Risk-taking behaviour and personal safety: A debate

[LeMansAid]

Because that goes into the "is it rape" category. It doesn't apply since the discussion involves situations that we all agree is some form of sexual assault.

Actually, I am quite sure that some would rightly or wrongly deem it sexual assault. Also, not sure if you should be speaking for "all". You can stick with black and white mode if you choose, but I'm talking about the potentially grey areas. Does a woman have a certain amount of culpability if she takes a heavily amorous approach to an object of her desire, followed by a faint hint of refusal? Much of the sense of violation will come packaged with the regret. These are the types of situations that propagate the notion that some people "are asking for it", and in turn, the reactive disgust from others.

It's a gender equality thing.

More of a choose when to make a statement, and when to play with the hand you're dealt thing, in my opinion. We all make those choices, not just women.

 

[FoolKiller]

Actually, I am quite sure that some would rightly or wrongly deem it sexual assault. Also, not sure if you should be speaking for "all". You can stick with black and white mode if you choose, but I'm talking about the potentially grey areas.

How am I speaking for all on whether it is sexual assault or not? I said it was in the "is it rape" category. There is a question there. It is a grey area. You can't discuss the risk of being raped if whether it was rape or not is in a grey area. My point was, it can't be applied to the current discussion without first debating whether it is rape...and that will never be concluded.

Does a woman have a certain amount of culpability if she takes a heavily amorous approach to an object of her desire, followed by a faint hint of refusal? Much of the sense of violation will come packaged with the regret. These are the types of situations that propagate the notion that some people "are asking for it", and in turn, the reactive disgust from others.

The hypothetical you presented was of consentual sex that was regretted the next day. You never say she displayed any kind of refusal.

The concept of claiming rape after regret is not a new one. It was a constant debate when I was in school. The debate there rarely came down to if reluctant consent is rape, but rather what actually happened.

 

[sneakypete123]

To the op, maybe her reaction was because of an experience to her or someone close to her?

I was talking to a girl who was raped whilst on holiday, she was very drunk, alone at night and walking down a beach with no one in sight in a foreign country.

Was it her fault? I mean nobody deserves it, but why put yourself in that situation?

But she couldnt see that way and became very passive, it was everybody elses fault but her own.

 

[Famine]

To the op, maybe her reaction was because of an experience to her or someone close to her?

I was talking to a girl who was raped whilst on holiday, she was very drunk, alone at night and walking down a beach with no one in sight in a foreign country.

Was it her fault?

No.

But she couldnt see that way and became very passive, it was everybody elses fault but her own.

It was the rapist's fault - they made the conscious choice that they could use someone's body for their own ends without their permission. The rape that ensued was their fault and theirs alone, not the victim's.

Giving someone the opportunity to commit a rights violation confers no blame for the rights violation occurring to the victim.

 

[sneakypete123]

Absolutely agree, but we (men and women) shouldn't be as naive to assume that the people are going to be as nice as the surroundings (in the case of holidays) People really need to have their guard up more than usual.

Its not someones "fault" bad things happen to them, but you can take action to make yourself less vulnerable, not in every situation but in this instance Id say it could have been avoided.

 

[Famine]

And that's sort of the message of all of this thread...

 

[Touring Mars]

To the op, maybe her reaction was because of an experience to her or someone close to her?

I was talking to a girl who was raped whilst on holiday, she was very drunk, alone at night and walking down a beach with no one in sight in a foreign country.

Was it her fault? I mean nobody deserves it, but why put yourself in that situation?

But she couldnt see that way and became very passive, it was everybody elses fault but her own.

As Famine has already said, it wasn't her fault - but that is a different point to the question 'could it have been avoided' - it is never the victim's fault, but people often can take steps to avoid taking unnecessary risks.

A friend of mine narrowly avoided being robbed/mugged in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco last year. I was annoyed at him because I had warned him that the area lay between our hotel and the conference we were attending, and that walking through that area was dangerous, but he claimed that he walked through it by accident. That was true, but it is simple common sense that if he didn't know where he was or was going, he shouldn't have assumed it was perfectly safe. He left our hotel at 6 am and wandered right into the area with a £3000 camera around his neck, and, rather unsurprisingly, two guys started following him before he broke into a jog and got out of there. To be fair, he had never been to SF before, and we had only arrived the previous evening - but all the more reason to not go out alone at 6 am and wander about, I thought.

He was unaware of the tremendous risk he was taking, and he was lucky not to be robbed or worse. While he would not be to blame if he had been accosted, he was largely responsible for putting himself in much greater danger than had he listened to my advice and taken a bus from our hotel to our conference centre later in the morning.

This is the point I was trying to make to my friend the other night - the difference between responsibility for the crime and taking reasonable precautions to avoid risky situations. Your friend was arguably not wise to do what she did - stroll along a deserted beach, alone, and drunk, at night - but it doesn't make her responsible for her attack...

 

[Danoff]

The concept of claiming rape after regret is not a new one. It was a constant debate when I was in school. The debate there rarely came down to if reluctant consent is rape, but rather what actually happened.

Actually, surprisingly, this has managed to stray on-topic. I curtail my own behavior to reduce risk, not of being raped, but of being accused of rape. I know many many men do so. We try to stay in public view when alone with a young girl or woman, we make sure there are witnesses, we make sure that there are cameras, whatever it takes to ensure that we can't be accused and end up in a word vs. word scenario in court.

My infant daughter became the delight of some 3 and 4 year old girls living a few houses down from me. They'd visit constantly to see the baby. I'd allow them to do so, even when it was just me and the baby, but only on my front porch - never inside the house or somewhere out of view of the neighborhood.

When my wife and I wanted to get someone to watch our baby while we both worked, we considered having a nanny at the house. I work at home, so it's a perfect situation where I can supervise the nanny and be present for emergencies but also work right? Wrong. We ultimately decided that hiring a female (almost all nannies are female) likely college student to be at the house alone with me and the baby all day long every day was too dangerous from a legal perspective.

Now, I shouldn't have to worry about these things. I should just live my life as I please, never concerning myself with the risk of being accused of rape right? Well, it certainly wouldn't be my fault if I were accused, but I make it a point not to put myself in situations where that might happen.

I don't know about the other men on this thread, but I do all sorts of things to make sure other people don't see me as dangerous. I'll even cross the street if I'm walking on the sidewalk and I see a lone child playing - if not for any other reason than to avoid making the parents (likely watching from inside) nervous.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

I'm with you there, Danoff. You help a lost child find their negligent mother in the supermarket - she snatches them away as soon as they are reunited, without so much as a "thank you", as if you have a white van with "free sweets" scrawled on it, parked outside. I shouldn't have to think about whether helping a lost child is a good idea, but unfortunately, I often do.

 

[Keef]

...ultimately led to my friend's girlfriend declaring an end to the conversation...

It wasn't a thorny subject. The problem was there was at least one female present. I've learned on numerous occasions with as many different females that you simply do not have intellectual arguments in their presence because small misunderstandings are inevitably overblown from an emotion basis.

Now, so you lot don't do the exact same thing and call me a woman hater, I've had successful intellectual conversations about plenty of touchy subjects with one girl. Probably still the most emotionally stable girl I know. We tried to date but we've been friends now for a few months. I'd still hit it and talk about Ron Paul afterwards.

Basically, my friend and I happened to share the view that it is simply a statement of fact that risk-taking behaviour is a factor in some incidences (but not always), and that one's attitude to risk-taking is influenced by a number of things, including alcohol consumption, awareness/education etc.. However, my friend's girlfriend would not entertain any discussion of this, insisting that 'rape is rape', and that victims of rape are never to blame in any way shape or form. I tried to make it clear that I completely agreed with this point, but that there is a difference between assigning 'blame' or responsibility for a criminal act such as rape, and advocating or taking steps to minimize one's risk of becoming a victim of such an attack. I must admit, I wasn't prepared for the strongly negative reaction that this would provoke, so I'd be interested to hear what others think, not least to see where I went wrong or how to better articulate my own views in the (extremely) unlikely event that this topic ever comes up again

To summarise, I don't believe that rape victims should be blamed in any way for their attack, but I do believe that it is fair to say that there are steps one can take to minimize one's chances of being a victim of rape in certain circumstances. Obviously, there are plenty of cases where this is not the case i.e. there is no element of risk-taking behaviour on the part of the victim, but in some cases I think there is, e.g. by ignoring advice to avoid dangerous areas, walking home alone, drinking too much etc.

I completely agree with everything you're saying here. There are numerous ways a potential rape victim - or potential victim of anything bad, even their own behaviors - can minimize risk. Besides the precautions you mentioned, there's also this whole thing about going to bars to meet dudes. If a person doesn't do that they pretty much mitigate the entire situation. Can't meet the wrong drunk dude if you don't go looking for drunk dudes.

I'm not female, and I tend to focus on issues logically, without any emotion involved. It's the male way to do things. The two genders are very different sides of the same human coin and we play our individual roles. Discussing rape in an emotionless context is just not in a female's job description. You know all that, and I eventually figured it out, but I'm sure we'll forever be dumbfounded by it.

 

[Encyclopedia]

That's some nice generalizations there Keef. Way to go.


Interesting thread. As with all things that provoke emotions, there's going to be people unable to look past them. But I don't think one should shy down from taking the discussion anyway, because it is very important.

Sadly, I can understand that people interpret it as victim blaming. There's a lot of it around after all. There's massive work to be done when it comes to attitudes towards mainly women, even in progressive countries.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

*As in the one in the story, not the one I raped. For clarification.

Might want to rephrase that, Famine....

 

[Zenith]

Since we've clarified the rape question ad nauseam, I'd like to take this in a different direction.

What about drunk driving? Driving home drunk in itself violates nobody else's rights, but significantly increases the danger of causing a situation where rights are violated. How do we approach this now that one of the "risk takers" isn't the victim?

 

[BobK]

Drunk driving puts others at risk without their consent/permission.

By the same token, how about shooting a weapon into the air? Not violating anybody's rights unless it happens to hit someone.

 

[Famine]

I've repeatedly said before that drinking (or doping) and driving shouldn't be a crime - but it should be premeditation for any driving offence you commit while there's any alcohol in your bloodstream.

Kill someone while doing it and that's a murder rap.

 

[Spagetti69]

I've repeatedly said before that drinking (or doping) and driving shouldn't be a crime

I'm fine with the rest of your post but relaxing the law would only encourage people to play the numbers game in my opinion.
If people thought its ok to drink as long as they don't have an accident they would take the risk. Especially when steamed up, that's when your confidence is highest.

I have to say F I'm surprised at you, someone hacked your account lol.

 

[Famine]

I'm fine with the rest of your post but relaxing the law would only encourage people to play the numbers game in my opinion.

No doubt they would. As pointed out below, they do now anyway despite the law.

If people thought its ok to drink as long as they don't have an accident they would take the risk. Especially when steamed up, that's when your confidence is highest.

Not quite...

It's not just accidents that become premeditated. It's all driving offences. Speed while drunk? Ban. Jump a red light while drunk? Ban. Cause an accident while drunk? Long ban. Of course you'd need to up driving with a suspended licence to prison time.

It'd take a couple of years before the effects were noticeable - and yes, at first the accident rate might climb a bit - but they would become noticeable. You'd waste less police and court time and resources on pushing through idiotic DUI convictions for people who were driving perfectly well but flunked the breath test by 0.1mg/ml on what's already a completely arbitrary limit and road safety would skyrocket as there's more fewer dangerous drivers with licences and more trafpol about to deal with the remainder.

I don't have a problem with people who drive well. I have a problem with people who drive badly. If people drive well despite being on drink or drugs, I don't care and I don't think they should be taken off the road because they aren't the problem. If people drive badly because of drink or drugs, I do - and their bad driving should become premeditatedly bad because they've got behind the wheel after deliberately impairing themselves.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm fine with the rest of your post but relaxing the law would only encourage people to play the numbers game in my opinion.
If people thought its ok to drink as long as they don't have an accident they would take the risk. Especially when steamed up, that's when your confidence is highest.

They don't now?

It's frequent enough that they setup unconstitutional roadblocks to try and catch them.

I don't know a single person that is against drunk driving because they might be caught. I know plenty who do it thinking they can avoid police. Everyone who argues against it is concerned about accidents, not legal repercussion.

To be honest, this Drive Drunk, Get Arrested campaign feels way too much like me telling my daughter that if she doesn't listen she'll get timeout. I was far more affected by the simulated accident scene my high school had before prom.

When I was a kid they showed me the repercussions of bad decisions. As an adult they treat me like a kid and say, "because we said so."

 

[Spagetti69]

Not quite...

I won't quote your whole post but I get the idea.
Give em enough rope to hang themselves and come down like a ton of bricks.

May work or may not. I'm still on the side of illegal to drive with alcohol in your system even if you drive like a saint.

I don't know a single person that is against drunk driving because they might be caught.

Seriously. As someone who drives for a living a simple breath failure, regardless of reckless driving or incident would cost me my job.

Even sat behind wheel, engine running going nowhere could have serious implications for people who drive for a living.

Edit can't figure out multi-quote on iPhone lol.

 

[FoolKiller]

Seriously. As someone who drives for a living a simple breath failure, regardless of reckless driving or incident would cost me my job.

Even sat behind wheel, engine running going nowhere could have serious implications for people who drive for a living.

Edit can't figure out multi-quote on iPhone lol.

I don't know anyone who drives for a living. I know people who have entire back road routes planned between the bar and their house. Waze, the social network GPS, always gives me a back way to the highway from the sports bars I visit, where drinking is common (as well as indicating police locations).

I see a numbers game of "I can beat the police" around here.

 

[Famine]

If you drive like a saint how is it to be detected other than unnecessary spot checks that waste police resources and end up taking people off the road when they aren't the problem (they clearly aren't - they're driving like saints)?

Of course there's many ways to be impaired behind the wheel - drink and drugs are just two. Overtired, wired on caffeine, texting, on the phone, nice warm mocha, having an apple, loud music, driving angry, annoying kids in the back, annoying spouse in the front, satnav (GPS), boobies on a billboard advert... you get the gist.

Drink is just easy to detect and quantify - with an arbitrary pass/fail limit - but it's not the problem. The problem is crap driving and drink/drive laws don't address it. Making deliberate impairment like drink and drugs* a premeditation for crap driving, with the stiffer sentences that come with premeditation does.

Worse, the focus on drink driving even takes it off crap driving. People who, while sober, literally leave accidents in their wake and swan off undetected (and without even noticing) retain their licences while a guy on 81mg/ml loses his - and his job and whatever fate's connected to that. The chumps who drive like total bell garglers read about these dangerous drunks in the paper, scoff at their superiority and set off to unwittingly cause mayhem again...


*Professional drivers also have their rest periods monitored in Europe. Again, I'm on the line that you can drive as long as you want, but if you're napping and take out a bus of kids, that's 80 murders. Night night y'all.

 

[Spagetti69]

If you drive like a saint how is it to be detected other than unnecessary spot checks that waste police resources and end up taking people off the road when they aren't the problem?

Plenty of ways to be involved with the police without it necessarily being down to the drunk.
He may get into an accident that isn't his fault.
Run over a dog, brake down on the motorway and need assistance, witness to an accident or any other unlucky incident that draws attention to him.

What I would find hard to stomach would be a scenario where the police were powerless to stop the motorist from proceeding on his merry way only to be involved in a road traffic accident 10 minutes later involving said individual and some innocent ending up dead.

What really pisses me off is when a banned driver gets caught (who obviously doesn't care) then goes on to get a ban. Where's the sense in that?

I agree with your hard line stance to those who get caught though.

Oddly I drive on the pavement. My vehicle doesn't need MOT and I'm not included in the tacho laws I join road traffic up to 30 mph too.

Internet cookie to those who guess what I drive?

Edit to add.

I agree with crap driving in general. I think we all know of an 80 year old joining the slip road in the wrong direction.

 

[Famine]

Plenty of ways to be involved with the police without it necessarily being down to the drunk.
He may get into an accident that isn't his fault.

And if he gets taken off the road but the guy who caused the accident didn't, how is that fair?

Run over a dog, brake down on the motorway and need assistance, witness to an accident or any other unlucky incident that draws attention to him.

Ibidem.

What I would find hard to stomach would be a scenario where the police were powerless to stop the motorist from proceeding on his merry way only to be involved in a road traffic accident 10 minutes later involving said individual and some innocent ending up dead.

Oddly, that happens right now. Blow a 79 and exactly that can happen. Or you could pass a field sobriety test while only being a bit high.

Or you could have done nothing wrong and be pissed off the cops wasted 15 minutes of your time. In your anger and rush to make up the time, you never see the kid crossing the road...

What really pisses me off is when a banned driver gets caught (who obviously doesn't care) then goes on to get a ban. Where's the sense in that?

Indeed. Magistrates are usually good on this though - largely because they set the ban and aren't amused when they're ignored.

Oddly I drive on the pavement. My vehicle doesn't need MOT and I'm not included in the tacho laws.

Internet cookie to those who guess what I drive?

I'll go for Noo Noo or Whirly Crab.

 

[Spagetti69]

Whirly Crab.

Internet cookie is yours.

We could go round and round all day (like my job) I agree with a lot of your points but not relaxing the law.

Where would it end? Safe to carry knifes in your pocket? guns?

I'm running before I start another debate.

 

[arora]

I have no idea what a whirly crab is but if it involves avoiding pinchers at a high rate of speed you can count me in.

 

[Spagetti69]

I have no idea what a whirly crab is but if it involves avoiding pinchers at a high rate of speed you can count me in.

Lol. Road sweeper mate.

 

[ASH32]

I'm all for tougher sentences for people who cause accidents, especially the ones who are drink/drug driving or driving without insurance or a licence and can't believe that we still allow people to effectively murder and get terms way below life, some are not even sent to prison at all.

I'd also like to see the idiot who shot a water gun at me a few months ago whilst he was driving past banned, he had to be on drugs or something anyway I reckon. There are plenty of people round here that should be off the road permanently.

 

[Spagetti69]

Hope it WAS water.

 

[ASH32]

Hope it WAS water.

Yes it was luckily, one good thing.

 

[Azuremen]

I'd also like to see the idiot who shot a water gun at me a few months ago whilst he was driving past banned, he had to be on drugs or something anyway I reckon. There are plenty of people round here that should be off the road permanently.

Wait, wait, using a water gun for a prank now qualifies someone as being on drugs?

Dem assumptions.

As for the drinking and driving bit, I'm with Famine on it. I've met plenty of people that can barely drive after a single beer (and still at the legal limit) and plenty of people that would blow over the limit clearly but other than that, act completely sober.

Luckily, we don't have idiotic spot checks around here, but I have been hassled by cops because I was a fraction of a second slow leaving a light, or slowed down a bit to look for an address. Mind you, this only happened at certain hours of the night, so profiling for possible drunk drivers. They ignore all sorts of poor driving habits in the day from people because, alas, there isn't a huge ticket involved if they're sober.

They've picked an arbitrary number for the sake of ticketing. Ticketing to generate revenue, not safety.