Ched Evans

[eFestivals]

It's yours. If someone asks you if they can kill your mum and you say yes, is her murder your fault or theirs?

Self-responsibility. It's theirs.

But that does not remove culpability. Nothing exists in isolation.

We know what right and wrong is, and mostly most of us stick within that. But it's also the case that none of us remain within that always. We are all sinners.

[mrtourette]

Self-responsibility. It's theirs.

But that does not remove culpability. Nothing exists in isolation.

We know what right and wrong is, and mostly most of us stick within that. But it's also the case that none of us remain within that always. We are all sinners.

Jesus Christ Dear Lord Good God Gordon Bennett, is this conversation getting religous?

[eFestivals]

Jesus Christ Dear Lord Good God Gordon Bennett, is this conversation getting religous?

Nope, I'm pointing out that the antis want to cut of their own nuts, and not just the nuts of Evans.

[mrtourette]

But as they persisted asking him, he stood up and he said to them, “He among you who is without sin, let him first cast a stone upon her.”

[feral chile]

that is "force". It's a clearly recognised and long defined idea in law, one that we all recognise.

Being concerned that saying 'no' might make matey not like you any longer is not anything like the same thing, unless we're to have a new and insane structure of society.

coercion - is that force?

[feral chile]

When I was a teenager, I had the chance to sleep with the lead singer of my favourite band. I turned him down.

But he was a nice guy, probably not all that serious about it, certainly not at all pushy, and I wasn't especially needy. Though I was really drunk - it was the night of the drunken blackout I mentioned earlier on in this thread. I was also with my friend in a place I knew, with lots of other people around.

BUT - if he had invited me back to a party, and there was one drunken one of me, and he was there with all his mates, egging him and me on, and no easy way to get out of there, maybe not even knowing where I was...

Would I have 'consented'?

Would that feel like coercion? Even rape?

I just don't know.

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

coercion - is that force?

yep. A threat hanging over someone if they don't comply.

However, what is considered a 'reasonable' threat to submit to and what is not is part of the consideration.

"Unless you shag me I won't like you any more" would not be considered anything reasonable to be coerced by.

"Unless you shag me I'll beat you black and blue" would be.

[eFestivals]

I just don't know.

But what you do know is that you will have allowed yourself to be in the position where he might take advantage.

That is not a nothing towards the circumstances. You hold your own responsibility for putting yourself in that situation, however that situation pans out.

[bunique]

That sounds a lot like victim blaming.

[eFestivals]

That sounds a lot like victim blaming.

Not at all. If you get yourself drunk, who's responsibility is it that you're drunk?

It's blaming the drunk for the effects of drinking, nothing more than that.

It's blaming the victim of self-actions for those self-actions. No one else made you drunk.

Edited January 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

But what you do know is that you will have allowed yourself to be in the position where he might take advantage.

That is not a nothing towards the circumstances. You hold your own responsibility for putting yourself in that situation, however that situation pans out.

Yes. In most cases I think I'd have to agree. I don't know if girls do this now, but we'd look out for each other, you wouldn't let yourself get drunk without knowing your friends had your back.

If you couldn't guarantee this, you wouldn't let yourself get drunk.

I still don't think that means a rapist wouldn't be guilty, a mugger's still a mugger if you don't take sensible precautions.

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

PS: and 'drunk' is not some tame meaningless thing, it comes complete with a loss of control to some sort of level, something you'd have known in advance of drinking.

It shouldn't be a surprise to find yourself less in control because you've been drinking.

[gary1979666]

If I were to wave money around for someone to commit a criminal act, I'm sure most people would say no, but i'm also sure (dependent on the amount) that someone would say yes.

Me waving the money makes nothing happen. It's the acceptance of that money that is the cause of the crime.

No one would accept a defence in court of "I couldn't turn the money down" for why they committed a crime (outside of the "desperate, needed to feed my family" sort-of thing). Apply the same thinking to the Watkins case.

But you offering money for that crime is still a crime in itself. See the Dewani case in South Africa - is it all the taxi driver's fault for accepting some cash or if the alleged offering of it the issue?

[feral chile]

PS: and 'drunk' is not some tame meaningless thing, it comes complete with a loss of control to some sort of level, something you'd have known in advance of drinking.

It shouldn't be a surprise to find yourself less in control because you've been drinking.

Again, mixed feelings to this. It's like drink driving. I don't drive, but I'm pretty sure I'd leave the car at home if there was a risk of me drinking. Because that's when you make contingency plans, not when you're drunk.

But, on the other hand, if you forget to lock your car and someone nicks it, they're still a car thief. You can still be a victim if you've been careless.

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

That sounds a lot like victim blaming.

Your words show that you're not able to distinguish who is 'victimising' that 'victim'.

The only person involved is just the one, the one who has chosen to drink until they are drunk.

The victim and the victimiser are the same person. Beat yourself up about it.

Edited January 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

But you offering money for that crime is still a crime in itself.

Yep, tho most normally* a different crime to the one that the money-taker commits.

(* ignoring the current excessive use of the 'joint enterprise' law).

[bunique]

Your words show that you're not able to distinguish who is 'victimising' that 'victim'.

The only person involved is just the one, the one who has chosen to drink until they are drunk.

The victim and the victimiser are the same person. Beat yourself up about it.

It was the "you will have allowed yourself to be in the position where he might take advantage" bit. I could drink til I'm unconscious, I could walk down a street naked, I could take the shortcut through the dark alley - none of those things make me responsible for someone who "might take advantage" - the responsibility lies with the advantage-taker. Any other message suggests that rape is an inevitable part of our society and that makes it somehow acceptable?

[bunique]

Now, if I choked on my own vomit, caught pneumonia or tripped over a kerb, bumped my head and died in any of the three scenarios, that would be wholly my own fault.

[eFestivals]

It was the "you will have allowed yourself to be in the position where he might take advantage" bit.

You would do better to think of the "You hold your own responsibility for putting yourself in that situation, however that situation pans out." part.

I could drink til I'm unconscious, I could walk down a street naked, I could take the shortcut through the dark alley - none of those things make me responsible for someone who "might take advantage" - the responsibility lies with the advantage-taker.

I was talking very specifically about drinking alcohol, where its consumption has a debilitating effect.

So if a woman finds herself to be too drunk to function properly, who's fault is it that she's too drunk to function properly?

I am talking about that and only that.

Any other message suggests that rape is an inevitable part of our society and that makes it somehow acceptable?

Only if the hearer isn't listening &/or thinking.

[eFestivals]

Now, if I choked on my own vomit, caught pneumonia or tripped over a kerb, bumped my head and died in any of the three scenarios, that would be wholly my own fault.

and if you got yourself pissed and fell over, would that be your fault too?

[bunique]

Her fault that she's drunk - not her fault if someone chooses to take advantage of that fact and have sex with her without explicit consent.

Edited January 13, 2015 by bunique

[eFestivals]

Her fault that she's drunk - not her fault if someone chooses to take advantage of that fact and have sex with her without explicit consent.

PMSL.

You could have just answered the question I actually asked.

[zahidf]

and if you got yourself pissed and fell over, would that be your fault too?

In the context of sexual assault, it's someone pushing you over after your pissed.

It's 100% the rapists fault. In no other crime does the inebriation of the victim come into it.

Edited January 13, 2015 by zahidf

[eFestivals]

In the context of sexual assault, it's someone pushing you over after your pissed.

If that was anything of what I'd said, I'd agree with you.

[feral chile]

If I got myself pissed and someone nicked my bag, whether it's my fault or not wouldn't be part of the defence. Opportunistic crime is still crime. The stupidity of the vicitm is irrelevant.