Obelix Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 It's putting all the onus on preventing a rape/sexual assault on the victim and not the perpetrator, In the same way as the police saying "lock your doors and close your windows against distraction burglurs" is.... But we don't have a go at the police for that. It reeks of double standards this whole debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 In the same way as the police saying "lock your doors and close your windows against distraction burglurs" is.... But we don't have a go at the police for that. It reeks of double standards this whole debate. Again we're drifting off topic. This is what I just said to woodmally ...Back when my mum was alive, when was home she never, ever locked the back door, except when she went to bed. The neighbours would knock or shout her name and simply open the door and walk in, none of them locked their doors either. The one time she was burgled was she was out shopping and the house was locked up. These awful people were about then too and nothing was done about them instead we were all advised to lock our doors and take precautions, have these awful people stopped because we do this ? No they haven't, because we haven't addressed the problem, we've started an 'arms race' in locks and alarms instead and blame those who don't have them for being easy targets.... We seem to be blaming everyone except the perpetrators of crimes, I'd like to blame the perpetrators for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_W Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 It can be argued that some rapes, just like some other crimes are commited by opportunists, so giving people (be that members of your own family or others) general advice about taking care is not apologistic ..... IMHO ! Don't walk around town with your wallet hanging out of your back pocket Don't walk home alone in the early hours etc..... etc....... It would be nice not to have to heed such things but unfortunately there are some dodgy people about ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 No, I'm saying concentrate on the perpetrators of crimes rather than the victims. Totally agree. Would you also want to give people enough information to make informed choices about reducing risk at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Because it doesn't tell people not to attack others. The law does that. Your 'reason' makes no sense, by your logic posters advising car passengers to wear seatbelts are being blamed for poor driving/speeding, posters advising people not to leave their possessions visible in a car are being blamed for car crime, as already mentioned stranger danger (using your logic) blames kids for paedophilia. Do you agree with those or is this poster just a special case, which the others are exempt from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Sorry to hear that, glad you made it home though. I drink, but I don't enjoy drinking to excess having overimbibed a few times & suffering the hangover that followed, I've never been so bad I didn't know how I got home. Well, we are talking a few years back now - I survived! When I look back, we thought we were invincible, real lads (or ladettes). I wouldn't say it was par for the course to get that drunk, but it did happen. I wouldn't advise anyone to do the same, not just for the safety aspect, but because you do daft thing, make daft decisions. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:12 ---------- Quite simply, because all you are doing is pushing the crime on to someone else. If that one girl gets a taxi home rather than walking then it's quite like a girl that did walk home may get attacked instead. If all our energy and efforts were focussed on understanding rape, reasons behind it (its not always as simplistic as just sex) and about making the idea of rape sickening to all, including those who currently think it's a sign of power then perhaps we could all but end rapes. Asking people to change how they live their lives to avoid being raped isn't a solution. I think that's true. I suppose on a personal level all you can do is make sure you and the people you know are as safe as possible, within reason. Selfish I know. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:15 ---------- The same logic applies to people being burgled etc. You might not get burgled but your neighbour might so all that's happened is push the crime along. If everyone got CCTV then the crime would likely escalate etc. I'm not so sure about this point. If you take car thefts as an example - another opportunist crime - these have reduced massively over the last decade or so, apparently because car manufacturers got savvy and introduced better security. Of course, the really determined car thieves now break into peoples houses to get the keys, but I guess it's the opportunists that just don't bother any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 My point was in regards to the two sets of lads fighting. The first group were the instigators, throwing punches and kicks etc. The second group retaliated, however they were tooled up! The police came and arrested the lads from the second group (and rightly so!!) but they didn't so much as give a warning to the first set of lads that actually started the fighting. That, is what I say is ridiculous. Yeah, the 1st group could (should) have been charged, but what the 2nd group did was far more serious. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:18 ---------- Hi Esme, are you saying that people should never warn people of specific dangers? Isn't it possible that staff at the Morrison's want to protect their customers? It seems a bit mean to assume that all they care about is a lawsuit? Would you ever take your own advice to put yourself at less of a risk in some situations? I ask this, because having read this thread, if it was possible to go back in time and give myself some advice (which would be not to get so blottoed on occasion to wonder quite how I made it home the next day), I think I would. The key difference in Morrisons is that they warn everyone. They don't target a particular group. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:19 ---------- No absolutly it doesnt nor does telling someone to lock doors and windows does anything about despicable people who break into peoples houses and steal. These awful people are out there and need dealing with but in the mean time we need to make sure we all protect ourselves from crime in the actions we take. Its sad we have to do this but necessary. It does mean that you can blame the victim when they forget to lock the door though, or when they don't have the best lock and so it's easily bypassed. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:20 ---------- No absolutly it doesnt nor does telling someone to lock doors and windows does anything about despicable people who break into peoples houses and steal. These awful people are out there and need dealing with but in the mean time we need to make sure we all protect ourselves from crime in the actions we take. Its sad we have to do this but necessary. And of course saying "lock your doors" is not the equivalent of saying "don't wear short skirts". The equivalent would be telling victims of theft not to have nice things. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:21 ---------- In the same way as the police saying "lock your doors and close your windows against distraction burglurs" is.... But we don't have a go at the police for that. It reeks of double standards this whole debate. They don't advise only women to lock their doors. And they don't tell home owners not to make their home look pretty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Yeah, the 1st group could (should) have been charged, but what the 2nd group did was far more serious. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:18 ---------- The key difference in Morrisons is that they warn everyone. They don't target a particular group. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:19 ---------- It does mean that you can blame the victim when they forget to lock the door though, or when they don't have the best lock and so it's easily bypassed. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:20 ---------- And of course saying "lock your doors" is not the equivalent of saying "don't wear short skirts". The equivalent would be telling victims of theft not to have nice things. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:21 ---------- They don't advise only women to lock their doors. And they don't tell home owners not to make their home look pretty! So does the poster it says "mate " not female friend, admittedly the poster is of two ladies BUT it doesn't necessarily mean they are the only mates on the night out. Neither does anyone say only females are at risk. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 19:20 ---------- Yeah, the 1st group could (should) have been charged, but what the 2nd group did was far more serious. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:18 ---------- The key difference in Morrisons is that they warn everyone. They don't target a particular group. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:19 ---------- It does mean that you can blame the victim when they forget to lock the door though, or when they don't have the best lock and so it's easily bypassed. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:20 ---------- And of course saying "lock your doors" is not the equivalent of saying "don't wear short skirts". The equivalent would be telling victims of theft not to have nice things. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:21 ---------- They don't advise only women to lock their doors. And they don't tell home owners not to make their home look pretty! BUT they only advise people at risk of burglary - homeowners. The single people most at risk of rape are young females,why bother telling the purple rinse brigade or the mens bowling club,they aren't at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 You can't advise someone who can't be burgled on ways to avoid burglary. Presumably though people who rent are also advised, not just home owners. The fact that women are being told how to change their behaviour is the 1st step to blaming them for then ignoring that advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Yes men shouldnt rape So it's about teaching boys how to negotiate consent and that having sex when the female/male is totally inebriated - constitutes rape ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 19:52 ---------- We tell our daughters to be careful, act properly, and dress correctly when they go out, we tell our sons to have fun when they go out. Maybe it's this distinction that's underpins the debate? Maybe some girls want to have fun like their brothers and not worry about being careful, acting properly and dressing correctly? Exactly.......... 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