Woman setenced to stoning for being raped? The UK is just as bad...

[LionSpirit]

...the only difference is our country doesn't physically hurt victims, it adds to their mental trauma instead as well as trying to make them pay for being raped. Read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2003227,00.html

[IamJen]

Where to start. Last summer, there was a study done on sexual assault convictions, and I thought surely it must be an error. Some counties have less that 3% conviction rates. Now, I know there are some cases where false claims or reasonable doubt apply, but 97%? Please. That's not even taking into account the victims who don't report the attacks.

Now, I'm treading into dangerous territory as a non-Brit, so be gentle, but I really think this is a problem with societal beliefs at large. On another (mostly British) board, several of us were having a knock-down, drag-out battle a couple of weeks ago about the "responsibility" of a woman who goes out for a night on the town. Numerous people suggested that if a woman wears something revealing, it means she's asking for sex, if she drinks (at all), then she's choosing to "take that risk" (of being assaulted), etc. etc. They kept saying things like "well, what did she think was going to happen?".

While I stated that sometimes rape victims have made poor choices, such as drinking too much, that doesn't make them responsible for an assault. Several pointed out that we wouldn't blame a robbery victim, even they were walking in a rough neighborhood, or a person getting food poisoning from eating in a scary looking cafe. To many though, it was like talking to a wall. They didn't say that the perpetrator of the assault was blameless, only that the victim held some blame as well. I don't think everyone feels that way of course, but I can easily see where such attitudes result in the conviction rates we read about it the newspaper.

Additionally, there was a prevalent "boys will be boys" sort of attitude. What a horrible, horrible idea to have about males, insinuating that they're just these walking glands. One of the men was making this argument, and I actually asked if *he* would assault a woman who had been drinking/was altered, etc. When he said no, and I asked why not, he said that he just knew better. (he failed to clarify what that meant).

Sorry to rant, this has just been on my mind for the past few weeks particularly. There's a radio ad (which sparked the debate on the other forum) where a woman is drinking and then later being assaulted. The ad is supposed to make women think about behaving safely, but the tone comes across in that "what did she think was going to happen" way, imo.

That said, I don't think it's worse than being stoned to death. :shifty:

[LionSpirit]

Where to start. Last summer, there was a study done on sexual assault convictions, and I thought surely it must be an error. Some counties have less that 3% conviction rates. Now, I know there are some cases where false claims or reasonable doubt apply, but 97%? Please. That's not even taking into account the victims who don't report the attacks.

Now, I'm treading into dangerous territory as a non-Brit, so be gentle, but I really think this is a problem with societal beliefs at large. On another (mostly British) board, several of us were having a knock-down, drag-out battle a couple of weeks ago about the "responsibility" of a woman who goes out for a night on the town. Numerous people suggested that if a woman wears something revealing, it means she's asking for sex, if she drinks (at all), then she's choosing to "take that risk" (of being assaulted), etc. etc. They kept saying things like "well, what did she think was going to happen?".

While I stated that sometimes rape victims have made poor choices, such as drinking too much, that doesn't make them responsible for an assault. Several pointed out that we wouldn't blame a robbery victim, even they were walking in a rough neighborhood, or a person getting food poisoning from eating in a scary looking cafe. To many though, it was like talking to a wall. They didn't say that the perpetrator of the assault was blameless, only that the victim held some blame as well. I don't think everyone feels that way of course, but I can easily see where such attitudes result in the conviction rates we read about it the newspaper.

Additionally, there was a prevalent "boys will be boys" sort of attitude. What a horrible, horrible idea to have about males, insinuating that they're just these walking glands. One of the men was making this argument, and I actually asked if *he* would assault a woman who had been drinking/was altered, etc. When he said no, and I asked why not, he said that he just knew better. (he failed to clarify what that meant).

Sorry to rant, this has just been on my mind for the past few weeks particularly. There's a radio ad (which sparked the debate on the other forum) where a woman is drinking and then later being assaulted. The ad is supposed to make women think about behaving safely, but the tone comes across in that "what did she think was going to happen" way, imo.

That said, I don't think it's worse than being stoned to death. :shifty:

Considering the horror of rape, I'm not sure sure that added mental trauma is NOT worse than being stoned to death... I think it probably is.

[yblad]

disgusting. i feel ashamed of my own gender.

[Loki]

There certainly needs to be a revision to the laws.

Rape is seldom reported, and even when it is, the defendant often gets acquitted.

And on the grounds that alcohol makes it all OK?

This is one hell of a crazy situation.

[LionSpirit]

There certainly needs to be a revision to the laws.

Rape is seldom reported, and even when it is, the defendant often gets acquitted.

And on the grounds that alcohol makes it all OK?

This is one hell of a crazy situation.

I know, that alcohol thing does my head in. It's DRUG. Thus, someone who has drunk alcohol IS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A DRUG - just like if they'd had any other drug... so they can NOT freely consent

[Bof]

Why is: 'Woman sentenced to stoning for being raped?' in the title of this thread?
Is it a tabloid style attempt at attention grabbing or did I miss something in the article?

[LionSpirit]

Why is: 'Woman sentenced to stoning for being raped?' in the title of this thread?
Is it a tabloid style attempt at attention grabbing or did I miss something in the article?

The former.

Well it got attention didn't it?

[Bof]

The former.

Well it got attention didn't it?

And it makes me, for one, far less likely to look at any thread you start.

[LionSpirit]

And it makes me, for one, far less likely to look at any thread you start.

Well that's your prerogative. Enjoy it.

[Bof]

And, the thread title is racist, in my opinion, because it implies that women may be stoned 'for being raped', in the Middle East.

[LionSpirit]

And, the thread title is racist, in my opinion, because it implies that women may be stoned 'for being raped', in the Middle East.

Now you're just being silly. It implies nothing of the sort.

[Bof]

I'd rather be silly than racist.
And, the implications of something can be subjective so it's pretty stupid to say that I'm 'silly' because your (spurious) heading seems racist to me.

[IamJen]

The thread title is not racist. Neither is it inaccurate. Iran occasionally sentences women who were raped, to death by stoning, for "adultery". Pakistan has had several cases as well, although most (if not all) of the convictions there were overturned.

[Jon_Veggie]

The thread title is not racist. Neither is it inaccurate. Iran occasionally sentences women who were raped, to death by stoning, for "adultery". Pakistan has had several cases as well, although most (if not all) of the convictions there were overturned.

hear hear Jen :yes:

[LionSpirit]

I'd rather be silly than racist.
And, the implications of something can be subjective so it's pretty stupid to say that I'm 'silly' because your (spurious) heading seems racist to me.

I'm in no way being racist.

The case of the woman sentenced to being stoned was widely publicised. It was also WIDELY CRITICISED by many WESTERNERS, including UK CITIZENS - yet as the title states, the UK is just as bad. I was merely making a reference to stupid UK legal practice in relation to people who would claim about the practices of other countries when the practice of their own is just as bad.

The only way you could possibly view it as racist would be if you happened to hate all UK citizens and thus had in your head the erroneous notion that all UK citizens are racist... making YOU the racist person.