Flirting Women Asking For Rape

[Drusilla]

Believe it or not, this is the headline of the London Metro today. I picked it up whilst returning from a job and very nearly missed my station, I was so shocked.

Amnesty International were responsible for the study that stated one third of Britons believe a woman who acts flirtatiously is partly to blame if she is raped.

Amazingly, 5% of women thought a woman totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk, compared with only 3% of men.

12000 rapes were reported in 2004-2005, but Amnesty believe the actual figure is closer to 60000.

Are ABers as shocked as me at the blame culture that still exists in rape cases?

Feel free to drift as far away from my question as you please, but let's keep it civilised please, ABers.

[joko]

what is the percentage of rapists in this country?

Perhaps that 3% are the responses of the rapists - or at least men who have huge potential towards violence to women.

Some women are so insecure, jealous and b*tchy, they cannot bear the thought of their man looking at another woman - particularly a scantily clad one.

I know women who react with pure venom towards the sight of cleavage or mini skirts.

Some even hate sexy scenes on TV!!

I think these women should be ashamed of themselves. They should get some self respect and pride and belief that they are good enough for their man and not worry he will stray at the drop of a hat.

This lack of empathy, and downright vicious reaction, is jealousy and fear that they don't look as good and the leggy, busty ladies - and I wonder if this is yet another thing to add the list of problems that the media's portrayal of beautiful, unrealistic women causes - like bullimia, anorexia, too much surgery, paranoia, self esteem issues etc etc??

[joko]

WM - If, god forbid, i was to be raped, i would rather it be a stranger than my husband.

Rape goes far beyond a physical attack - feelings of humiliation, anger, defenselessness, resentment...the list of emotions is endless ...

I, for one, would rather not then have to face that person every day, sleep in the same bed as him, possibly have to feed and look after his kids, socialise with his family etc etc

it would hugely affect the lives of you, your family, his family, your kids - as how could you stay together after that?

And if he used violence, there would be physical evidence - and what if the kids where in the house?

the after effects of being raped by your husband continue and are more life changing, than by a stranger.

At least with a stranger you can try to get over it and try to forget eventually - how can you forget if you see him every day??

although the threat of being killed is much higher with a stranger than with a husband obviously, (though husbands may be more likely to kill for fear of prison...) so that makes them both horrifying in different ways...but assuming you survive both - we are talking rape here, not murder.

Imagine also what my dad and brother would do to him! - doesn't bear thinking about! (but i'd be there cheering them on!) ....that's before I got round to bobbiting him!

[Ward-Minter]

joko I hear what you are saying about the husband thing but surely if the marriage/relationship has got to the point where he is now a rapist surely the marriage is over anyway?

And me thinking that a stranger would be worse comes from the feelings of pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, AIDS, Hepatitis, ID proceedures in court/police stations.

Fair enough I am coming from a maleist point of view and will never understand what a victim feels but I am unconvinced with your argument.

I am sure this is why the law was only recently changed to accomodate rape in marriage.

Again I reiterate if people have not read my earlier thread. There is NO WAY rape in marriage is acceptable in any way shape or form and the perpertraitors of such foul violence need to be strung up by the balls its just I do see it as quite as bad as the Hollywoodesque stranger rape.

Just to add a final point though, I believe all rapists should be hung anyway so I suppose it doesn't really matter.

[Oneeyedvic]

Just to addd something to the debate:

If a girl has sex under the age of 13 it is classed as statutory rape. We have certainly seen the headlines of girls being pregnant at that age, and there are certainly a number of girls at that age who are sexually active.

If they are 'raped' who is to blame? And does it matter if the male partner was 13, 16, 18, 21, 25 or 50?

Bit of a gray area methinks.

[funnywebsite]

Some woman are silly wearing mini skirts in this freezing cold weather. It wouldn't be so bad in the summer but to freeze your legs off at this time of the year is crazy. If they wore tights then fine but I keep seeing woman with bare legs and short skirts. Men must think them crazy. I was shocked to see a bar in my town that now does topless nights 4 days per week. Men are going to ogle at girls then go out sexually frustrated then end of picking on an innocent woman. Some men who are pee brained might be more likely to go after a mini skirted woman. You should be able to wear what you want but it is a sad society when you get sicko's forcing themselves on woman. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what you wear because you get paedophilles that go after little boys, nobody can accuse them of wearing sexually explicit clothes.

[Ward-Minter]

One eyed man. Rape of a child under 13 is exactly the same as any age APART from the issue of consent is no defence.

i.e under 13 yr olds cannot give consent. Period. I think the new act incorporates nearly every sexual crime with two ages -18 and 13. Every offence where the victim is under 18 a defence is to show reasonable belief that the culprit thought they were above that age. Where they are 13 no defence. I suppose your point is it is possible for a 13 year old to be "developed", wear make up, smoke, drink and even be in a nightclub. Alas if somebody has sex with the younger age you are doomed.

Alas, the "offender" is most of the new sections usually has to be 18 or over. Under that age the law is more leanient.

I suppose the vast majority of under 16 and especially under 13 pregnancies the father is also a child.

A few points

1) Is it really in the public interest if the sex was consensual?

2) The pregnant girl could be prosecuted for what is now called "sexual touching" of towards the boy. (However, in the case when the child is under 13 and the adult is 18 the child is free from any prosecution. Ergo you can not aid and abet a crime which is there to protect you in the first place!)

3) Unless witnessed how would we know? There is no power to obtain DNA from the victim, the father or indeed the new born baby to prove sex took place without the consent of the complainant.

Kids will always have sex between each other. Right or wrong that is a fact of life and I don't think it has changed much over the generations. I am sure some of our older ABer's agree. I lost my virginity well under the age of consent BUT it was with a girl my age. I really do not think I was in the wrong nor should I have been prosecuted. Likewise the law is not interested either.

Does this make sense?

[Oneeyedvic]

Sorry WM - you misunderstand me. I am saying that if a girl of 12 3/4 has sex with anyone (regardless of age) willingly it is (in the eyes of the law) rape.

If the girl is a willing partner (maybe even instigates it with a boy of her own age) is she responsible?

Fact of the matter is (in the eyes of the law) she has been raped.

[mash]

I was amazed by this article. How can anyone ever blame a woman for being raped. Drunk, clothing, attitude, location etc are all totally irrelivent. Rape is totally inexcusable and wrong end of story.

[smudge]

In a nutshell - couldn't have put it better myself mash!

[eupraxia]

Ok we all know rape is a bad thing. This is true.

But what if the woman says yes and quite readlily does it then after the fact she changes her mind. Is that still rape cos if it is then thats wrong, and how long will it be before that is the case.

I know a man who was wrongly accused. His life was ruined on the word of a woman who made no small comment of the fact that her idea of a good night out was "getting laid". The man hadn't even touched her. Yet he was convicted and lost his job, his wife, his kids and 4 months of his life because of it.

It is good that those who may suffer will be able to get justice but where do we draw the line. Yes in some case with men it is about power but not always. Men are men its as simple as that. they are more sexually driven than women. I know cases where women have been involved with attacks on other women so figure that out.

Again its back to how the media handles these revelations and how we as a society handle them. But we must not cowtow to every woman who has a one night stand and then changes her mind. Come on ladies we're not that stupid. Know the limits and be safe in your pursuit of fun.

[Drusilla]

Did you read the figures on the first page, eupraxia? Only 6% of reported rapes lead to a conviction and it's believed 80-90% of rapes go unreported.
For every one woman who makes wrongful and dreadful accusations, there are literally thousands of men getting away with it!!
I am also offended by the insinuation that a woman who admits she enjoys sex and actively pursues it with men of her choice is not worthy of the protection of the law.
If your friend was so innocent, surely his wife would have believed him and stayed with him- she didn't!!
If your friend was innocent, surely the jury and the DNA evidence would have cleared him-they didn't!!

[eupraxia]

Yes Drusilla I did read the figures. And I know the situation concerning the man I was referring to a little better than you. Some one here pointed out that there are many things that we can do to protect ourselves against many other crimes. I fully admit in some instances of rape this is not possible. And by the way I have been there.

the point I was making that lie these other crimes, this is one that we could, as women do something to protect ourselves against. In an ideal world yes we would be able to dress the way we want but thats not the case so why make it worse.

We lock our doors when we leave the ouse so we keep out burglers. We do the same with our cars when we are not in them.

From what you are implying it is ok for any woman to make the accusation even if she gave her consent just because later on she changes her mind. Well sorry thats wrong. Your implying that it is ok for a woman to make an accustaion dispite the fact that she is later proved to be a liar. Thats ok is. a mans life can be ruined because a woman says so. What sort of attitude is that and do you realise that it then makes it so much hard for a real rape victim to then get justice.

men can come outside the body incase it hadn't occured to u. This was her excuse for no DNA and she was believed. Never mind that there was not trace on her clothes , that didn't seem to matter. All that mattered was getting a conviction.

His wife left him because of the hastle she got from the locals.

To pursue men is fine but then to accuse them after the fact isn't fair.

Don't jump before u know all sides of a story. thats what leads to false conviction and ruined lives.

[Oneeyedvic]

ZebUk - sadly if you follow think link I posted on previous page you will find the full statistics - and my comment that its amazing that women feel this way to

[Drusilla]

eupraxia, you can hardly complain about me talking about your friend when you were prepared to put his case into the melting pot of debate.
I also made it very clear in my comments that such 'crying wolf' by women is unacceptible and by implication that such behaviour makes rape convictions more difficult to attain for other women.
There has been a lot of talk about Gary Glitter on this site with ABers reminding one another that he has not been convicted and we shouldn't pre-judge, even if we suspect he's guilty.
Well, unfortunately, for you, you placed a guilty conviction in this forum and you shouldn't complain about people's attitude to an actual 'rape conviction', whether we know the person or not. I'm suspecting the jury had a lot more evidence to work with than you and I.

[LeMarchand]

Thought I'd throw in my opinion before this topic disappears off the bottom of the page. Been thinking about it a lot, and ended up mentally constructing a long post with a lot of different ideas. Fortunately, new threads here cover some of those ideas, so here's my main thoughts on this subject.

First off, rape is utterly inexcusable and I am not condoning the act or making an apology for its perpertrators.

I think that the survey/OP was very black-and-white. I suspect that, if asked, most of those respondents would have thought that while the woman may be partially responsible it does not diminish the crime against her. I also think that everyone here would agree that if a man forces himself upon a woman, no matter what she is wearing/doing, that is wrong.

The survey seemed to be dealing with those cases where a lady dresses up in a way that she knows will get men to look, gets drunk, flirts with a bunch of guys and is raped. I doubt that anyone would say that she deserved to get raped. However, would the same lady in the same place have been raped if she had dressed in a non-provocative manner, stayed sober and not flirted? It is possible, but probably a lot less likely. (I know that these sorts of rapes are in the minority, but they are the circumstances that seem to be postulated by the survey).

(Apologies for stereotyping gay guys in the following example). I'm a guy. If I had a great body (if only!) and went to a gay bar wearing nothing but a pair of buttock-revealing leather chaps, got drunk, flirted outrageously with lots of guys and the situation got out of control, ending up in my rape, would that rape be justified? No, but would my dress/behaviour have made it more likely? Quite probably.

Anyone can be raped at any time, no matter what they are wearing or how they are acting. However, in some circumstances one's own choices can make the possibility of rape higher.

[eupraxia]

Yes Drusilla I did enter this debate because of people like you. I think your attitude is guilty no matter what and thats the problem. I was highlighting what happens when people lie. I never took my attack to court be cause of people like this woman. Many people have been to prison and worse because of miscarriages of justice. Not just from rape but for all sorts of things.

Just because the jury finds a person guilty does not mean to say they are. people have died for this in the past.

Don't dare make assumtions before you know the truth. I'm not putting any more about this case in here because of people like you. If you didn't want other points of view then why on earth put your post here. It would seem to me that u have already made up your mind.

[Drusilla]

I do not believe anyone is guilty, regardless of the facts. My concern is for the thousands of women who don't receive justice because of a bias in some people that assumes a flirtatious and sexually active women is asking for it.
All points of view have been expressed on this question and they are all welcome because we all learn and possibly amend our viewpoints as a result of informed debate and criticism.
You seem to be the only person having difficulty with an opposing argument.

[eupraxia]

Its your dismissal thats the problem. Just because I don't agree with you on some things.

I can't do that. I made an opinion and you dissmis it as wrong just because its not the way you see it. There are other thoughts on the subject. I'm not saying you must agree just don't make assumtions about a situation you know nothing of. yes its dicusting that men get away with it, yes there should be a lot more done but not at the expense of the truth. Its hard work when you have situation like today of the case dismissed because the victim was drunk. These things are not clear cut. I never said that sexually active women were respnsible for the resulting action I just put a case forward to you.

The question seems to be where exactly do you draw the line at what constitues rape and what doesn't.

Were do you decide who insigated what. usually there are only 2 witnesses to this crime. Who do you believe and why.