Very cool, if true

You can name me :)

From:

Done :-> And thank you for letting me know about it!

From:

Also, thank you so much posting this. The more people see it and discuss the better :)

From:

meaningrequired.livejournal.com

It was also advertised in the Metro on wednesday :)

From:

seph-hazard.livejournal.com

I don't know how much difference something like this could make in terms of how many rapes are committed. I do think, however, that it could make a huge difference for women. Women who have been raped need to know that it was not their fault because they were drunk, or wearing a short skirt, or flirting, or married and some still don't.

From:

Exactly! You've no idea how many rape victims I've spoken to who didn't think they had been raped as they'd already consented to oral sex.

My personal hope for this campaign (after possibly lowering rape incidents) is for the tiny percentage of rape prosecutions to increase.

From:

if the people supposed to be the victims didn't think they'd been raped, how exactly had they been raped? or is this in that they assumed the legal concept of consent was all or nothing?

From:

I wasn't clear. They know that what happened was not consenting on their part but are unaware that it is legally a rape and can be charged as such.

From:

meaningrequired.livejournal.com

I certainly hope that it challenges some deeply rooted ideas.

How to change society? Blame my conservative upbringing, but I think parents needs to talk to their children more (and instill appropriate values), especially as they hit adolescence. I realise in this period peers become more important, but I think once you set the basics, hopefully you should have some young adults, capable of making decisions and understanding the effects of their behaviour on others.

Of course, this may only exist in a Julie Created Utopia, but I can dream.

Though, the older women I worked with in the hospital all agreed that the first 2 years of child raising was important, because if you lost them then (obedience wise) you've lost them for good.

Edited Date: 2008-10-17 12:44 pm (UTC)

From:

That last attitude is part of the problem. You've seen enough shows like Super-nanny to know that people can _always_ change - if you give up on someone because they're difficult after the age of two then you're part of the problem...

From:

meaningrequired.livejournal.com

Yes, I agree.... However its important to be building this relationship from an early age.

From:

despotliz.livejournal.com

Argh I read the comments on that article and I wish I hadn't...

From:

pizza.maircrosoft.com (from livejournal.com)

I am grouchy today because I read the comments on our local paper's report of a rape (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/3765935.Woman_raped_in_city_centre_park/)

"...the police who have repeatedly warned people, especially women, not to go through the city's parks at night alone.
It's like leaving £100 on a park bench and expecting it to be there the following day."

WTF?

From:

palmer1984.livejournal.com

Oh, fuckers.

I always walk home on my own, because women are far more likely to be raped by someone they know.

From:

pizza.maircrosoft.com (from livejournal.com)

they keep trying to label our parks no-go areas at night.

last time this happened the police were proposing a system to send messages to any open bluetooth they saw in the park at night, warning them it's dangerous. I do hope that one doesn't happen.

(I'm also annoyed with the world today as a cyclist was squished and the news report seems to mainly be that traffic was at a standstill as a result of the accident. and of course the comments are, well, parallel to the rape ones; "he shouldn't have been there... " "was he wearing... ")

From:

Serves you right :->

The Scotsman is definitely right-wing - but I wouldn't be caught reading the comments on pretty much any newspaper. Brrrr.

From:

ishkhara.livejournal.com

I think it's utterly reprehensible that rape vitims can be stigmatised in court for something as innocent as wearing a low-cut top or a short skirt. Nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING, ever gives a man an excuse to rape someone. If campaigns such as this can change awareness and lead to more convictions then that must be a good thing.

I love the campaign and will be backing it - I've already spammed my colleagues inboxes! :)

From:

cdave

I've got so little idea about how the mind works of anyone who thinks this way, that I have no idea what his sort of an input would have on it.

From:

cairmen.livejournal.com

That's great. Whether or not it has any direct effect on perpetrators, changing wider societal attitudes is useful an a massive number of ways, from reducing inappropriate feelings of guilt on the part of the victims to making witnesses more likely to come forward.

Also, the lass in the "revealing top" ad is really hot. :)

(Which actually is more important than you'd think. The halo effect is very, very powerful. Glad to see people using it.)

From:

I'd suggest anyone that thinks it is 'ok' to rape someone isn't going to be put off by a campaign. I disagree that there are people who do it who "just don't think". No such animal. Anyone who rapes someone IS sociopathic.

From:

However, lots of people's ideas of what constitute rape (or indeed assault) vary a lot.

Until 1991 it was not a crime to rape your wife. In the UK. Many people saw it as impossible - because wives had already given their eternal consent to their husbands. That's less than 20 years ago.

People, frankly, need to be re-educated out of ideas like that.

From:

I'm fully aware of the 1991 law. That it wasn't a crime I consider to be a loophole than it being acceptable to do so in the 1980s or such, but one that that should have been closed much earlier in time.

As for the assertion that people's ideas vary on rape, I humbly request some sort of clarification on just what you are getting at with that statement. Also the term "re-education" is horribly patronising.

From:

Frankly, I don't care if I'm patronising people who think it's impossible to rape their wife.

The law was closed in 1991 because there was a court case in which someone tried to use it in defence - and it made it all the way to the House of Lords before being reversed. I remember there being somewhat of a fuss at the time because some people still believed that it wasn't rape. Educating people that sex with someone who is their wife but doesn't want to, is definitely something I'm in favour of.

I've seen plenty of discussions by people who believe that sexual assault is "just a laugh" when it's being done to people who are drunk and wearing revealing clothes, and plenty of discussions by people who were assaulted for that reason. Educating people that there's nothing funny about it strikes me as a good thing.

From:

You said "people" need to be re-educated. I didn't stipulate ANY other criteria.

Someone trying to use a loophole for a defense is usually what draws light on said loophole for it to be patched. I again don't believe that it was only up until this time any right thinking person would consider raping their wife to be acceptable.

As for the last paragraph, if by a just a laugh you mean a hypothetical siutation when making a joke, that is one thing. If they were boasting and laughing about touching drunk people up against their wishes then I suggest not associating with them in future. If every right minded person starts blanking someone who things sexual assault is funny, it might hit home better than a newspaper campaign.

From:

I again don't believe that it was only up until this time any right thinking person would consider raping their wife to be acceptable.

The problem being that a large chunk of the population _isn't_ right-thinking, by our liberal definition of right-thinking. As evidenced by the polls that consistently show upwards of a quarter of people think that a woman is to blame for being raped if she was drunk, wearing revealing clothing, or flirty.

If every right minded person starts blanking someone who things sexual assault is funny, it might hit home better than a newspaper campaign.

The thing is that that kind of thing requires a societal shift - which usually means large government-funded advertising campaigns. When I were a lad, a large proportion of people laughed at the idea that drink-driving was wrong. Because _everyone_ did it. Nowadays, I know almost nobody who would do it. And that happened because they blanket the place with adverts showign how horrible the consequences are.

From:

The drunk thing I take issue with though slightly. If both the man and the woman are drunk and have sex and then in the morning both reveal that they would not have slept with oneanother if they were sober, there seems to be a belief that the man is at fault more than the woman. Basically I think that in that situation both are to blame.

There is a point where if someone is incapacitated due to alcohol, a sober person should take responsibility and not take advantage. However, if you are that drunk that you cannot look after yourself and have noone around you you trust to do so, you also have to take some responsibility for yourself. No you should NOT expect to be raped, man or woman, if incapacitated, but if it is self inflicted you do have to think there are evil people out there and know that you are at least putting yourself at increased risk. However there is a fundemental difference between noting that risk and blaming the victim. I suspect that the previous video that was up for discussion went a little too far in that regard.

As for the 2nd comment - I take your point. Maybe I'm just a product of a current generation of people who have modern moral standards, but I just cannot adopt or condone the mindset of someone who thinks assault of any nature is acceptable.

From:

I'm largely in agreement with you in regards to the first point - but I don't think the adverts are trying to say that "If two drunk people have sex then it's rape." - they're aimed at people taking advantage. And I'm definitely with you on the strong difference between risk-avoidance strategies and victim-blaming.

And I'm definitely with you on the second point - I can't condone, or really comprehend, the mind of people who think like that, but I'm well aware they exist.

I guess it's a bit like racism. Changing society so that racists have to keep their views to themselves, rather than chatting happily about them in public means that people are more likely to realise that it is a problem when it happens.

From:

But here you're implying sexual assault = rape, which legally in this country I would think is not the case, insofar as I understand it (though I may be wrong) it entails forcible penetration of a (biologically but not surgically formed) vagina by a penis.

From:

pizza.maircrosoft.com (from livejournal.com)

... it's not rape if it's a surgically formed vagina? the fuck?

From:

What I am referring to is the question of whether someone who is a male to female transsexual, not born with a vagina but now possessing one through surgery, can be raped or not. I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that *the law* was unclear on this issue.

More generally, it's that a male cannot be a victim of rape because of the way *the crime* is defined.

From:

pizza.maircrosoft.com (from livejournal.com)

"What I am referring to is the question of whether someone who is a male to female transsexual, not born with a vagina but now possessing one through surgery, can be raped or not." yes, I realise that. I'm just boggled by the idea that rape might be defined differently based on the origin of the vagina.

From:

I believe that male rape is not a crime in Scotland, but it is in England. It's still sexual assault, of course.

From:

Aha!

Apparently it was changed as part of a set of changes in 2007:
http://www.nowpublic.com/crime/scotland-redefines-rape-law

From:

Any more information on these redefinitions? Does the inclusion of 'male rape' mean that the sodomising of a female without her consent is no longer sexual assault but now rape, or is there now one definition of rape applying to males and another to females?

I'm starting to think that the term rape is itself part of the problem and that serious sexual assault would be more all encompassing, if a little less catchy.

Presumably the likes of Rape Crisis don't work with a legalistic definition of rape in any case - I can't imagine their ever saying to a woman who had been penetrated anally and / or with an object that they weren't able to help her.

From:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/11-sexualOffences/index.htm

Check the PDF at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/11-sexualOffences/b11s3-intro.pdf for the bill itself. The definition of rape is now on page 5.

And yes, it now covers transexuals.

From:

The operative question here is how male and female are defined, which may be getting off topic somewhat.

When I tried searching for definitions of rape in Scottish law plenty of pages came up, but when I tried searching for definition of female many of the links were to the same pages.

Hopefully someone better informed than I can contribute.

From: