No. Thatās a distortion. Every person has a responsibility to act in their own safety. Going back to a strangerās house under the influence of alcohol goes against their own safety. People make choices in life, she made one that put her in danger that bears no direct correlation with the impact of her as a victim or the impact of the culprit.
Getting smashed and going off with strangers for sex is reckless behaviour. Not the type of thing any parent would like their daughter to be at.
I havenāt and I think Iām the better judge of that.
Nope. Once again you ate concocting blame. She exposed herself to danger like I would if I walked down a dangerous estate late at night, on my own under the influence of alcohol.
They should be aware itās possible, particularly when they know very little about the person theyāre wuth. Better safe than sorry as they say. The alternative seems to be that you naively believe the best in every stranger you meet.
I donāt know if itās the time I was raised it but I was brought up to be suspicious of strangers and people I didnāt know. I certainly wouldnāt be leaving myself exposed with them.
No, thatās just a truth of the matter. Getting drunk meeting some lad who you know nothing about and heading back to his house is the type of behaviour that opens you to trouble.
Leaving yourself vulnerable is not the same as blame.
If I walk down a rough street on my own late at night, I am leaving myself vulnerable to being mugged or assaulted. Choices and decisions people make so have consequences. Girls need to take more care of themselves in these situations, thatās just good advice.
Youāre clearly well acquainted with flailing wildly, given that in response to the below link, you not only laughed at an actual rape which happened, but clearly implied that you raped your wife enough to merit a ālife sentenceā.
So, what we have here is you - an actual admitted rapist - trying to claim high moral ground about rape.
Again you are hinting at a level of blame towards the girl with that statement.
Anyway, the way I view it is that the rapist is the person who has infringed on another personās human rights and should bear 100% of the blame.
A person is entitled to walk wherever they want, or share a bed with whoever they want without their human rights being impacted.
Their actions with regard to protecting themselves from a potential attack doesnāt come into it at all for me. And the judgemental shit that emerges by people who havenāt a clue of the situation certainly doesnāt help matters.
All correct, but it doesnāt mean a discussion on personal responsibility canāt be hadā¦ Would you give the advice you just typed there to a daughter of yours?
I agree mateā¦in an ideal world everyone should be allowed do what they want within the law. But you have to start with the premise that there are some very sick bastards out there, thatās a fact. You work forward from thereā¦the victim is never to blame but that doesnāt mean smarter choices could have been made.
I find both that response and your previous responses rather strange.
In response to my comment āConsensual sex is not recklessā:
In response to āRape is reckless.ā
What justification have you for saying that the consensual sex agreed to by the woman and the man in the case Hook referenced was ārecklessā?
Reckless on whose part?
And what do you mean by your response āThis is even betterā when I stated that ārape is recklessā.
Do you believe that as well as being a serious crime, rape is reckless (thatās reckless on the part of the perpetrator, for the benefit of the several posters who donāt seem to grasp this)?
Because i have evolved a bit more than the ordinary irish 30 something?
Or that i take a critical eye to things?
What has you so upset?
And emotional intelligence is like petrol in a car. It can go up or down and you will run into trouble if you let it empty. Its not a āthingā you have or donāt.
And you can develop it.
You are pretty low now iād say going on these bizarre outbursts