Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    use condoms. have regular testing. then its all safe
    That's already too complicated for a lot of young people who think that condoms are just a bit of plastic you play around with for fun and can't even talk about them seriously.

    It's amazing the number of people I know who don't use condoms as soon as they think they can: they meet a new partner and ask them if they're clean and a week later, no condoms. That's exactly how people catch STIs. I also know a lot who have casual sex and one-night stands without condoms.

    And even if you're with a serious partner for a long time, no longer using condoms is a very very trusting act:
    When you think about it, if you're with a serious partner and you have a little accident and you're too scared to tell them (as a lot of people are in that situation), how do you tell them to use condoms for a while? Testing doesn't help either as the disease can go undetected for a while.

    It's a very common scenario for a young man or a young woman to be surprised they've caughty clamydia or the clap when they haven't been sleeping around and that's how they discover their partner has been unfaithful.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And I do go out, in fact I've been working in bars and clubs for four years. Don't think there's anything wrong with feeling qualified to hold an opinion on this matter.
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    I was responding to a particular post by one individual that said it was 'always a woman's fault' (that's blame, I think), if she was drunk.
    I thought she was saying that the fact that she's drunk is her fault, not the fact that she got raped. But if she was saying that it's always her fault if she was raped, oh my god, what a CREEP.

    Reading it again, I think she was being sarcastic...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXMessedUpXx)
    oh well hey lets do what the americans do and save ourselve till marraige...cos thats just so much more fun.
    Shows how much you know about Americans because they could beat you in a promiscuity battle hands down.

    The US is a big country... 3 million people behaving a certain way is still only 1% of the population but that still gets on the news.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morningtheft)
    I thought she was saying that the fact that she's drunk is her fault, not the fact that she got raped. But if she was saying that it's always her fault if she was raped, oh my god, what a CREEP.

    Reading it again, I think she was being sarcastic...
    Actually, yeah me too How embarassing! Can't help but get het up about this. I'm a law student and the way women used to be treated in the courts is absolutely maddening!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by barb24)
    Actually, yeah me too How embarassing! Can't help but get het up about this. I'm a law student and the way women used to be treated in the courts is absolutely maddening!
    The person making the judgement in the case cited was a judge!

    I heard about it on TV - I'll see if I can find a link.

    Here is it:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4464402.stm

    This case led to a new survey on whether women were, in some cases, responsible for rape happening to them! And here is the opinions of some on 'Have Your Say'

    http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...20051125153709

    Should this aspect of the thread that is evolving be subject to a new thread, mods - or is it considered part and parcel of the thread anyway?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Are we?

    Syphillis infections are on the increase in Britain, as well as other STD's.

    Read the reasons why:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...889882,00.html
    well as im not promiscuious im not ignoring anything...

    --------------

    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    That's already too complicated for a lot of young people who think that condoms are just a bit of plastic you play around with for fun and can't even talk about them seriously.

    It's amazing the number of people I know who don't use condoms as soon as they think they can: they meet a new partner and ask them if they're clean and a week later, no condoms. That's exactly how people catch STIs. I also know a lot who have casual sex and one-night stands without condoms.

    And even if you're with a serious partner for a long time, no longer using condoms is a very very trusting act:
    When you think about it, if you're with a serious partner and you have a little accident and you're too scared to tell them (as a lot of people are in that situation), how do you tell them to use condoms for a while? Testing doesn't help either as the disease can go undetected for a while.

    It's a very common scenario for a young man or a young woman to be surprised they've caughty clamydia or the clap when they haven't been sleeping around and that's how they discover their partner has been unfaithful.
    quite it is bad. even if i was in a long term relationship i'd still wear a condom unless children was the aim...dont want any mishaps.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The person making the judgement in the case cited was a judge!

    I heard about it on TV - I'll see if I can find a link.

    Here is it:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4464402.stm

    This case led to a new survey on whether women were, in some cases, responsible for rape happening to them! And here is the opinions of some on 'Have Your Say'

    http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...20051125153709

    Should this aspect of the thread that is evolving be subject to a new thread, mods - or is it considered part and parcel of the thread anyway?
    A lot of the opinions there do seem to be suggesting she was not at fault. I agree with the idea that if someone can't remember the event, then a case can't proceed.
    But it's kind of a separate issue isn't it? We're not discussing whether a drunk girl who consents is raped, but whether a drunk girl who doesn't consent is at fault in the case of her being sexually assaulted due to her not taking adequate measures to protect herself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Quite simply, if you are going to be promiscuous, and not be safe then yeah, of course you will end up with something.

    If you're careful, use condoms and have regular check ups and get an STD then it is bad luck if the condom breaks, sue the condom factory.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by segat1)

    then it is bad luck if the condom breaks, sue the condom factory.
    You can't sue them - they never claim that their condoms are 100% safe!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    You can't sue them - they never claim that their condoms are 100% safe!
    Oh , poo.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by segat1)
    Oh , poo.
    You'll have to reconsider your strategy!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    “Actually, if a person leaves their car unlocked, it would only have implications in private law (e.g. in an insurance claim). In criminal law, temptation does not amount to provocation.”

    I’m not so much concerned with the law. The law doesn’t prevent things from happening. My anecdote is with reference to why it happens, as opposed to how the law views things.

    Whether or not temptation amounts to provocation is irrelevant. People will still rape and be raped.

    “The crime lies with the perpetrator, not the victim, one of the reasons why women's sexual history is now non-admissible evidence in court. “

    Of course; but I’m not debating this.

    ”And I am not assuming that everyone is blaming women for being raped, I was responding to a particular post by one individual that said it was 'always a woman's fault' (that's blame, I think), if she was drunk. Of course it isn't sensible to leave yourself vulnerable to attack, and I never claimed that it was. I just think that it's a hell of a price to pay for a human error, don't you?”

    I’d argue your response was stronger than a mere “Response to a particular post”.

    So, dressing up provokingly (Something I’m not against), drinking inordinate amounts of alcohol and being generally irresponsible constitutes as human error? That’s a pretty horrendous oversight in my opinion.

    ”Do you not find it a bit patronising, as a man, that the opinions such as the one I was replying too (look above for reference), seem to infer that men cannot be held responsible for the actions when faced with such 'opportunities' as a paralytic girl in a short skirt?
    And just to make the point, it isn't an exaggeration, the reply posted that seems to have irritated you so much was in response to somebody who was actually blaming women for rape.”

    You were replying to a woman.

    I don’t find it patronising at all. You seem to assume that men have control over their primal instincts, which in most cases I totally contest.

    It irritates me because if you share opinions like mine, you are instantly branded a rapist-sympathiser, which I’m not. It's just in some cases I seriously believe the woman to be at fault.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Later closing times will compound the problems we already have with our 'binge drinking' culture.

    We are social animals - we are not going to isolate ourselves till a later time - we will still start drinking at the same time as we always have, but we will drink for longer!
    But probably at a slower, more leisurely pace. There's now no need for everyone in a pub to rush to the bar at 10:59 and order 2 or 3 pints, then down them all in 20 minutes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacques Derrida)
    “Actually, if a person leaves their car unlocked, it would only have implications in private law (e.g. in an insurance claim). In criminal law, temptation does not amount to provocation.”

    I’m not so much concerned with the law. The law doesn’t prevent things from happening. My anecdote is with reference to why it happens, as opposed to how the law views things.

    Whether or not temptation amounts to provocation is irrelevant. People will still rape and be raped.

    “The crime lies with the perpetrator, not the victim, one of the reasons why women's sexual history is now non-admissible evidence in court. “

    Of course; but I’m not debating this.

    ”And I am not assuming that everyone is blaming women for being raped, I was responding to a particular post by one individual that said it was 'always a woman's fault' (that's blame, I think), if she was drunk. Of course it isn't sensible to leave yourself vulnerable to attack, and I never claimed that it was. I just think that it's a hell of a price to pay for a human error, don't you?”

    I’d argue your response was stronger than a mere “Response to a particular post”.

    So, dressing up provokingly (Something I’m not against), drinking inordinate amounts of alcohol and being generally irresponsible constitutes as human error? That’s a pretty horrendous oversight in my opinion.

    ”Do you not find it a bit patronising, as a man, that the opinions such as the one I was replying too (look above for reference), seem to infer that men cannot be held responsible for the actions when faced with such 'opportunities' as a paralytic girl in a short skirt?
    And just to make the point, it isn't an exaggeration, the reply posted that seems to have irritated you so much was in response to somebody who was actually blaming women for rape.”

    You were replying to a woman.

    I don’t find it patronising at all. You seem to assume that men have control over their primal instincts, which in most cases I totally contest.

    It irritates me because if you share opinions like mine, you are instantly branded a rapist-sympathiser, which I’m not. It's just in some cases I seriously believe the woman to be at fault.
    I'm sorry you feel that I called you a rapist-sympathiser, or even inferred that. I certainly didn't mean too. However, I do still disagree with you on many of the points you made.
    I didn't realise you were a woman - the icon in your box suggests otherwise.
    Basically, I do believe men have control over their 'primitive urges' - to suggest that the majority don't, in this context at least, suggests that the majority are capable of rape, doesn't it?
    Put simply, "provocatively" dressed drunk women are going to be lining every High Street in the UK tonight, the majority will not get raped, and, thankfully, never will be.
    They're having fun, and part of having fun involves being a bit irresponsible. It's absolutely true that there are limits to this, but as long as they're not harming anyone, why should they face accusations that they're inviting harm to themselves.
    It can never be the fault of the rape-victim, no matter what they have done. All of us, male and female, have a right over our bodies, a right to go as far as we wish to (with the other's consent!) and a right to say 'no' when we begin to feel uncomfortable, no matter how drunk. If someone doesn't respect these rights, its them, and them alone, in the wrong.
    And when it comes to strong replies to posts, people in glass houses.... seriously, don't take it so personally. I have a problem with rapists!!! Hardly earth-shattering.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Are we?

    Syphillis infections are on the increase in Britain, as well as other STD's.

    Read the reasons why:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...889882,00.html
    theres nothing wrong with being promiscuous. you just need to be careful. promiscuity doesnt necessarily mean carelessness.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacques Derrida)
    *******s; as per usual somebody manages to exaggerate everything.

    Hypothetically speaking, if a woman is drunk to the point of being unable to function, is wearing highly revealing clothing, is alone, it's late and is attacked, then it could be argued that by putting herself in an inappropriate situation with an increased risk of attack/rape, she is partly responsible. (This is obviously in certain cases; but then again most rapes reported are not indiscriminate attacks and generally involve an element of pre social engagement)

    If you've ever been out at night in a town, you'll appreciate that a fair proportion of female’s wear very revealing clothing and you have to accept that corrupt people that take advantage of females such as this, are more likely to target them. If this was paralleled to nature; a small antelope in the middle of barren desert would be a prime target for a predator. Don't assume that because we have consciousness that everybody has command of their innermost desires - Far from it. I'd argue the majority embraces them directly, whilst the minority has understanding, thus enabling a modicum of control.

    Don't for a minute think I'm condoning rape. I'm not, in honesty I find it repulsive. This in my opinion is a way of confronting the issue. Society seems to stigmatise everything to the point of topics becoming needlessly inviolable.

    What, in my opinion, is fairly striking about the recent polls regarding the topic is that people tend to view rape in the same way as other crimes. Instead of assuming that women are being blamed for rape, why not appreciate that there are many variables in accessing why a rape may have taken place and that it can be, perhaps, prevented? Additionally, don't bring into this the raping of old people or children, as that's a completely different set of circumstances. Obviously, there are just indiscriminate attacks, but again we're not talking about that.

    If a man leaves his car unlocked in a dubious part of town, is he not partly responsible if said car is stolen? Perhaps he shouldn’t have to lock his car; why should he even have to deal with theft? Then the dubious part of town should be dealt with, but until it is, he should lock his car and park elsewhere.
    Excellent post. Echoes my sentiments exactly.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    quite it is bad. even if i was in a long term relationship i'd still wear a condom unless children was the aim...dont want any mishaps.
    Well I'm not going to say that that's what I would always do. I would like to believe that I might find someone who I trust so much that I could decide not to use protection against STIs. Thinking about it, if I knew that finding out my partner had been unfaithful would be more painful than an STI then... I guess the risk is worth it. But although I'm sure a lot of people have thought "that's totally ridiculous", a lot of stable couples use condoms still.

    The thing with risk is knowing how to evaluate it. We can become overly paranoid but in all the threads on the issue in H&R, it's been surprising how few people realise how common it is to catch clamydia, herpes or gonorrhea. Loads of people have the disease.

    These are diseases that people in Britain catch every day. It's also something that we keep quiet about. STI clinics in Britain can no longer manage the number of people coming in to get tested!

    People all assume it's just people who are "sluts" or "man-whores" who go on one-night stands who catch STIs. Although these people are more likely to catch something, the average person who catches an STI, is someone who trusts their partner a bit too much and don't accept reality: that an accident can happen very easily, that you can have an STI without knowing it...
    Even if after a few months, you choose to go to the clinic with your partner and to get tested, you must always realise how trusting you're being in deciding not to use condoms.

    What a lot of people on this forum don't know either is how unpleasant and scary an STI can be. The constant pain and the social embarassment (a lot of people with STIs lose control of their bladder and wet themselves or the oozing can stain clothes) ruin your life for a long time, not to mention your chances of having a child.

    I was lucky to have started going to high school in 1992, when huge campaigns for contraception and awareness about HIV were being launched. If you remember, that's the time Philadelphia was released. By being told so openly and everywhere that "you have sex" = condom, it became a no-brainer.

    As the scare of HIV has died down, there's no longer as much funding for such campaigns. What's happening is that people are contracting a lot of lesser diseases such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and herpes, which are not life-threatening but which are awful.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    “I'm sorry you feel that I called you a rapist-sympathiser, or even inferred that. I certainly didn't mean too. However, I do still disagree with you on many of the points you made.”

    Well you’re perfectly entitled to disagree. It’s obviously an issue that resonates within you; therefore a debate like this is bound to happen.

    ”I didn't realise you were a woman - the icon in your box suggests otherwise.”

    I’m not, but I’m sure the person you originally replied to was a woman.

    “Basically, I do believe men have control over their 'primitive urges' - to suggest that the majority don't, in this context at least, suggests that the majority are capable of rape, doesn't it?”

    Yes, of course they are. Capability doesn’t always manifest in action. Moral coding ensures that most people will realise that it’s unethical.

    ”Put simply, "provocatively" dressed drunk women are going to be lining every High Street in the UK tonight, the majority will not get raped, and, thankfully, never will be.
    They're having fun, and part of having fun involves being a bit irresponsible. It's absolutely true that there are limits to this, but as long as they're not harming anyone, why should they face accusations that they're inviting harm to themselves.”

    I agree entirely, they’re having fun and good on them. I’m all about liberty and in my personal utopian vision people would be able to do whatever they wanted without fear of harm or oppression. Do you really think that females dress like that in order to remain anonymous? It serves only one purpose and that is to attract the male gaze/attention. There is no problem with this, promiscuity is something I support. However, if one is to engage in the pursuit of companionship and use such clothing as a tool, then the potential for unwanted notice is significantly heightened, regardless of whether they want it or not.

    If you think that wearing an outfit is a form of personal expression and it’s done without the desire to attract anybody, well fair enough. What you have to accept is that the male gaze is pervasive IE you’ll get it whether you want it or not.

    “It can never be the fault of the rape-victim, no matter what they have done. All of us, male and female, have a right over our bodies, a right to go as far as we wish to (with the other's consent!) and a right to say 'no' when we begin to feel uncomfortable, no matter how drunk. If someone doesn't respect these rights, its them, and them alone, in the wrong.”

    It’s this sort of comment that in my opinion causes this issue the biggest dilemma. You see it isn’t about blaming the victim for what has happened, far from it. Obviously arbitrary attacks happen, without any indirect provocation, and are fundamentally wrong in a civilised society. However, as I said before rapes aren’t always like that. Many accusations of rape are deeply entrenched in severe inebriation and notions of miscommunication. In these cases, it simply isn’t appropriate to assume that the victim is blameless from the start. I ask myself how they ended up in the situation to begin with, be it male or female. This is actually something that I’ve been involved with as a friend of a female who claimed to have been raped. Incidentally nothing ever came of her allegation; it was dismissed before charges were made. Am I to assume, because of my friendship with her that she was telling the truth? Or was she simply lying for attention? It didn’t appear like the latter to me.

    ”And when it comes to strong replies to posts, people in glass houses.... seriously, don't take it so personally. I have a problem with rapists!!! Hardly earth-shattering.”

    This is debate and discussion and I’m challenging your viewpoint.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cheers Socrates.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The fact is that the number of sti infections are rising. The reason behind this issue is more debatable. I am inclined to feel that the problem is made worse by drinking rather that having more partners because you can have many sexual partners and still be safe by using condoms and getting tested regually. However if a girl is on the pill and drunk she may "not bother" to use a condom. I don't know what really can be done to be honest, sex education could be improved but if people are too drunk to remember then what to do then that is an issue. Personally I don't drink because I got really sick when I have drunk in the past but also because I don't like the idea of not being in control. I think that alcohol has caused a lot of problems.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.