Originally posted by @huckleberryhound
Hi guys. This question was brought about by Talk Radio DJ Here in Ireland. His Name was George Hook. He's 70, right leaning, and pretty archaic in his thinking sometimes. On Friday he was discussing the rape of a young girl by the British swim team (ref 1), when he says the following
"But when you then look deeper into the story you have ...[text shortened]... passed-around-member/
The way an issue is framed has a huge effect on the way it is interpreted. This story is set out in a way that can only lead to a suggestion that the victim is responsible for placing herself at risk. It is crying out for that response.
However, the way the story is told is not simply factual. It is very prejudicial.
"Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? She’s only just barely met him. She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, she has no idea what dangers he might pose."
Well, phrased in that way, those are not neutrally stated facts - they are a series of value judgements, which are not without a point, but not balanced either.
Men rape women in diverse situations. Women have been raped wearing a nun's uniform while in a convent. They have been raped walking to work. They have been raped at home by their husbands. They are raped because they are women and the rapists are men, that is all you need to know about why they are raped.
In the scenario of this story, a young woman makes herself available for casual sex to a young man in a social environment where such encounters are almost certainly very common and quite normal. She is not having sex on her own. She and he are having sex. He has only just met her. He does not know her health status. He has no idea what her background might be. Such casual sex takes place all the time and in another context it is fine to debate why this is undesirable and unhealthy. For a great many young people of both sexes, this is reasonable behaviour. We may tut and mutter all we wish from behind our screens but that is life for many people.
However, it is simply not part of the normal pattern of behaviour among young people engaged in such casual sex to subject the women to a rape.
Is it more likely to happen in this context? I don't know - show me the evidence first. Show me that more rapes arise when the woman is drunk and having casual sex, rather than when the woman is drunk and going home to bed, or the woman is sobre but the men are drunk, or ....
Maybe the only thing that matters is that the woman was vulnerable and the rapist was prepared to take the opportunity for rape.
This is just one of the infinite variety of situations in which women can be raped. The woman's behaviour is not relevant. That proposition is based on the objectionable premise that men who rape have been provoked or tempted or seduced into raping by the behaviour of the woman.
So to answer your questions, no, the woman's behaviour is not a consideration in rape, any more than a nun's sexy uniform in the titillating context of a convent is a consideration in rape. That's partly because rape is not really even about sexual attraction - it is about violence and aggression.
As for your journalist, he should be sacked or at least re-educated by any decent and responsible news agency because he set up this story in a distorted way in order to frame things to the disadvantage of the rape victim. The last thing we need is more rape apologists in the media.