RootsBooster Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Unless a rapist sees the poster for the first time and is directly educated as to the vulnerability of women when drinking. I'm not a rapist and before I'd seen the poster for the first time, I already knew that extremely drunk people (not just women) are more vulnerable. I can't imagine many people not knowing that. Blame or not you have to be aware of ALL consequences of the poster expression. We all differ, we all interpret differently.I believe the poster is very poorly thought out. The question is, do you think it blames the victim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I'm not a rapist and before I'd seen the poster for the first time, I already knew that extremely drunk people (not just women) are more vulnerable. I can't imagine many people not knowing that. Which begs the question why the poster? ---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 12:03 ---------- The question is, do you think it blames the victim? I'm on the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Actually the jury is responsible for deciding if consent was given, if they say it was then there was no rape. Two cases, in both cases the women say they was drunk and couldn't remember having sex but both claimed they were raped, it was claimed that both women consented, one man was found guilty, one was found not guilty, because one women was deemed capable of consenting and one was deemed incapable of consenting by the courts. Actually Smithy you couldn't be more wrong. The jury is there simply to make a decision based upon the evidence presented. Any decision they make is based on a legal framework which may, or may not, reflect reality. Remember lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Consider the following. A women does not give consent to sex and is subsequently raped. There is no doubt in either her mind or the rapists that she said no to sex and was taken against her will. She reports the crime to the police and the perpetrator is brought before the courts. Scenario A. The evidence presented fails to convince the jury that she did not give consent to sex. The man is therefore found not guilty. Does this somehow change the reality that she did not consent. Answer yes or no please. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavannahP Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) The jury is there simply to make a decision based upon the evidence presented. Any decision they make is based on a legal framework which may, or may not, reflect reality. Remember lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Consider the following. A women does not give consent to sex and is subsequently raped. There is no doubt in either her mind or the rapists that she said no to sex and was taken against her will. She reports the crime to the police and the perpetrator is brought before the courts. Scenario A. The evidence presented fails to convince the jury that she did not give consent to sex. The man is therefore found not guilty. Does this somehow change the reality that she did not consent. Answer yes or no please. jb Two women both give consent whilst drunk, everything they do and say is identical, both have sex with men that also consent, neither man believes he as raped the women, both women wake the next morning with no memory of the event but know they have had sex so assume they was raped, both go to the police, both go to court, one jury's opinion is that she was able to give consent so find not guilty, the other jury believe she was unable to give consent to find the man guilty. So two identical cases one guilty and one not guilty and all based on the opinions of 12 people. One man is a rapist and one man is not, one women was raped and one women was not. Neither of the women knew if they was raped until the jury determined that they was able to give consent or not. Neither of the men knew that they was rapists until the jury determined that the consent they thought they had was void. Edited October 31, 2014 by SavannahP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) [quote=SavannahP Two women both give consent whilst drunk, everything they do and say is identical, both have sex with men that also consent, neither man believes he as raped the women, both women wake the next morning with no memory of the event but know they have had sex so assume they was raped, both go to the police, both go to court, one jury's opinion is that she was able to give consent so find not guilty, the other jury believe she was unable to give consent to find the man guilty. So two identical cases one guilty and one not guilty and all based on the opinions of 12 people. One man is a rapist and one man is not, one women was raped and one women was not. Neither of the women knew if she was raped until the jury determine if she was able to give consent or not. No two cases are identical. The jury and its verdict will be a result of circumstantial evidence which differentiates both cases. Edited October 31, 2014 by ronthenekred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 Which begs the question why the poster? To remind potential victims I'm on the fence. Can you see any evidence in the poster that it suggests the victim is to blame for rape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 To remind potential victims I agree that could be the case, but as I said previously it could also "remind" or inform predators of something they may have forgotten. (triggering) Can you see any evidence in the poster that it suggests the victim is to blame for rape? I can't commit to that as of yet, but that doesn't mean I wont. But if you need an answer then instinctively I would say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Neither of the women knew if they was raped until the jury determined that they was able to give consent or not. You're mixing the legal and the literal. Word games, no more no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Two women both give consent whilst drunk, everything they do and say is identical, both have sex with men that also consent, neither man believes he as raped the women, both women wake the next morning with no memory of the event but know they have had sex so assume they was raped, both go to the police, both go to court, one jury's opinion is that she was able to give consent so find not guilty, the other jury believe she was unable to give consent to find the man guilty. So two identical cases one guilty and one not guilty and all based on the opinions of 12 people. One man is a rapist and one man is not, one women was raped and one women was not. Neither of the women knew if they was raped until the jury determined that they was able to give consent or not. Neither of the men knew that they was rapists until the jury determined that the consent they thought they had was void. Come on Smithy, answer the question. Oh, and it is not just the woman who has to consent, the man does too. For example, if a woman gets a man drunk in order to have sex with him without his consent then she is guilty of sexual assault. As far as your example goes the jury will simply make a decision based upon the available evidence. That decision may be a true reflection of actual events or it may not. In no way does a jury's decision determine reality. It is strange that you think it does. jb Edited October 31, 2014 by barleycorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 I agree that could be the case, but as I said previously it could also "remind" or inform predators of something they may have forgotten. (triggering) Only in the same way that wearing short skirts might remind predators of the easy access they would have to a woman's body. I don't think anyone in their right mind would blame the victim for being raped simply because she wore a short skirt. When you say "could be the case", what other reason do you think the NHS could have made the poster for? ---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 14:01 ---------- You're mixing the legal and the literal. Word games, no more no less. Would you expect anything other than such from him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now