If it helps avoid the rape of one young woman is it not beneficial?

No, it is not. For a couple of reasons.

First, there is an opportunity cost to employing this sort of coverage to minimal effect. Long-form public statements made by senior front-line police officers and printed in large type with splashy photos on the front page of a metropolitan daily newspaper do not, and cannot appear frequently due to public fatigue, the need for journalistic balance and the need to cover different issues; when they do appear, they should be used effectively.

Second, the objective here is not avoiding rape at any cost – if it were, we would require that women not drink, not dress in ways which suggest they are sexually available, and not go out in public without a chaperone. But while these methods are employed elsewhere, in NZ they are clearly not acceptable cultural compromises in the name of feminine safety.

What most of us complaining about the article are saying is that there is better advice the good officer ought to have given, including advice to potential rapists on how they could inadvertently become such. The objective isn’t avoiding all rapes at any cost, it’s a avoiding rapes by establishing a more equitable burden of responsibility for their prevention; one which doesn’t rely entirely on women living in abject fear, and men feeling like women who don’t live in abject fear deserve what they get.

L

Are you suggesting the article will have a negative net effect? That it would have been better for the article not to have been written, that it would be better for police not to give advice that women have the ability to make themselves less of a target? If it helps avoid the rape of one young woman is it not beneficial?

Welcome to the July 15, 2009 edition of the Carnival Against Sexual Violence….

Apparently they result in significant changes to drinking behaviour, and are popular with owners as well for the reason you cite – because people don’t drink so much on the cheap before going into town, they drink more of the expensive stuff inside, and secondarily because rowdies are usually far more of a cost than they are a benefit to a proprietor.

L

I’ll buy both of those, as long as the first is discouraging binge drinking for a wide variety of social, personal and health reasons, rather than just as a way for women to stop getting themselves raped.

1. require a level of sobriety for entry (define drunknenss by a blood alcohol and require an evidential breath test) into licensed premises and for being served drinks in these premises (this would discourage binge drinking before people hit the town and also restrain drinking on the premises).

2. run a publicity campaign to define consent as requiring “active” verbal agreement in cases where there was no history of sexual “convergence”. Thus the lack of capacity of a drunk female to give such “active” verbal consent would preclude any such lawful activity.

My little fan club of hysterical man-hating “feminists” have called me out before I have even written on this matter. So as predictable as I am to not want to let them down – I will write on the matter….

There is nothing wrong with the Police running a campaign to reduce unsafe binge drinking, and mentioning that the enormous list of possible negative consequences includes additional vulnerability to physical and sexual assault. This, however, is not what they did.

There is something wrong with the Police completely failing to address the behaviours and attitudes of the rapists and might-become-rapists. They could change attitudes and behaviours, they could reduce the number of people raped by reducing the number of rapists.

There is something wrong with the Police saying the only preventable part of the sexual assault of under 21 year old women in Wellington, is for the women to drink less. Firstly it’s simply not true, secondly it’s making sexual assault the victim’s responsibility.

L

There is no comparison between analogies. I went out of my way to say the victim is not to blame, the criminal is. I said it twice.

The point I was making, is whether or not it is wrong for the Police to give advice to potential victims about hot to minimise risk. I don’t think it is wrong, even though the language used by the Police could have been better.

DPF – The idea that “people are always going to get intoxicated” has been proven over time by society after society.

It’s the assumption that “people are always going to rape” (which underpins the police’s press release) which is faulty.

Your analogy is reminiscent of an infamous one made by another regressive last year.

“If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldn’t roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won’t get it.”

http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=11535
Disgusting.

At the moment many young people drink up supplies from outlets before hitting town (where drinks are more expensive) – they binge on the way in and it hits them soon after they arrive (some leave bars and clubs and get more from outlets to binge drink again etc).

(The original SPC).

Alchohol reduces a person’s inhibitions, this can be a good thing in moderation but taken to the extreme is very dangerous as those women found out. Since many of the women couldn’t remember what happened, they just knew it had afterwards, I fail to see how it can be called rape with any certainty.

A more serious risk is from STD and AIDS that both male and female expose themselves to with this sort of behaviour.

Lew, I agree that my original solution is idealistic in the consumption society that apparently exists today in some circles.
QoT, Of course it is common sense to take precautions … don’t get blotto and put yourself in a situation where the male’s inhibitions have been reduced as well as the woman’s.

I like it – the knowledge that they are out there would serve for deterrence.

I don’t buy into the police/tory “blaming the victim” argument, and i don’t buy into the argument that all or even most rapists are intractable predators. It’s our cultural norms around consent which are at fault – in many cases rape would be avoided if the perpetrator simply asked “would you like to have sex” or if that’s too blunt/uncomfortable (i don’t think it should be) “i’d like to go further, what do you think”? would suffice. If the lady’s really into it, that kind of question isn’t going to put her off…

But I think you are taking what the Police said out of context. It is about recognising the world we live in.

For example would it be sensible of me to walk home pissed through an area known for high crime rates with hundred dollar bills sticking out of my pockets?

No. And yes of course I should be able to. And no that does not mean the victim is to blame, And the mugger is still a criminal who should not have done it.

But would it be wrong for the Police to advise people not to walk home through high crime areas with hundred dollar bills sticking out of their pockets?

And that’s actually what gets me *especially* pissy, Milt. In a perfect world, saying “drinking to the point of debilitation isn’t smart for anyone” would be value-neutral. But it’s not, because it’s always the first, if not only, thing mentioned. And the discussions all focus on the drinking, the attire, the “laddish” behaviour of young women – as though THAT weren’t a big pile of patriarchal crap all on its own.

I find myself rejecting “be aware of your environment and watch your own behaviour amongst strangers” messages not because they’re totally without merit, but because to say “sure, some people of whatever gender do stupid shit” is a line used far too often by conservatives who really just mean “Only Bad Girls get raped, I must blame them for their Naughty Behaviour because otherwise I’d have to admit that rape happens everywhere and plenty of men feel entitled to sex with any woman, not just The Slappers.”

And frankly when it’s why-didn’t-you-just-say-no-you-horrible-slut-Cactus Kate making the argument for “this is just commonsense, not victim-blaming” I have even less time for that line of thinking.