps, as in any society) I beleive this is more cultural than religion related- the sexes mixed freely from what I saw during my time in Morocco. Honestly, I do not know what works for Saudis... I'm not about to try a to deconstruct a culture with roots in the ancient times. But I know that none of the "separate but equal" tripe worked here in the United States. Hence, the social and civil revolutions of the 60s.

I want to know why he thinks that it's okay for men to get drunk but it's not okay for women to?

I like drinking, and I want to be able to do it without the fear that I'll be assaulted. However, if I do get assaulted, I don't want the fact that I was engaging in legal activity to be used against me. However, with asshats like Hitchens perpetrating this hogswash, it's more likely that if I am raped, I won't get justice.

And while we're on the subject of partial responsibility, I feel that men like him are "partially responsible" for rape, because they help foster the climate that allow and excuses it.

@exelizabeth
"And while we're on the subject of partial responsibility, I feel that men like him are "partially responsible" for rape, because they help foster the climate that allow and excuses it."

Exactly! I firmly believe that any responsibility foisted upon victims is responsibility being taken away from their aggressors.

@SailorRox
I agree that the "separate but equal" tripe hasn't and won't work here, and from my understanding it isn't working out in countries where it is still a common cultural practice. So what is the solution? Where is that middle ground? Or should it even be a middle ground that we're searching for?

@Dominique
So since we can agree that rapists generally prefer their victims to be unsuspecting, how can we solve the problem of rape? Should we wrap ourselves in bubble wrap and be constantly on guard? Should we avoid situations that allow us to be targeted by rapists? (Drinking alcohol, meeting new people, going on dates, etc.) Should we live our lives however we want without considering the threat of rape? Or is that irresponsible in some way, since in the "real world" rape IS an ever-present threat.

Mayfly, in order to stop male-on-female rape, women would have to completely separate themselves from ALL men, even those to whom we're related (because rape happens within families, too).
But victim-blamers never go THAT far, because they DO want to use us ladies for some things (sammiches and baybees, anyone?).

@Mayfly: I took a great self-defense class with an amazing organization called Home Alive (http://www.homealive.org/), and they are really about empowering their students. Like, they define self defense as what YOU are able and willing to do to make yourself feel as safe as you feel you need to be.

For me, I know there will always be threats to me, as a woman specifically but as a human in general (men are also at risk for violence, both sexual and non-sexual, while they walk down the street). I try to balance being cautious with having fun and living the independent life I want to live. For me, it works to only get drunk with friends I trust, to take cabs when need be, to have a serious bitch-face when I walk down the street, to know my boundaries, to know my limits with drinking, to know some self defense moves. However, what works FOR ME might not work for others. What's important is to know your boundaries and limits and to live your life as freely as you can within those.

Of course you should be aware of threats. However, I don't want fear of those threats to paralyze me. And I think it's irresponsible to promote a culture that tries to immobilize women with guilt and fear when they're just trying to live freely.

And another point, I think what is to be done is to start talking about why men shouldn't rape women. That seems like common sense, and yet as a culture because our commen sense is that rape is this awful thing perpetrated by the sociopathic stranger in the bushes and you'd basically have to be evil to do it. We don't talk about how not to murder people, because it seems like common sense that of course you don't murder people. And yet, our common sense is wrong when it comes to rape. Normal, sane men DO rape, and no one has ever talked to them about NOT raping. Not that this is an excuse at all, but it's a conversation that needs to start happening.

I thought this was a really great postabout this: http://jezebel.com/5034850/5-ways-to-prevent-your-son-from-turning-into-a-date-rapey-alcoholic-douchebag

[a drunk victim of rape] is culpable, just as she would be if she crashed a car... while drunk.

If getting raped is equivalent to driving a car into a tree, then the air through which Peter Hitchens travels is filled with disembodied penises. Wherever he goes, he evades non-sentient erections flying towards his genitals, which requires continuous attention and quick reflexes to avoid sudden accidental penetration. I'm kinda glad I don't live in the world Peter Hitchens seems to inhabit.

There are two problems here. The comments thus far have been focused on the obvious and important one: the penises are not disembodied, consensual sex requires more than just "not saying no", and the problem is the rapist, not their victims. But this is not the issue Hitchens is raising.

He, like "mayfly"'s boyfriend, are falling victim to another, more subtle fallacy which muddies the water. These conversations, and Hitchens comments in particular, conflate two very different types of responsibility: responsibility to assess risk, and responsibility for doing harm.

At some level, all of us are responsible for assessing risk. Awareness of risk is a basic and valuable survival skill, touching almost every aspect of our lives, from publishing personal information on the internet to choosing employment to picking a restaurant to deciding when to make a left hand turn at a busy intersection. And, indeed, deciding what to wear and the environment in which to wear it. If I wear expensive clothes in an impoverished neighborhood and wander around looking frightened and lost, my risk of being a victim are increased. I do have some responsibility to try to avoid putting myself in harm's way.

But misjudging risk is not causing harm; misjudging risk does not make me responsible for the actions of others. Even if the consequence of my miscalculation is to suffer harm by another, I am not responsible for the harm that person does to me.

We don't tend to blame the elderly victims of confidence men. We don't blame the victims of deceptive lending practices. We don't blame the victims of pickpockets. We don't blame the victims of house theft. We may and often do question whether they did enough to prevent the crime; sometimes we are troubled by their naivete, at other times we are surprised to discover more evidence that we cannot entirely eliminate risk from our world.

But we do not blame the victims. In each of these cases, we expect the legal system to track and (depending on your ethics) penalize or rehabilitate the perpetrators. It is no different with rape; regardless of how it happened, regardless of our opinion of whether the risk the victim has taken is "responsible" or "irresponsible," the perpetrator is the criminal and the perpetrator is solely responsible for the harm they have caused.

Did anyone read the article?

The other part comparison--
"...or stepped out into the traffic while drunk and was run over."

Maybe I'M missing something if a boyfriend, friend, acquaintance, or strangers rapes a woman (or MAN) be s/he drunk, sober, scantily dressed, or drugged by a roofie, he bears full LEGAL culpability for being a fucking predator.

I was under the impression that article was discussing financial compensation and liability. Can you distinguish the two (conviction of a rapist, and financial payment to the victim)?

(I realize the dangerous territory I'm getting into--if a person drinks to the point that s/he can no longer make decisions or even ATTEMPT to maintain control of a situation, are they responsible for dressing a certain way?

Do they even victim comp in the U.S.?

The perpetrator is responsible for rape and we could yell till we're blue in the face demanding that parents, the marketplaces, peers of would-be rapists, and individual men SHOULD change a rape culture. Until then--I don't think it's bad to stress short-term factors that may affect a potential victims' ATTEMPTS to prevent sexual assault, partial ATTEMPTS for victims to stay in control. The rapist is to blame for attempted or successful rape, but if we're talking about would-be victims, I think that for a few, having your wits about you (even around acquaintances) may help a person get away, scream for help, etc.

P.S. I am aware that if someone physically overpowers you or drags you into a corner to rape you, "attempts at control" means shit.

I acknowledge that most rape occurs at home, and the rapist is someone known. I acknowledge that there is no way that your clothing will prevent you from getting raped. Rape is not your fault. You can't prevent your husband from raping you.

But if you're out walking at night, this goes for anyone:

A great way to prevent anything bad happening to you on the street is to not look like a victim. Victims can look wealthy, impaired, smaller, less powerful. It's not your fault for being a victim of any crime. Obviously the problem is with society; a society that makes men think that women are there for them, and that they want to be raped. The problem with theft is a classist and selfish society, one where there are people who feel they are important enough to steal from others.

So what are factors that rapists have in common? I would expect that they would have been raised in families with very strict gender roles. Maybe the father was abusive to the mother, and it carried down the line to the rapist-child, who learned that women were disposable minions. Maybe then he grew up in a culture where women were prized for their beauty. Where porn stars were disposable masturbatory aids, where sex workers were primarily female.
Where raunch culture made it socially acceptable for women to feel empowered by their own self-promoted objectification.

A lot of men feel this sense of entitlement to our bodies, but what are we as feminists doing to undermine the culture that gives them that sense of entitlement? We can't just sit around and say 'poo poo' to every misogynist who comes along - We need to stop this reactionary behavior. They tell us women are passive - we say we're not, but what are we doing? Blogging in reaction to the same old stuff? What are WE doing to systematically get rid of the culture that systematically degrades us and values us only for our appearance?

I'm not blaming the victim. I'm blaming the rape culture which is very old and walks hand in hand with patriarchy. I'm blaming the raunch culture, which in its consumerist form is brand new.
But both men and women can perpetuate a culture. So we're all at fault. When you, as a woman, decide that you're going care more about your appearance than about your performance at work or school, you're buying into sexism.
When you buy make-up, you are voting for that same industry you feel morally repulsed by.
When feminist men don't call bullshit, they're perpetuating sexism through their silence.
When we only feel sexy when we wear the latest fashion and have our legs and armpits shaved, we're playing right into their hands. This is how the culture wants us to feel.

Men are so used to our reacting to what they do to us. When are we going to step up and take this shit seriously enough to boycott raunch culture's image of sexy? When are we going to care enough to make men react to our actions?

You can be sexy wearing over-alls and a helmet.
You can be sexy in comfortable clothing that doesn't change with fashions.

I believe that the first step to getting rid of this stupid woman hating culture is to stop equating sexy with what you've been told is sexy by people who profit from it. Every culture, every society has a different 'sexy'. Let's make our own. Let's reject this narrow definition of sexy and self-define it. Let's make it non-commercial, open-source and functional, free to everyone, man or woman.

Let's start creating a culture of androgyny, where being a man or a woman is tertiary to your appearance. Our appearances should be dictated by what's comfortable and by what we do every day and not by our secondary sexual characteristics. Cute, sexy, posh, hot, sweet, raunchy, preppy, you name it - all words used to describe styles of clothing AND women. Let's stop it. I'm not clothing. I want to be indefinable. When I walk into a room, the last thing I want someone to think about is my personal appearance. When I open my mouth, I want you to listen to my words, not look at the color of my lips. When I leave the room, please remember the words that I said, and not how I wore my hair. The way I am going to accomplish this is by wearing clothes and hairstyles that are climate-appropriate, comfortable, and help me accomplish what I want to do that day.

Anyway that's my rant.

Ug. Dumb. That's all I have to say on this watered down piece of crap that erodes away at journalism by calling itself an article.

I'm actually surprised at the people who don't get "drunk woman does not mean more at fault." I had a lengthy argument with my aunt and uncle in laws about the Oregon rape case that happened a few months back. They're usually as far left as you can go and feminists. It was astoundingly frustrating because if I can't turn his view, the neo-right is beyond reach.

@Mayfly:

I think there is a solution, albeit a long and multi-stepped solution which will not see immediate results. I think we can all agree that in order to change a certain practice we do not like (for example, the high prevalance of sex-related violence and society's blase attitude toward this), we need to change the culture behind it. It has worked before- I have never seen a "white's only" drinking fountain in my lifetime except in a museum. So some suggections:

1. From a very early age, begin stamping it into little kids' heads that rape is not acceptable. Use age-appropriate lessons. Begin with, "Don't let anyone touch your bathing suit area." Then move on from there. Part of the reason why almost everyone in our society condemns murder is because from an early age we have been taught that it is bad to kill people (religion school, mom/dad/kid discussions, whathaveyou). The disconnect comes when no one is there for Junior to explain to him that TV and real life are not the same thing.

2. Echoing Exelizabeth, teach young people to defend themselves. When I underwent "stay away from strangers" training as a kid, I was taught to run away screaming in the opposite direction. There my training stopped. What's wrong with telling a kid to kick the person in the shin, and then explaining to the child that this is only for emergencies? Again, more parental or guardian responsibilty to teach Junior to stand up for him or herself but to be aware that hauling off and punching just anyone is not OK.

3. About attacking the culture behind a problem- I see that most people vehemnently defend their rights to drink. That's fine. But again, we need to ingrain into kids heads from a very young age that alcohol has certain effects on the human body. Maybe begin with a young child by saying that, "When Mommy (or Daddy) drinks alcohol, it makes her feel differently than she normally does." Then when the child learns more about the human body, explain more. It really bothers me that people my age believe that to have a good social outing, they must get drunk. I admit I have a bias (I grew up with an abusive alcoholic relative). I think this Higgins jerk is talking about the type of drunk where woung people become so intoxicated they pass out or fall down. Doesn't anyone see the problems with this type of drinking? Physical, psychological... This type of drinking obviously makes it easier for an attacker to single a victim.
No one needs to be that intoxicated to have a good time.
But I assume as the independent ladies and gentlemen you are here on this forum, you drink responsibly... one, or two, or until you feel a buzz. That's fine. And no one should be demonized for enjoying a legal passtime.

4. Get the word out, to both kids and adults, that rape, just like murder, is unacceptable and the aggresors are responsible, not the victims. Use billboards, radio ads, TV ads, protests, everthing. Make people feel uncomfortable- some people may moan that they don't want to explain to their kid what rape is on the way to school. I say stand and be on of the many who let everyone know that rape culture would not be so prevalent if more people would saddle up and confront it.

5. Listen to Cosmo (shock, gag!) I actually read a good article in their once about the "Number one way to avoid Rape." The artcle said that if you go to socialize, bring your friends. If you are like me and like solitude once in a while, let people know where you are going and tell them to check up on you.

About segregation not working it other cultures. I believe that the natural state of Man is the intermingling of sexes. I mean, from a biological standpoint, this is how we find mates. From a social standpoint, most people like variety and change and want to move outside their core group of similar friends every once and a while to find people whose personalities complement theirs. We can already see that segregation does not work... there are many pioneering feminists who work, even under pain of incarceration or death, in places like Saudi Arabia. And we can see that the "old way" of doing things has fallen - for example Morocco is radically different from Saudi Arabia even though people of both countires come from a common culture and origin.

So these steps are not the only steps and the change will not be easy. But we live for this shit, right gals!?

He made my blood boil so I left him a rant on the comment section of his blog page [has to be approved before its shown]. It reads as follows:

RE: Compensation cuts for 'drunken' rape victims.

As an 18 year old girl reading your article I am utterly shocked and disgusted that you could defend the cutting of compensation for rape victims purely on the basis of them having consumed alcohol.

According to your reckoning, if I were to go out for a drink with friends and was so unfortunate as to be sexually assaulted or raped, some of the blame would be placed upon me for having the audacity to partake in an activity that is deemed acceptable - if not encouraged - in my male peers.

I should have the right to go out, have a drink or ten and still not expect another human being to violate me sexually. Of course I am not so niave and as a young woman am accustomed to taking preccautions to ensure this doesn't happen but I digress.

The fact of the matter is that young woman should be able to drink alcohol without fear that they will be blamed if they should be sexually attacked (and cutting compensation sends out a clear signal that the state thinks they are partially culpable for what happened to them). The focus should be on protecting women, not chastising or judging them because no matter how inebriated they were, without consent it's ALWAYS rape.

Let me leave you with this scenario, if it was a male who was raped by another male, would the state dream of cutting the victims compensation based on alcohol consumption?

There's something to be said about rape that most people debating rape issues continue forgetting. On top of using the "victim-blaming" phrase to the point to where its become a cliche.

A very important (but faulty) assumption is made about rape, which is that its done by a caped stranger in the night abducting a woman.

The truth is vast majority of rape cases happen from someone close to the victim. The number of rape cases by a stranger go in the single digits.

So using metaphors such as "defending herself from the abduction", immediatelly fly off the debate.

By law, (for example) in car crashes, even if you're not the one at fault and had absolutely done nothing wrong, but were the one hit, if you were drunk at the point of impact, your victim status is lowered.

If you are to a write an agreement under the influence, it would also be taken less seriously.

Black and white solutions never help anyone.

Example of b&w thinking:

Either: "The rapist is a monster of unseen proportions that needs to be friend in an electric chair"
Or: "Its the victims fault and he shouldn't even be charged".

TRUTH is, the real world never fits B&W scenarios, and the problem is when someone who likes the first one (he's a monster, and she's a 100% accidental victim), sees anything less as a direct support of the second one (its ok).

There is such a thing is "Victim-responsibility" as opposed to "victim-blaming".

There are tribes in the world where they consider it disrespect to wear red and they will kill you for it. Assume jack visited them wearing a red shirt.

Victim blaming: Screw him, who cares, why did he go there wearing a red shirt, f him. He got what he deserved.

Victim responsibility: I think those people should be reformed, and we should put the leader in jail. Jake should have taken the warnings from the brochure more seriously as well, but lets do a better job of informing tourists in the future.

Victim responsibility is about empowering people to know they have the personal power to influence whether they become victims or not, and have control over their destinies.

Posted above me said:

"Let me leave you with this scenario, if it was a male who was raped by another male, would the state dream of cutting the victims compensation based on alcohol consumption?"

There is a current case in Ohio where a small boy was raped by a woman, and she got pregnant when raping him.

She is currently in prison. Her term is 18months (to be cut to 9months), even though if it were a man raping a girl of the same edge, he gets on average 30 years.

Now...

Financially...

Get this. Since she is pregnant, and got pregnant by raping him, he owes her child support.

That's right, this little boy is forced by the state to pay child support to his rapist.

"If getting raped is equivalent to driving a car into a tree, then the air through which Peter Hitchens travels is filled with disembodied penises. Wherever he goes, he evades non-sentient erections flying towards his genitals, which requires continuous attention and quick reflexes to avoid sudden accidental penetration."

That cracked me up, Dondo.

I have a question, just because it came up time and again on the comment page that went along with the article (not the comments from here).

Is it really true that some women will have sex, but be so drunk that they can't remember anything, and then claim rape the next day because of "buyer's remorse"? (NOT my terminology!) Does anyone have any factual data on this?

I ask because it was a common argument, and I want something intelligent to say back to it.

Hitchenses are all assholes, apparently. Which is strange, because even though I'm religiously of the same cloth as the ironically named Christopher, I still think he's a pompous ass.

It makes me wonder about this guy, though. If I were to stake out his home, and wait until he left the place unlocked and robbed him blind, would that be ok by him? I mean, he left it unlocked. Clearly if his property meant something to him, he would've locked up, right? ;)

And the car crash comparison was really shit. When a drunk is driving and crashes into an inanimate object, they are the only acter. Everyone else is being acted upon. If some drunk crashes into another driver's car, then the crash is the drunk's fault, and not the sober person's. The drunken driver scenario is far more apt to talk about a drunken rapist than any woman he might attack. The moral here is more aptly summarized as "even if you're drunk, it's your responsibility to, you know, not rape people." Not a complicated request.

@ Aleksa: As a sex offender against a child, in many states, she wouldn't be allowed to have custody of the kid in the first place. I quite agree, she shouldn't even be allowed, as clearly she's not a safe person for a child to be around. If the boy's family want to take the child, they should have the right to, but if the boy doesn't, then they should be allowed to place that child for adoption regardless of her thoughts on the matter.

"Let me leave you with this scenario, if it was a male who was raped by another male, would the state dream of cutting the victims compensation based on alcohol consumption?"

There is a current case in Ohio where a small boy was raped by a woman, and she got pregnant when raping him.

She is currently in prison. Her term is 18months (to be cut to 9months), even though if it were a man raping a girl of the same edge, he gets on average 30 years.

Now...

Financially...

Get this. Since she is pregnant, and got pregnant by raping him, he owes her child support.

That's right, this little boy is forced by the state to pay child support to his rapist."

I looked up the case of the rapist, Jane Crane (is that who you're talking about).

Forgive me--but the case seems to be one of statutory rape, in that he was a minor, but a consenting one (15 year old kid, 19 year old perpetrator).

Unless she forcibly raped him...given the small disparity in ages, she shouldn't even be in jail, anymore than Genarlow Wilson should be in jail (although he was charged with raping a girl while she was passed out...there was a tape of him dragging