I don't watch the 'kerri-anne' show on the nine network, but I must admit I was annoyed when I read about her comments on rape allegations against football players.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/8100379/kerri-anne-stands-by-stray-remarks

"Kerri-Anne Kennerley is standing by remarks she made on air this morning where she described women who party with high-profile AFL players as "strays"..."What do women expect when they are out late at night?" Kennerley told Nine News this evening.
"It's all very exciting, and they meet guys they've never known personally in their life.
"They put themselves in serious potential danger — they have to learn that"."

It's the old 'well she was out there drunk, dressed like a slag, hanging out with all the famous guys, and now she yells rape!' comment that some ignorant people in our community just can't seem to grow out of.

I wonder what their reaction would be if the rape victims were male?
There are also drunken, partying men out there on the streets who are over-powered and raped by violent homosexual men.
We just don't always hear about that crime.
Did these guys 'ask for it' too?
Of course they didn't.

Does every man who is out there drunk and celebrating feel the need to violently rape someone who is also drunk and vulnerable?
Of course not.
Only the really sick, rapist criminals want to do this.

Rapists will attack any vulnerable people, and should all be treated like the violent criminals that they are, no matter who they are.

What do other people think of Kerri-anne's comments?

Do women and men really 'ask for it' if they put themselves into a vulnerable situation leading to being sexually assaulted?

Suze.

Kerri-Anne said players "put themselves in harm's way by picking up strays" and she is right.

The rest is yours, not hers.

Suzeonline:"Do women and men really 'ask for it' if they put themselves into a vulnerable situation leading to being sexually assaulted?"

No. Do they contribute to their situaion? Yes.

It's like this, suzie: if I am driving my car and I make a mistake in signalling my intention which you rely upon in formulating your own course of action and your course of action leads to our vehicles colliding, then I am held to be at least partially responsible for the outcome, even if you hit me from behind provided it can be shown that my original signal, which you relied on, was misleading.

I had this brought home to me not long after I started driving. I turned right to park and was hit by a car trying to overtake. I thought I had signalled my intent to turn, but the driver of the other car was adamant that I had not. When it went to court, the magistrate apportioned the majority of the blame to the other driver, as she had not taken enough care when overtaking, but held me to account for having contributed.

Do you see anything wrong with that?

How can a woman that has gone out and deliberately got drunk to the point of passing out scream rape.
She wouldn't know what she has done to bring it on.
Women who get to this point of mental state are not female to my liking.
They are only rubbish and that is what they get treated like.
What these all night venues cause is nothing but trouble, they need reasonable closing times like 11.30 pm. After that the venue is alcohol free. People have to be protected against themselves.

A person who is raped is not at fault under the law just as someone whose house is robbed because they left a window ajar is not to blame. They may have made the attacker's job easier merely by being present in a vulnerable situation but they do not 'contribute' to the crime.

What KA Kennerly may have meant is for girls not to put themselves in those situations as it might be dangerous especially if there is a risk of alcohol abuse. That is different to saying they are to blame, but I can't speak for what KAK may be thinking.

We are all responsible for our own behaviour and in the case of a 'stray' (horrible and demeaning term) a vulnerable target still does not make it okay no matter how foolish their trust or their behaviour. It is not rocket science. Either a girl says yes lets have sex or she doesn't - easy peasy, and if she is drunk then the safe assumption is she is not in a position to make that decision.

If we go around thinking all footballers are rapists they would never get to socialise. Do we keep footballers separate from women at all times just in case? That would obviously be silly.

The reaction to Kerry Ann's comments seems like political correctness.

It's become so important to make the legitimate point that it's not the woman's fault if and we are so repulsed by the uncovered meat type attitudes that honest comment about people putting themselves at risk is seen as cause for outrage.

Is there a legitimate way of saying rape is not Ok, choices which don't include consent don't create a pseudo consent but you are still being really silly if you place yourself in some situations.

As for me I'd not go into a toilet with a drunk gay guy twice my size who was making a sexual interest obvious nor would I go back to his place with a few of his mates. Not a situation I've ever had to deal with by the way.

I keep getting the impression that many of the girls Kerry Ann was refering to deliberately choose rough guy's. For some the tough spit on the rules types have a lot of appeal until it's the girls rules which are treated with contempt. Continuing to deny that they are placing themselves in harms way by their own choices does little to help others make better choices.

Regardless of what the rest of us do or say some will continue to make poor choices (does anybody think that any professional footballers have not been fully informed about issues such as consent?), what we do need is honest enough discussion to help those willing to learn make better choices.

R0bert