I am flabbergasted by the people on here who can't understand that the girl performed actions that increased the likelihood of her being raped. If you walk into a bad neighborhood and get mugged, what's the first thing thing someone says to you? What were you doing in that bad neighborhood? You shouldn't have been there in the first place. ALL I AM SAYING IS: This girl performed actions that made it easier for her to be taken advantaged of. If you can't acknowledge that, then I don't know what is wrong with your logic. It has NOTHING to do with misogyny.
I think everyone acknowledges that. I am flabbergasted that you feel the need to type it again. Some of us think it has nothing to do with the criminality of a criminal act. Some of us think that a girl being drunk doesn't make rape less of a rape. Her judgment was never on trial (except in the strategy of the very lame defense team.)
For my sons? Absolutely not. I wouldn't tell them it okay to take advantage of someone else. Just because I view the girls actions as wrong (though being drugged is something quite different), doesn't mean further wrongs become justified. I hope my kids have a good sense of morality. If I had a daughter? I'd be pretty disappointed and upset with her if I thought she went to a party and got wasted and passed out. If she told me she was raped, I'm sure that would take over, and I'm not going to lecture on her actions, since she has suffered something much worse. I hope my kids are smarter than that. We don't know if she was drugged or not. I've read articles making cases both directions. Being drugged is a risk you live with, unfortunately. Drinking to the point of passing out is a risk you bring upon yourself.
what if you get mugged in a good neighborhood? what if a sober girl goes into a good neighborhood and gets raped? then what?
Maybe even prevent some other people from doing the same stupid crap. I can't imagine as much partying will be going on for teens in that town for the forseeable future.
Then she did nothing wrong and didn't put herself at a higher risk but was the victim of a much rarer occurence.
No it does have to do with misogyny. The fact is that as a guy, I could drink underage in high school and never have to worry about someone taking advantage of me the way the way a woman does. Thousands of kids are drinking while underage every single day. Yet only one gender has to really worry about someone sexually abusing them as a result of such an action. In your world, its ok for me to get hammered since I'm not at risk of getting raped. Yet women shouldn't because guys might take advantage of them. Do you not see how screwed up that logic is? That's no different than saying a girl put herself in position to get raped because of what she wears. Yet a man can wear whatever the hell he wants because he's not at risk of being taken advantage of. This distinction is critical. You are in effect arguing for females to engage in different behavior than men solely because men are in a much stronger position to take advantage of drunk females as opposed to females taking advantage of drunk men. That's misogyny whether you think it is or not. You're just arguing it under the guise of security and safety. It doesnt take away the fact that you are advocating a totally different set of rules for men and women based on the fact that one gender is more vulnerable to the other.
what are the statistics on girls who get raped sober vs. girls who get raped drunk? please provide the same for muggings in good neighborhoods vs muggings in bad neighborhoods.
There's probably a few adults who facilitated the alcohol and use of their property to allow this to happen. I hope the DA can build a case and go after them too.
what if that happened? That's not what happened in this case and what I'm saying only pertains to this case. Those aren't similar.
stop putting words in my mouth. I never said it was not okay for a woman to get hammered. A woman can do whatever she wants to do. I don't know what you are talking about. I'm arguing that the girl by her own actions increased the likelihood that she would get taken advantage of. The scope of my posts is far less than what you are thinking it is.
A good neighborhood based on statistics would have a lower crime rate. A bad neighborhood based on statisitics would have a higher crime rate. If you go based on pure perception of a neighborhood being good or bad, there wouldn't necessarily be statistics to back that up. I do know walking through my neighborhood is much safer than walking through the area I work, based on historical crime rates. Most rapes occur by someone you know. Most rapes occur between adolescence and your college age years. Most violent crimes have alchol involved.
you brought up the walking in a bad neighborhood analogy. and that's not what happened in this case either. so let's go back. "what's the first thing thing someone says to you? What were you doing in that bad neighborhood? You shouldn't have been there in the first place." what if that person lived in that bad neighborhood? what if they went 20 years without being mugged? it's a bad analogy here's a perspective that analyzes that... http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/...ogy-the-walking-in-a-bad-neighborhood-theory/
Then which way is it. You say you dont condemn women for getting hammered and then say her actions helped increase the likelihood of rape. (which is a criticism of her actions) The fault of a rape lies solely with those rapists, period. I dont care what she did or didnt do, she didn't cause anything. She did what thousands of people do everyday, she drank a lot of alcohol and passed out. It just so happened that she did so in the presence of some predators. That's a fear that I, as a man, dont have to worry about. Make up your mind. You say that you place no blame on women and then proceed to blame this girl by saying she helped put herself in that position. In Saudi Arabia, they force women to cover up under the logic that if a women were to show her skin and hair, it would entice men to go after them and possibly sexually abuse them. Now putting aside the absurd logic, even if that were true, the correct response would to mete out extremely harsh punishments to men to deter them from abusing women, not condemning women for showing skin. You are arguing in the same logical vein. I understand your argument about safety but your logic doesnt just stop at drinking. If the onus is on women as well, then women shouldn't go to parties and just lock themselves in their houses. After all, that would also be the more responsible move since it would remove them from contact with potential predators. This is why we aren't Saudi Arabia. I'm sure you are well-meaning and probably aren't a complete sexist. But your response wreaks of ignorance about sexual abuse.
