NZ tourist sexually assualted near Grand Palace, police say

[Bluespunk]

31 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

But the victims are responsible for placing themselves in a situation of elevated risk beyond conventional socially acceptable norms.... 

 

We're not talking about a rapist kidnapping a girl from the centre of a crowded shopping mall.....  this is a girl, extremely drunk and alone in an alleyway.... Her friends may also carry some of the responsibility. If I were the victims friend and out with her that evening, I would feel responsible for what happened.

 

IF she were to jump into the road and get hit by a car, or fall and smash her face or a long list of many situations she could find herself in, she is ultimately responsible for this, responsible for her actions and safety....

 

We're all aware criminal scum are around us and that we should never give criminals any opportunity... be it scam artists, burglars, street thieves, sexual predators.... 

 

Rapists are opportunists...  in failing to be responsible for her own safety this girl gave a rapist an opportunity.... 

 

The Rapist chose to rape and of course the victim is not responsible for his choice and actions, but the poor victim is responsible for her actions leading up to this placing herself at risk.... she found herself at risk because she was irresponsible....   

 

 

 

 

 

The victim is not responsible for anything rapist scum do. 

 

Nor can the victims actions be blamed for what happens. 

 

To say the victim bears responsibility on any level is victim blaming. 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Bluespunk

[manarak]

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The victim is not responsible for anything rapist scum do. 

 

Nor can the victims actions be blamed for what happens. 

 

To say the victim bears responsibility on any level is victim blaming. 

how about a very scantily clad girl wearing no panties and a tattoo saying "<deleted> me" on her lower back?

[mogandave]

how about a very scantily clad girl wearing no panties and a tattoo saying " me" on her lower back?

What part of no responsibility do you not understand?

She could be drunk, naked, going in the men’s room of a brothel grabbing men by their ——, leading them to a stall and having a go with the first two, then half-way through the third she changes her mind, it’s rape, and she bears no responsibility.

Clear?

Don’t be victim blaming!

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, manarak said:

18 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The victim is not responsible for anything rapist scum do. 

 

Nor can the victims actions be blamed for what happens. 

 

To say the victim bears responsibility on any level is victim blaming. 

how about a very scantily clad girl wearing no panties and a tattoo saying "<deleted> me" on her lower back?

 

I think that's Bluespunk's point - A girl should be able to to walk around scantily clad, wearing no panties with a tattoo saying "<deleted> me" on her lower back and nothing should happen to her without her blessing..... 

 

I'm sure we are all unified on this and that should she be sexually assaulted or raped then the perpetrator should face the full extent of the law and be penalized for his actions for there are no extenuating circumstances.... ever.... 

 

BUT... and this I believe is the divisive issue, this is not a perfect world risks are a known entity..... the victim is responsible (or not depending on your opinion) of placing herself at additional risk for we all have the knowledge that the world is imperfect.

 

Of course, legally the victim is not at any fault. Much in the same way those who wear a thick gold necklace which gets snatched on beach road are not at fault for the crime.... however, they have been irresponsible. 

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I think that's Bluespunk's point - A girl should be able to to walk around scantily clad, wearing no panties with a tattoo saying "<deleted> me" on her lower back and nothing should happen to her without her blessing..... 

 

I'm sure we are all unified on this and that should she be sexually assaulted or raped then the perpetrator should face the full extent of the law and be penalized for his actions for there are no extenuating circumstances.... ever.... 

 

BUT... and this I believe is the divisive issue, this is not a perfect world risks are a known entity..... the victim is responsible (or not depending on your opinion) of placing herself at additional risk for we all have the knowledge that the world is imperfect.

 

Of course, legally the victim is not at any fault. Much in the same way those who wear a thick gold necklace which gets snatched on beach road are not at fault for the crime.... however, they have been irresponsible. 

No, my point is that victim blaming is wrong. 

[cyberfarang]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

The argument that someone can be judged as having taken a risk and is therefore somewhat responsible for what happens to them, is one used by victim blamers. 

 

I am not saying you are doing this, clearly you are not. 

 

However, there are those who will and it is not one I accept when a sexual assault or rape happens.

 

No matter what the victim did or didn’t do, rape occurs because a rapist decides to rape, not because of what the victim did. 

Some points you are not taking into consideration.

 

Not everyone shares the same principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. There are those (opportunists) that will take advantage of someone else`s vulnerability. Even taking into account these people are bottom feeder pond life, nevertheless it has to be taken into consideration that they`re out there ready to pounce.

 

No one in the right mind would ever believe a woman deserves to be raped under any circumstances, or would say; she was asking for it, I know, have a daughter myself and if such a thing happened to her, would be my worse nightmare.

 

You keep equating victim blaming with victim safety. Not one poster here has said the victim is to blame. What has been commented on is prevention and awareness of the dangers out there, but you seem to not be able to distinguish one from the other. 

 

Education is the key, females should be taught awareness from an early age of the dangers, something like when I was a kid my parents warned me not to talk to strangers and the consequences of might happen if I did, so I listened and learned.

 

Truly, I feel bad as to what happened to that girl and women that fall foul of abuse everywhere, and hope that others may learn from this experience.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by cyberfarang

[Bluespunk]

19 minutes ago, manarak said:

how about a very scantily clad girl wearing no panties and a tattoo saying "<deleted> me" on her lower back?

That does not justify rape. 

 

Rape happens because of the behaviour of rapists, not the victims. 

[Bluespunk]

7 minutes ago, cyberfarang said:

Some points you are not taking into consideration.

 

Not everyone shares the same principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. There are those (opportunists) that will take advantage of someone else`s vulnerability. Even taking into account these people are bottom feeder pond life, nevertheless it has to be taken into consideration that they`re out there ready to pounce.

 

No one in the right mind would ever believe a woman deserves to be raped under any circumstances, I know, have a daughter myself and if such a thing happened to her, would be my worse nightmare.

 

You keep equating victim blaming with victim safety. Not one poster here has said the victim is to blame. What has been commented on is prevention and awareness of the dangers out there, but you seem to not be able to distinguish one from the other. 

 

Education is the key, females should be taught awareness from an early age of the dangers, something like when I was a kid my parents warned me not to talk to strangers and the consequences of might happen if I did, so I listened and learned.

 

Truly, I feel bad as to what happened to that girl and women that fall foul of abuse everywhere, and hope that others may learn from this experience.

 

 

 

 

Anyone saying the victim bears some responsibility, is victim blaming. Several posters have said this. 

 

The morals of scum who rape are such that they rape because they choose to, not because of the victims actions. 

 

I can distinguish between safety and those who decide someone’s behaviour means they are putting themselves in danger, to such an extent they become partly responsible for the rapists actions.

 

I reject that premise.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Bluespunk

[mogandave]

That does not justify rape. 
 
Rape happens because of the behaviour of rapists, not the victims. 

Everyone here agrees rape is never justified.

You ever get drunk and take a drunk woman (or man) home for sex?

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

Everyone here agrees rape is never justified.

You ever get drunk and take a drunk woman (or man) home for sex?

 

No. 

[cyberfarang]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Anyone saying the victim bears responsibility is victim blaming. 

 

The morals of scum who rape are such that they rape because they choose to, not because of the victims actions. 

 

I can distinguish between safety and those who decide someone’s behaviour means they are putting themselves in danger, to such an extent they become partly responsible for the rapists actions.

 

I reject that premise.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree.

 

We know that men that rape have no morals and you definitely cannot distinguish between women leaving themselves prey to the unscrupulous and victim blaming.

 

Are you saying that the girl in question did not place herself in danger? If so you`re living in a cloud cuckoo land.  

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, cyberfarang said:

Sorry, but I strongly disagree.

 

We know that men that rape have no morals and you definitely cannot distinguish between women leaving themselves prey to the unscrupulous and victim blaming.

 

Are you saying that the girl in question did not place herself in danger? If so you`re living in a cloud cuckoo land.  

You can strongly disagree. That is your right. 

 

However, nothing you have said has changed anything I believe. 

 

Victims are not to blame for rapist filth’s behaviour. 

 

To say otherwise is victim blaming and as such is contemptable. 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Bluespunk

[mogandave]

No. 

Thought not...

[cyberfarang]

There have been cases of women that have gone partying, got drunk or high on drugs or both. Gone off somewhere with a guy or guys and had sex. Woke up in the morning hating themselves and concerned about their reputations or known as slut shaming, and then claimed to have been raped. In theory under the law because of their inebriated state, the guy is classified as a rapist, even if the girl consented. 

 

Personally, I have no sympathies for these women, they are just as immoral as the men. 

Edited December 8, 2018 by cyberfarang

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Thought not...

 

[richard_smith237]

22 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No, my point is that victim blaming is wrong. 

 

Fair enough......    Blaming the victim is wrong... no one is implying otherwise. 

 

However, the victim was also irresponsible.... OR would you suggest that the victims actions on the evening in question was that of a fully responsible adult? would you imply that she was not irresponsible?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Fair enough......    Blaming the victim is wrong... no one is implying otherwise. 

 

However, the victim was also irresponsible.... OR would you suggest that the victims actions on the evening in question was that of a fully responsible adult? would you imply that she was not irresponsible?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would state that it doesn’t matter what she was doing. 

 

The only reason rape happens is because rapist decide to rape. 

[mogandave]

 
Fair enough......    Blaming the victim is wrong... no one is implying otherwise. 
 
However, the victim was also irresponsible.... OR would you suggest that the victims actions on the evening in question was that of a fully responsible adult? would you imply that she was not irresponsible?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Woman should be able do whatever they want, anywhere they want, at anytime they want, with anyone they want and bear absolutely no responsibility whatever regardless of what happens.

[richard_smith237]

16 minutes ago, cyberfarang said:

There have been cases of women that have gone partying, got drunk or high on drugs or both. Gone off somewhere with a guy or guys and had sex. Woke up in the morning hating themselves and concerned about their reputations or known as slut shaming, and then claimed to have been raped. In theory under the law because of their inebriated state, the guy is classified as a rapist, even if the girl consented. 

 

Personally, I have no sympathies for these women, they are just as immoral as the men. 

 

If the Girl has consented, its not rape....  If she lied about it, it's purgery (if in Court) otherwise its a false accusation, which if unequivocally proven should be punished. 

 

However, a false accusation by some in no way weakens the validity of a genuine case or its heinous nature, implying so itself could be considered immoral. 

 

[cyberfarang]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

If the Girl has consented, its not rape....  If she lied about it, it's purgery (if in Court) otherwise its a false accusation, which if unequivocally proven should be punished. 

 

However, a false accusation by some in no way weakens the validity of a genuine case or its heinous nature, implying so itself could be considered immoral. 

 

Sorry, but you are wrong.

 

Under the law and the same applies in Thailand, if a women is inebriated or high on drugs and considered to be in an unfit state of mind to consent to having sex with a man, even if she leads a guy on and even if the man is inebriated himself, that man is classified as a rapist under the law if the women files a criminal report for rape.

 

This is why having dealings with the fairer sex can be high risk.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, cyberfarang said:

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

If the Girl has consented, its not rape....  If she lied about it, it's purgery (if in Court) otherwise its a false accusation, which if unequivocally proven should be punished. 

 

However, a false accusation by some in no way weakens the validity of a genuine case or its heinous nature, implying so itself could be considered immoral. 

 

Sorry, but you are wrong.

 

Under the law and the same applies in Thailand, if a women is inebriated or high on drugs and considered to be in an unfit state of mind to consent to having sex with a man, even if she leads a guy on and even if the man is inebriated himself, that man is classified as a rapist under the law if the women files a criminal report for rape.

 

This is why having dealings with the fairer sex can be high risk.

 

You mean... If a guy rapes a drunk girl.... 

[richard_smith237]

28 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I would state that it doesn’t matter what she was doing. 

 

The only reason rape happens is because rapist decide to rape. 

And Lions eat meat, any meat…  Could it be argued that that a drunk person entering a lions cage at a zoo, who gets attacked is not irresponsible? Or a person swimming in waters where shark attacks have been know to occur?

 

Yes, I know, a daft analogy, however, it was made to stress a point….  A person who places themselves in harms way can be considered irresponsible…  and thus partially responsible for the outcome…. Because of the heinous nature of this crime its become highly unfashionable and Politically Incorrect in the extreme to suggest anything other than the Victim was 100% innocent…. 

 

 

But, its ok for us to blame the Victim if they are eaten by Lions in a cage, and lets make no mistake... Rapiosts are animals....  its ok for us to blame the victim if they wave 1000’s of $ around in Rio after midnight and get robbed…. 

 

Then why is it not ok to draw parallels and imply that people should not place themselves in dangerous situations and to knowingly do so would be irresponsible when it has involved a rape?... is it because we are so concerned about Victim Blaming that any discussion indicating even the smallest degree of culpability or responsibility is considered highly insensitive >?

Edited December 8, 2018 by richard_smith237

[tropo]

On 12/4/2018 at 9:42 AM, Docno said:

Sure … because we all know how much women like to have sex at construction sites. You need to recalibrate your thinking on these things. 

p.s. and even if she did "change her mind" after initial interest, she is perfectly within her rights to do so 

You obviously live in a fantasy world. In the real world, a young female tourist walking around drunk at 2:30 am in a country like Thailand where foreign ladies are a curiosity, may as well ask to be raped. I often see (very attractive 20 something) young female tourists walking around dark, back streets in Pattaya in the early hours of the morning, sometimes alone, and shake my head in disbelief. What are they thinking? They shouldn't be there even if sober.

 

That's a dangerous pastime even for a guy. At 29 she should have more sense.

Edited December 8, 2018 by tropo

[mogandave]

 
You mean... If a guy rapes a drunk girl.... 

No, I think he is referring to two drunks staggering home to do the nasty and one having second thoughts in the morning...

Certainly if one is passed out, they can’t consent, but how drunk is too drunk?

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

And Lions eat meat, any meat…  Could it be argued that that a drunk person entering a lions cage at a zoo, who gets attacked is not irresponsible? Or a person swimming in waters where shark attacks have been know to occur?

 

Yes, I know, a daft analogy, however, it was made to stress a point….  A person who places themselves in harms way can be considered irresponsible…  and thus partially responsible for the outcome…. Because of the heinous nature of this crime its become highly unfashionable and Politically Incorrect in the extreme to suggest anything other than the Victim was 100% innocent…. 

 

 

But, its ok for us to blame the Victim if they are eaten by Lions in a cage, and lets make no mistake... Rapiosts are animals....  its ok for us to blame the victim if they wave 1000’s of $ around in Rio after midnight and get robbed…. 

 

Then why is it not ok to draw parallels and imply that people should not place themselves in dangerous situations and to knowingly do so would be irresponsible when it has involved a rape?... is it because we are so concerned about Victim Blaming that any discussion indicating even the smallest degree of culpability or responsibility is considered highly insensitive >?

Why is it wrong to say a rape victim can be seen as being partly responsible for a rape?

 

Are you asking me that?

 

Read every post I’ve made in response to your posts. 

 

Your question has not changed and neither has my answer. 

[mogandave]

Why is it wrong to say a rape victim can be seen as being partly responsible for a rape?

 

Are you asking me that?

 

Read every post I’ve made in response to your posts. 

 

Your question has not changed and neither has my answer. 

 

 

Because you have provided no answer.

[richard_smith237]

28 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Woman should be able do whatever they want, anywhere they want, at anytime they want, with anyone they want and bear absolutely no responsibility whatever regardless of what happens.

 

 

Anyone should be able do whatever they want, anywhere they want, at anytime they want, with anyone they want and bear absolutely no 'Blame' whatever regardless of what happens.

 

Caveat: When its legal, when it doesn't negatively impact or hurt others or damage property, where and when not considered socially or culturally unacceptable (amongst a myriad of other caveats)...

 

BUT...   I get your point.... 

 

 

Others are making the point that in absolving people of their responsibility for their own safety it sends an incorrect message... People need to be responsible for themselves and their own safety... Men and Women....  I don't get into a car with a group of unknown Characters who may or may not rob me because I know I would be placing myself at risk... In doing so I'm taking responsibility. To throw caution to the wind and go anyway would be irresponsible.... Now if I were to go in a car with a group of unknown characters and get robbed anyway, I would not be to blame for the robbery, but others would be excused for considering me responsible for placing myself in harms way.

 

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Why is it wrong to say a rape victim can be seen as being partly responsible for a rape?

 

Are you asking me that?

 

Read every post I’ve made in response to your posts. 

 

Your question has not changed and neither has my answer. 

 

This is why this is an interesting debate...   I'm not expecting to change your mind... just hoping to understand it. I may well find myself changing my mind should your counter debate prove sufficiently convincing....

 

So, yes... specifically: Is it wrong to suggest a victim of a crime is partially responsible for their actions if they have placed themselves in harms way?

 

 

[manarak]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

That does not justify rape. 

 

Rape happens because of the behaviour of rapists, not the victims. 

 

it doesn't justify it, however responsibility must always be understood as a continuum.

claiming the victim never bears any responsibility for what happened is simply wrong.

 

same as when I forgot my phone on my bike. the thief is fully responsible for being a thief, but I was also - to a much lesser degree - responsible for creating the opportunity.

 

we need a realistic and balanced view, not idealistic ideology denying reality.

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

This is why this is an interesting debate...   I'm not expecting to change your mind... just hoping to understand it. I may well find myself changing my mind should your counter debate prove sufficiently convincing....

 

So, yes... specifically: Is it wrong to suggest a victim of a crime is partially responsible for their actions if they have placed themselves in harms way?

 

 

Read all my previous replies to you as you are asking the same thing.