I heard it reported (radio) today - An emminent (overseas) Defence Counsel, who had carriage of providing a defence, for three of six men charged with a horrific rape and murder trial, claim that women must bear some responsibiity for the crime of rape ?

Apparently, he maintained there are several examples where women can exercise some control of these events, by observing the following measures and contingencies.

(a) 'He claimed women should avoid wearing attire, that's suggestive, confronting or in anyway, capable of tempting or teasing men;'

(b) 'Being in places alone, and late at night, and in locations that possess a bad reputation;'

(c) 'All women should therefore be circumspect and cautious in their behaviour, including but not limited too, being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. And ensure their behaviour is neither intentionally provocative, nor seductive'.

The radio presenter went on to drew several notable comparisons of crimes, involving the vicious rape and murder (in this country) of two decent young women, recently.

Personally, I believe the above contingencies, might best be considered from purely a judicious or prudent position, rather than a set of rules.

I'd not ever seek to dictate a person's (male or female) behaviour, or mode of attire ? I would and have, suggested that men, women and girls, refrain from either loitering or walking ALONE through certain precincts, even confines, whether it's day or night. Most certainly, as a general rule, a female person alone, can attract trouble in any area, far more so than the average male. Of course police, whether a person's male or female, can only 'suggest something' to them, unless it pursuant to a specific offence. This is still a free country ?

My own personal belief even philosophy for everything:- use your commonsense, and avoid any risk !

Dear o sung wu,

The fear of rape touches virtually all women,
instilling in them a wariness of male strangers,
and an apprehension about walking alone at night
or being in deserted places. Yet, contrary to
popular belief, most rapes are actually committed
by an acquaintance of the victim, a family friend,
a neighbour, a teacher, an employer, an ex-lover,
a new dating partner. Victims of "date rape,"
are particularly reluctant to report the crime,
for they are afraid that other people - including
family, friends and jurors will suspect they did
something to "ask for it."

Many people still regard rape as an expression of
unrestrained, impulsive sexual desire. Sociological and
psychological research of recent years has proven this
view to be a myth.

Rape is a crime of violence, not of passion. It is a
ritual of power and humiliation. All the evidence indicates
that the sexual aspect of rape is of secondary importance.
The primary object is to humiliate and subjugate the woman,
and bolster the aggressor's feelings of power, superiority,
and masculinity.

The effects of rape can be devastating for the victim,
involving physical and emotional damage and the disruption
of personal, social, familial, and sexual life.

If the vitim reports the attack to the police, the emotional
trauma may be re-experienced months or years later in a
courtroom, where the intimate details of the rape are
dissected before an audience of strangers.

Typically, defense lawyers try to shift the burden of guilt
from the accused to the victim. That is a typical defense ploy.

"She was loose," or "She encouraged the rape," or "she was
willing," or "she was provocatively dressed,"
and was therefore at fault.

All examples of the way in which responsibility for the control
of male advances is shifted to the female.

Such a line fo defence in unique to the crime of rape.

A well-dressed man stepping from an expensive limousine
would nev er be accused of thereby tempting someone to
mug him.

Hello there LEXI...

I'm so pleased to see you're back from yesterdays unsettling tribulations. And back you are with a vengence by the look of it, and I couldn't be happier LEXI !

You appear so very well aqauainted with the 'power & control' element of this dreadful crime, it would've been better for you to have run the topic then I. Another thing how much better for someone to fully understand the psychology of this crime than a women ?

Moreover, I don't believe I've ever heard such a difficult subject put more laconically in my entire life, than the way you've dealt with it here ! You've obviously formerly studied it, or alternatively, had significent academic exposure of this confronting subject, as evidenced by the depth of your understanding and appreciation.

It's little wonder we men have so many misguided notions, or mistaken beliefs when we're asked to provide some information about the crime, to either friends or the public, we tend to be left floundering like fools.

There was this chap (reaching way back into my memory banks now ?) who was a Captain later Major in the (again, I think ?) El Paso County Sheriff's Dept. named, James (Jim) Smith (dec). He authored probably the most definitive guide on the offence, titled; 'Rapist Beware' - 'Special Edition'. I was fortunate to attend a seminar, over a weekend, where he provided us all some extraordinary information, together with other data, specifically on the offence. Wherever he received his training, who knows ? Suffice to say LEXI, he knew it all ! I still have his book somewhere here at home ?

Anyway, well see if any of the good people herein, will see fit to contribute, and pass along their respective thoughts ?

Thank you once again LEXI, for your brilliant summation and appreciation of this awful crime against women, in fact any humen being.

"A well-dressed man stepping from an expensive limousine would never be accused of thereby tempting someone to mug him."

Actually I suspect that a lot of us would not have a great deal of sympathy for him if he insists on parking that limo in known dodgy area's. If he is in the habit of waving a thick wad of notes around amongst strangers. If he hangs around with a rough crowd because it's more exciting than spending time with a suburban crowd with straighter tastes.

The mugger is always responsible for their choices but those who choose to live on the wild side might do well to accept that danger carries with it risk.

We all should be safe to go where we want dressed as we like but unfortunately that's not the reality of most of our lives. There are choices each of us can make which increase our risk and choices which lessen our risk, few guarantees though.

I think the political correctness spin around this issue blinds some to the reality that they choose to increase their own risk by their choices.

R0bert

O Sung,
The cases of the two "decent" young women raped and murdered in Melbourne recently don't really relate to the high profile cases in India. In the Brunswick incident it seems every effort was made to see that the victim got home safely,she just made a bad decision in not accepting a lift then had a chance run in with a bad man who saw an opportunity.
In the other case the young woman met her end at the hands of someone who it seems was a close friend,it's known that she and her friends regularly visited his house and socialised with the accused and his mates.
The "reclaim the night" message is stupid, it's not even safe for groups of men to walk around certain areas at night, heck about 18 months ago I was in an ugly, unprovoked confrontation in Sydney road Brunswick at about eleven in the morning, it's not a safe suburb at any time of day.
When Luke Mitchell was murdered after going to the aid of a bashing victim in Brunswick a few years ago people questioned and even criticised his decision to try and break up the fight, being overly sensitive about women's poor choices helps nobody. Saying that women have the "right" to be anywhere they want at any time of day, dressed however they want in any state of inebriation is nonsense, nobody can expect to be protected from the consequences of their own poor judgement and we shouldn't give girls the impression that they can behave however they see fit and expect everyone to come running when they get in over their head.

The outrage and remorse shown by men, particularly in the Brunswick incident is all well and good but supporting women's "rights" is again, nonsensical, the only person capable of protecting a woman from male aggression is another man. If a woman victim walked home with another woman and run into an armed offender we might just easily have had two rapes or fatalities, very few women are capable of fighting off a man who is serious about harming them.
It's all about being able to back up the things we say, we as men can't protect women if they're not willing to accept protection and what can we really do anyway? We can only provide acceptable levels security in selected areas, such as the CBD or shopping centres and suggest that women use those safe zones. We can't cover every solo adventure or spontaneous decision made by women so the idea that women have the "right" to be anywhere they want at any time in any condition is a fantasy, the reality is that they are rolling the dice when they walk around alone at night or in unsafe parts of town.