Have your say

You make women sound very passive and timid as if they are unable to express it if they don't want to have sex. The moment they do, if the guy goes any further then its rape and its clearly wrong. But to make out like its likely to have sex with someone who doesn't consent but won't tell you they don't consent unless you ask them is perhaps overstating the issue. Though i admit it would be a simpler world if guys simply didnt instigate sex at all and only ever had it once the woman had clearly instigated it.
Rape by its definition is against the womens will; so nothing else matters - by its own definition it is wrong irrespective of any of the prior curcumstances. The way women dress and behave certainly confuses mens idea of whether or not women want to be found sexy and whether or not they are interested in sex at all. But again that is an entirely different issue from then leaping on to say it excuses men forcing themselves on women. Rape is clear and there is just no confusion about that, its a totally different topic from the one it seems men commonly confuse it with.
As for women putting themselves at risk by the way they dress and behave - its obvious that they do but again that does not diminish the blame in any way of the rapist.

Author: Euan, Male, Glasgow
Date: 07/07/2010

Women don't put ourselves at risk by what we wear, men put us at risk by choosing to rape and make that choice no matter what the women they rape is wearing. Men make choices to rape children, young women, older women, women in burka's, women in jeans and anoraks, women out walking their dogs, women in their homes, women in the armed forces, women coming home from work, women going home after a night out..I could go on.
The one common denominator in rape is the man who makes that choice.

Author: anne, Female, edinburgh
Date: 08/07/2010

I think you confused 'risk,' with 'fault.' It is always the rapists fault and whoever gets raped is pretty much never at fault. However there are actions and behaviours that increase the risk of encountering the issue. Like you say women can be taking no risk at all and still be raped but just the same women can put themselves in a risky situation and come off fine. Its like if a guy walks into a rangers pub wearing a celtic jersey, hes not at fault for getting beat up but i'd say he took a risk. Risk is totally irrelevant after the crime and all that matters is who was at fault (the rapist) but before the rape you would want to warn your friends that they might be taking a risk (walking alone at night, getting drunk while alone at night,). When it comes to fault its all on the rapist but I really do think its a mistake to say that womens actions dont cause risk to her safety. Not to do with blaming anyone beyond the rapist but more to do with just keeping people safe. Theres things you'd advise your sisters or friends not to do just because you'd worry it was risky. Though for the most part this seems to be about behaviours rather than clothes. I agree its a terrible state of affairs that you'd worry about any of this because its all because of bad guys out there who make it a risk and its terrible that it has to be such a fact that these potential rapists are out there.

Author: Euan, Male, Glasgow
Date: 10/07/2010

Euan, two things:

1) Is it your opinion that women are unaware that "walking alone at night, getting drunk while alone at night" are riskier than not doing those things? Seriously?

2) What does that have to do with this campaign? Would you go on the website of a campaign to get drivers to drive more safely and object that hey, pedestrians need to be careful too? Even if it's true, why derail a campaign addressing something you agree is important with the objection that there are other important things as well? If you support Not Ever's message, support it. If you think your message needs to be gotten out as well, go do that--elsewhere.

Author: Nick, Male, Singapore
Date: 16/07/2010

Hey Nick, two things.
You seriously think women are more at risk when they're not alone at night? Really? I'm sorry but I don't agree, im surprised where you seem to be going with that idea.

You might note that my original message on this post was in the response to the ideas of the one who posted it. Someone else responded to one of my messages and I clarified on that. I wasn't aware it appeared that that clarification hurt the campaign of Not Ever, unless that campaign is also suggesting there is no such thing as risk... which i don't think it does. You are right though, the campaign serves a good purpose and while these points seem to keep coming up along the way - they perhaps shouldn't.

Author: Euan, Male, Glasgow
Date: 16/08/2010