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

Pelican:"someone whose house is robbed because they left a window ajar is not to blame."

Actually, in the law, they are, not to mention their chance of making an insurance claim just went through the floor. It's called "contributory negligence", which is what I was held to account for in the example I mentioned above. The crime of "break and enter" is more serious than the crime of "theft", hence the shoplifter rarely sees jail but the burglar frequently does. It is also an offence to leave your car unlocked on the street. Think of your robbed homeowner offering to give the goods to someone and then claiming they were stolen after reconsidering.

In the case of common assault, the assaulted party can be held to be partially culpable if he/she has acted in such a way as to inflame the situation, such as making threats or acting belligerently before the assault.

IOW, the law recognises that one bears responsibility for taking due care - except in the case of an alleged sexual assault, apparently, when it may be that the contributory factors are the most significant.Care to have a go at why that may be the case?

R0bert:"what we do need is honest enough discussion "

In all sorts of areas related to gender that is very true. Sadly, the people with a veted interest in pretending women are always helpless, hapless victims are well-funded to be vocal, so it's unlikely to happen any time soon.

Just how many of these "rapes" occurred many hours after the fact, is perhaps the main part of the controversy.

My youngest, although a teetotaler attends these venues with her mates. She tells me that there is quite a number of young women who are "up for anything", & having great fun, while they are drunk.

It's only as the hangover cuts in, & they realise what they look like to everyone, that the fun turns to rape.

I'm from the day, when it was a special licence, rarely granted that allowed grog after 10.00 PM. How we got to the point that the kids only go out after 10.00 PM, often all ready well gone on cheaper alcohol, drunk at home before going, I really don't know.

Licences should not be granted for hours when there is no transport available to get drunks home in some kind of safety

pelican wrote: "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."

Dear pelican,

I say we keep footballers separate from women at all times.

I agree with Cornflower. First one, don't know if there's others.

No one wants to be attacked, but there's ways to minimise exposure to the risk. Women should be able to wear what they want, when they want, and where they want is SO detrimental to their safety there needs to be an active program in schools - or something, really it's just basic safety and should be as common knowledge as not going into the bush without some preparation and education ... anyhoo - where many people - not just women - don't seem to grasp the basics of personal safety. You wouldn't go selling bibles door to door in Ramallah.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. It still seems that men see the problem of males raping drunk, partying females differently to women.

Of course, the law says that rape is a crime under ANY circumstances, if the victim says 'no' and the perpetrator ignores that.

It is, unfortunately, notoriously difficult to get convictions if the victim is not also physically injured as well, providing corroborating evidence.

I guess what I was trying to say was that even drunk people out there having fun should not be labelled as 'asking for it' if they are raped and bashed while drunk.

While they may have been stupid enough to be in so vulnerable a position, it does not give rapists the right to go ahead and take what they like.

Robert, the violent homosexual rapist may not necessarily be obviously gay or a big guy at all. He wouldn't need to be if you were mindlessly drunk and vulnerable at the time he wanted to sexually assault you.
Remember the taxi driver that raped all those drunk men he picked up in his taxi? Did those men 'ask for it'?

Does a sexual assault on a male cause everyone else to say that he 'asked for it' by being a drunk and vulnerable victim at the time?

No, it doesn't.
Sounds like double standards to me.

I'm torn, I don't respect the female type that dress next to nothing, hit on anything with a male appendage and display little self respect.

I don't respect the male equivalent to that either.

I don't think a woman should dress like that, drink massive amounts and hint that she is ready to have sex with someone.
I don't think a woman should have to worry about being raped either.

I don't think men have the right to assume that a woman will sleep with them.
I don't think a woman has the right to assume she can fall all over someone and not expect that they want to sleep with them.

I suppose everyone has to be careful and know that certain behavior can attract an unwanted response, fueling the fire.
But then there should be no fire in the first place.

Suze. You said:

"It is, unfortunately, notoriously difficult to get convictions if the victim is not also physically injured as well, providing corroborating evidence."

There's examples of false accusations. Such as the one recently. It shouldn't be easy to convict accused.

...and you said:

"I guess what I was trying to say was that even drunk people out there having fun should not be labelled as 'asking for it' if they are raped and bashed while drunk."

Short of predator attackers - which in my context are triggered by various other things and go hunting for victims, ie: the most drunk, or fit a certain profile and are attacked using drugs etc - there are generally a PLETHORA of warnings and actions by both people involved before it gets to the rape itself. Be aware of those warnings. Have friends watching out for you. Don't get too drunk. Don't OVER flirt. Don't be afraid to be stern and bail if you're getting bad vibes, etc etc.

"They asked for it" generally means to me that they didn't make good decisions. Such as excessive speeding. They are "asking" for an accident.

Suzie I made it quite clear in my post that I was refering to situations where someone was making their sexual interest clear.

There is no defense of the rape or the rapist, this is not about someone being grabbed off the street or being assualted by a taxi driver or attacked in some other situation where the risks were not clearly elevated. Being drunk in an isolated situation with someone else who is also drunk and who is clearly sexually interested is a dumb move if taht interest is not mutual regardless of how the rest of us would like the world to be. Risky on both sides because people don't make their best decisions when drunk.

It's about people who deliberately choose to put themselves in risky situations and sometimes seem to keep making the same choices even after they have gone wrong. Both sides of this are making silly choices if they don't like the risks.

R0bert

"Strays" isn't an offensive term. I think that people who would choose to get offended over that term have an unhealthy attitude towards sexuality.

Its the amount of malicious misinterpretation that goes into defending the 'never blame the victim' taboo that I find so annoying.
Kerri-Anne actually said "They put themselves in serious potential danger — they have to learn that". Karen Willis chose to turn this into "This idea that how a person dresses or behaves or whether or not they've had a drink and therefore that indicates that somehow they're asking for it or deserve to be sexually assaulted". I think that pointing out that people need to be aware of their safety in bars is quite different to saying that drunk women deserve to be raped.

Suze

No-one is disagreeing that having sex with someone who is saying no is utterly wrong. What concerns alot of blokes are these incidents where she has been happy to do alot of stuff that looked like foreplay, she hasn't made much of an effort to stop him when things went to far and he has been accused of rape. Consent can be tricky. For example, no-one can give a nice neat realistic answer to how drunk she needs to be before sex becomes rape.

Make some photocopies of, I concent to have sex with the holder of this certificate. signed by the recipient.

Hang on you lot, isn't australian law such that someone else is to be made responsible for your action ?

There should be an Australian law against speculative gossip. God knows how anyone can get away with the spin that is often put on the simple things said by people in the media spotlight.

Miranda Devine vocalised the sentiments of most people,

"Good on Kerri-Anne Kennerley for not backing down over her 'strays' comment on the Collingwood sex scandal. The linguistic police are always so eager to crush dissent that most celebrities buckle under the pressure.

Clearly the Nine host was not talking about rape victims; the last thing anyone wants is to heap injury on a young
woman who may already be traumatised.

But there have been too many instances of football fans who cry wolf the morning after for people not to want to point out the unfairness of it all."

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/

I suspect that the politically correct roasting of Kerri-Anne Kennerley will rebound on feminism. Will the real feminism stand up?

it seems these silly naive girls don't know much about their own adamic nature or that of the 'gods' they worship and now hate.

How timely, theres a program on telly (a repeat) in the coming week or so, called something like "football girls". I saw it last time, and it is an eye-opener. I reckon some of the girls are not all there, a more severe form of being a bit simple. That some of them have worked their way through half a footy team, before becoming the significant other of a player. I couldnt imagine playing footy with several blokes who have been with my partner, but I'm a little old-fashioned perhaps.

The truth of the matter, is if you are playing well then your club will either pay off or intimidate any young lady making an allegation. See how quick that date rape by Lotti was covered up? I reckon filling a girl up with rohypnol and raping her with a mate is a criminal act that should be punished, not covered up like it was.

In threads about the NRL
People unfortunately for them,spoke of a code of thugs.
Things have changed a different code has been in the spotlight ever after.
Men and women when drunk get it wrong, very wrong rape is a crime so it should be, let the police find the truth and hope a bribe is not the out come.

The rape itself is the crime. Being foolish or putting yourself in a vulnerable situation is not a crime and should not be used to minimise or dismiss the seriousness of the assault.

When we start blaming the victims or finding excuses for bad behaviour we lose sight of justice. It is this same thinking that leads to ridiculously low penalties or sentences.

What is wrong with a system of personal responsibility. Why does a victim have to explain their stupidity or their misplaced trust while the perp has the luxury of shifting responsibility to the victim.

Being a celebrity may make one more vulnerable to false accusations at times, but it does not give a free pass for rape.

I live in a bad neighbourhood. In my early twenties, I used to go out cycling late at night, when it had cooled down and traffic was non-existent. I figured that I was safe - I'm tough, wily and, if all else fails, I can pedal with quite a lot of power. That was until I was viciously attacked, pelted with bottles, rocks and narrowly missed by a couple of bricks (full credit to the guy who could throw bricks so far - but, if you're out there, you need to work on your aim). Had I been seriously injured, I would expect my attackers to be brought to justice. I wasn't seriously hurt, but did learn a very valuable lesson. If I put myself in harm's way, it's only a matter of time before harm comes to me.

What I'm getting at with this long-winded anecdote is that there is no excuse for what happens to these girls. The perpetrators of crimes against them must be dealt with severely. They are not culpable, but they do need to look at their actions. They need to ensure that they do all they can to safeguard themselves. They need to remain sober enough to make informed decisions and to back out when the alarm bells ring. They need to have a way home and they need to have friends with them who will stand by them when the going gets tough. They are not "asking" to be raped, but they aren't doing much to prevent it, either. No rape victim should be blamed for his/her ordeal but, when knowledge of the danger is available to them, they are silly indeed if they don't do anything to help themselves. Just as I was silly to expose myself to roaming gangs of thugs by riding alone, late at night, in isolated and dangerous areas.

Unless one has fully experienced rape and has mixed with rape victims of all ages, one never knows what the hell they are talking about.

'For they know NOT what they are talking about' until a relative, friend or colleague has been a victim.

I credited Kerri-Anne Kennerley with more experience, common sense and intelligence despite obviously not having mixed or known victims of rape or murder.

Lots of sensible comments here, but a couple of posters seem completely unable to grasp the difference between condoning rape and insisting on young women having personal regard for their own safety.

I won't add any further analogous examples to the ones that have been already posted, but I do think that a couple of you women need to look very carefully at your approach to personal responsibility, especially if you have daughters.

The phrase "girls can do anything" seems to be dangerously misinterpreted by some of you.

"girls can do anything"
Antiseptic,
Don't you mean "will do anything" ?

Anti
No-one here is condoning rape.

"a couple of posters seem completely unable to grasp the difference between condoning rape and insisting on young women having personal regard for their own safety."

Women and men should have personal regard to their own safety - but there will be times in life that one might drink too much or hang around with footballers (footballers are people too). People don't always act in their best interests which unless we wrap ourselves in cotton wool, there will always be an element of risk. You don't have to 'condone' rape to believe the victim is to blame.

Comments about her don't imply anything about him.

Defending her is still talking about her. Accepting that she might have been reckless and adding 'but what about him' puts the attention back on him.

individual, 'Don't you mean "will do anything"?'

The Cougars and the Groupies probably would 'do' anything and Kerri-Anne was warning football stars against them.

The WAGS say they are in it for love, not just the good times, so don't dare confuse us with 'them'.

Then there are those who believe that adult women are incapable of controlling themselves (blame it on the bottle) and men should be doing that for them,

'A spokeswoman for the South Eastern Centre Against Sexual Assault Australia, Carolyn Worth, said the comments were insensitive and besides the point.

"Even if women have been drinking and are throwing themselves at men, high-profile sportsmen still have responsibility to act appropriately."'

The truth is that the media have beaten up many stories over the years and destroyed reputations and even lives in the process. It is all about gaining an audience.

Not sure what cougars and groupies have to do with rape. I presume cougars and groupies still have the right to abstain from sex if they choose. Mutual consent is pretty straightforward and just involves two people saying yes let's do it or one or both of the parties saying no thank you.

If a man is tipsy or flirtatious I would no sooner consider raping him than fly to mars. In fact I would run the other way rather than recklessly put myself in harms way to media assertions, allegations or inappropriate behaviour.

There was a rape committed?

Cornflower
Isn't that what we are talking about or am I on the wrong track? The assertion was that there was some comment from KAK about 'what do women expect' (strays). I am assuming she was talking about rape or other forms of unwanted sexual attention or "sexual danger" as was quoted in the first post.

pelican, "The assertion was that there was some comment from KAK about 'what do women expect' (strays)."

It is worth watching the actual video. My post of 8 October 2010 7:19:00 AM refers.

Miranda Devine got it right. My post of Friday, 8 October 2010 4:59:06 PM refers.

This is all speculative gossip, encouraged by shabby journalism to build a story through taking comments out of context and putting the worst possible meaning on them.

Yet another sideshow and more victims of tabloid journalism and political correctness.

I agree Pelican. There are many times when I have been 'accosted' by drunken men, and I have thought I would rather go to the dentist than have sex with a smelly, drunken man!

These AFL footballers have apparently had considerable education re handling the adulation they cause amongst many young, and not so young, girls and boys.

They have a lot at stake if they are found guilty of physical and/or sexual assaults against anyone. At the end of the day, I am sure that most of these fit, cashed up young footballers could go out with as many different girls that they wanted to, without the need to take anyone by force?
Unless they are of course, violent by nature.

The fact that a few of these high ranking players still feel the need to sexually assault some women, or bash other young men when out partying says a lot about them as violent people.

I am sure that these victims did not go out that night saying they wanted to be bashed or sexually assaulted by these footballers at all.

Are we also suggesting that young men who go out to party around or with these footballers should also not drink so much or go to places where these footballers hang out, just in case they should get bashed?

No? Then why are some suggesting women shouldn't also go out and have a good time? Everyone should be able to go out partying and not expect to get bashed or sexually assaulted.
Of course we should all be careful and watch for signs of problems around us, but weren't all of us young and silly at least once?

Some are more silly than others.
Woman can do anything , woman will do anything.
Women can do things to arouse men, without knowing it.
Once a man gets aroused he will atack a knot hole in a fence post.
I still say there should be a writen contract of concent.
Weve already established that women will or can do anything.
Have you witnessed a blind drunk female, it's is the sorriest site you can ever see.
I think it best if they stay at home and keep their composure.

"Once a man gets aroused he will atack a knot hole in a fence post."

Speak for yourself.

suzeonline, this woman has spent her whole career in an industry where money and privilege sees the best days of Rome’s debauchery enacted daily. Her formative years were spent with the hippy drug renaissance, the pill, free sex, and bloody women’s lib. Kerry Ann is no wall flower giving grandma advice and moral admonishment. She is stating this old but salient adage" if you poke sh.t with a stick it will stink". Young strong gift to all women superstars as some of these guys see themselves are going to take advantage of the girl after drinking at 3am in the morn if she is hanging with him, what else is she there for, is the way he sees it, "I party, I drink, and after that I have sex" that is how I remember it, that’s what nature intended him to do and you would be hard pressed to find even a convent girl who does not see the potential for sexual advances in that scenario. Politicizing common sense is at the heart of political correctness, it’s formulated to distract and then misrepresent the message, and as I said this message is " if you poke sh.t with a stick it will stink" so keep away.