What has happened to that old notion of self-responsibility?
It seems that it's been lost somewhere along the way, perhaps due to the litigious habits of the Americans?
Nowadays it would appear that no matter WHAT happens the automatic assumption is always that someone ELSE is always at fault, we need someone to BLAME!
If I get drunk and climb into a car and hit someone, it's MY fault, not that of the guy I hit, surely?
If I climb out onto a high building ledge and do the Charleston I can hardly blame the buildings owner, or the rescue services, if I fall, can I?
In this 21st century it appears I CAN!
Rape is a classic case in point.
These days it is common practice to blame the rapist, NO MATTER what lead to the situation. Now, in principle I agree, rape should NEVER happen, and the rapist deserves whatever punishment he gets.
BUT, surely if a woman dresses provocatively, goes out and gets drunk she is quite simply ignoring the very real dangers she's flirting with?
By indulging in risky behaviour and going to known danger spots any person is putting their life and/or general weal on the line, gambling with safety in effect. WHY is such behaviour NOT taken into account?
WHY do so many appear to think that no matter WHAT a woman does she should be as safe as if she was hiding in a police station? Sorry people, the world just isn't like that, the danger is real and provocation can and does produce results, usually unpleasant ones.
In an ideal world there would be no rape, nor any other crime, but this is NOT an ideal world, far from it indeed, and any person who behaves as if it IS is quite simply an idiot and IS "asking for it".
When I get on a motorcycle or climb a cliff, or jump out of an airplane, I'm putting MY life on the line, I'M taking risks and have to cop it sweet if my gamble fails, WHY are women seemingly exempt?

".....but this is NOT an ideal world, far from it indeed, and any person who behaves as if it IS is quite simply an idiot and IS "asking for it"."

Absolutely, Bruce.

And if you dress in a hoody and jeans and slink along the footpath looking a bit drunk and dodgy late at night on the mean streets, then I would have every right to do what comes naturally (if I was so disposed)and to come and sock you in the gob....merely for dressing like a hoodlum and "going to known danger spots".

And it would be down to you for having the misfortune to turn up in front of me "asking for it".

You would claim a "right" to commit assault?
Are YOU saying that rapists have a "right" to do so?
I certainly didn't, did I?
If I behaved in the manner you describe the only "right" you would have is to be wary, after that it's up to you, if you commit an assault you face the law, the same as rapists do, and as I said, they, and YOU, would deserve whatever you got, and more besides.
What I'm asking is why risky behaviour seen as a factor in all circumstances, EXCEPT rape, why, for no apparent logical reason, the "rules" are turned on their head, why women seem to believe that they have NO responsibility for THEIR OWN SAFETY, it's not only indefensible and illogical, it's idiotic!
Ideals are one thing, something to aim for, work towards, to hopefully bring about a world where women ARE safe no matter what, but that is far in the future as yet, the world WE live in is a very nasty place and pre-copralite HAPPENS, often, behaving as if it doesn't is delusional, put simply.
Enforcing that delusion in court is contemptable, a denial of reality, and it promotes the very behaviour that puts women in harms way, almost guaranteeing further victims, further pain, suffering and occasionally death.
The Womens Libbers, and the Law, have long pushed for "men" to "take responsibility for their own behaviour/actions/attitudes", to "own" the problems old fashioned masculinity creates, yet any suggestion that women do EXACTLY the same thing is howled down as discriminatory, unfair, "different".
WHY?
A simple question, really, isn't it?

Bruce,

Okay...semantics, if you wish.

I was talking subjectively - as in the sort of person who would commit violence on another with no provocation, may well believe it's his/her "right" to act in that manner simply because their victim was there in a situation and location that was "risky"....and they thought the victim was "asking for it".

"What I'm asking is why risky behaviour seen as a factor in all circumstances, EXCEPT rape, why, for no apparent logical reason, the "rules" are turned on their head, why women seem to believe that they have NO responsibility for THEIR OWN SAFETY, it's not only indefensible and illogical, it's idiotic!"

Do GBH offenders have their sentences reduced because their victims are deemed to have been taking a risk?

No they don't.

Why do you say it's different for rape victims?

Sorry P, but the fact is that if an assailant commits GBH upon an innocent and unsuspecting victim then he gets a longer sentence than if he and the victim were fighting each other, were drunk and or provoking each other, it's all taken into account upon sentencing, the victim is deemed to have contributed to the situation.
Every court has a broad spectrum available in sentencing and mitigating factors are always considered, including the behaviour of the victim prior to the offence.
Rape IS different there, there is NO consideration of mitigating factors.
As I see it there is no possible justification for rape, ever, but that doesn't mean that there should be special exclusive laws for it, ones that deny the perpetrator the same rights and allowances available to other criminals.
Nor, especially, does it give carte blanche to women to ignore their own safety, by somehow loading the entire onus for it onto any and all men. Men are expected to shoulder the burden of personal responsibilty for their actions and risky behaviour, equality surely demands that women do the same?

"Sorry P, but the fact is that if an assailant commits GBH upon an innocent and unsuspecting victim then he gets a longer sentence than if he and the victim were fighting each other, were drunk and or provoking each other, it's all taken into account upon sentencing, the victim is deemed to have contributed to the situation."

Oh right....so you are equating "....a woman dresses provocatively, goes out and gets drunk....and going to known danger spots..." with people " fighting each other.... drunk and or provoking each other..."

I agree that as a woman, I would choose not to put myself at risk.

But lets paste "blame" for sexual assault where it lies - and that is with the perpetrator.

Are you saying that a woman who is dressed a certain way and is walking or interacting in a certain area is being as provocative as a couple of blokes who are goading and then fighting with each other?

If anything, she's being unwise. How is that "asking for it"?