WARNING: This article deals with an account of rape/sexual assault and may be triggering for survivors of abuse.
This advertisement is designed to stop you getting really, really drunk and then raped on New Year’s Eve.
The public service message to young women (the reckless drunken ones) is simple:
‘When you drink too much you lose control and put yourself at risk.’
At risk of what you ask? Rape or sexual assault.
It’s part of a series of advertisements – not just aimed at women – that encourage young people to rethink excessive alcohol intake on the biggest party night of the year.
And the aims of the campaign are admirable. Alcohol obviously does limit one’s inhibitions. It’s also bad for you, causes you to say things you don’t mean and often results in one’s head being attached to a toilet. That’s a general lesson that we should be teaching all young adults across the board.
But where this particular image in the campaign gets it completely wrong, is that it implies alcohol can cause rape.
Now, alcohol can play a role in some sexual assaults – of course it can. But the key word there is some. Because it doesn’t matter how much you drink, you will still only get raped if you come into contact with a rapist.
Because rape is just unlucky.
That is not a fact that anyone wants to hear. But it’s true.
There’s nothing that anybody can do to avoid being raped except avoid rapists. And because rapists are not a homogenous, externally identifiable group of people, ensuring that you never cross their paths comes down to nothing but luck.
When we talk to the women we love about rape we need to make sure they know that a woman does not create an opportunity for a rapist by wearing a high heels and a short skirt, or by taking a different route when she walks home or by drinking more than two standard drinks. Rape doesn’t occur because a victim creates an opportunity for the rape to take place, it happens because a rapist chose to rape.
So what does cause rape? Coming into contact with a rapist. That’s it.
Every so often an organisation – like the ones who created this advertisement – will try to navigate the intensely loaded line between giving advice to try and keep women from harm, while not placing blame on survivors of sexual assault.
It’s tricky. Really bloody tricky.
But perhaps the reason nobody has successfully navigated that line yet is that it’s simply not possible. It’s not possible to enunciate the idea that someone can or should take positive steps to avoid being raped. Because you can’t.
The only people who can take steps to prevent rape occurring, are rapists.
I’m not a mother. But I have little sisters that I’ve played a big part in raising. I also have an 11-year-old niece who I love like my own and would do anything to protect. So I understand the overwhelming desire to want to teach our loved ones behaviours that can help them to avoid sexual assault. And I don’t think that people who want to talk to their daughters about harm minimisation, or organisations that try and tell young women to be careful with alcohol intake, are always victim-blaming.
But.
When you’re talking about ‘staying safe’, it’s imperative to emphasise that we have a complete lack of control over whether or not we are raped. A woman can avoid wearing heels so it’s easier for her to run, she can limit herself to two drinks whenever she goes out, she can make sure that she always has someone to accompany her home… But no matter what women do in an attempt to protect themselves, they cannot control whether or not they cross paths with a rapist.
The danger of not making this exceptionally clear is that we end up landing victims with the responsibility to prevent their own assault. And that is a terrible tragedy. It is a distressing emotional and mental position that many rape survivors live with every day: a feeling that somehow what happened to them was their own fault.
According the NSW Rape Crisis centre, less than 1% of sexual assaults are perpetrated by complete strangers in random attacks. Less than 1%. Conversely, in 70% of sexual assaults, the offender is a family member, friend, work or school colleague. Of the remaining 30%, the offender is usually someone the victim knows socially.
Why is it then, that we continue to focus so predominantly on the behaviour of women who have been assaulted and ‘assault avoidance’ tactics? Why do we continue to focus on, for example, female binge-drinking, when a woman is far more likely to be raped by a male relative at home?
If ‘harm-minimisation’ is truly the goal, where are all the articles warning women not to stay home alone with male relatives? Where are all the articles warning women never to get married because there’s a chance of marital rape?
It all comes down to luck. Words cannot describe how awful an occurence rape and sexual assault is – but crossing paths with a rapist just makes you incredibly unlucky. It is out of our control. No matter how much you wish that there was a magic formula to prevent you and your loved ones from being sexually assaulted – there isn’t one.
You can be drunk. You can be sober. You can wear a short skirt or a nun’s habit. You can go out or stay home. You can walk home during the day. You can walk home at night.
You can follow every rule in the book, or you can follow none. Your luck remains the same.
There is nothing you can do to stop a rapist from raping someone.
A rape is nobody’s fault but the rapist’s.
Top Comments
My final word about this subject........thanks "GUEST" for being kind in pointing out that my 1st post might have offended some people - and I DID consider that it might at the time.
I felt that my criticism of the way our men and boys were neglected when it came to their knowledge of women would be taken personally - especially by older men.
My "creative" description of them getting their sex education from anachronistic MEN'S magazines would have jolted a bit but..........do we now not write a piece of satire for fear of someone taking offence ?
And where do we draw the line ?
The thing that's always bothered me is when men or women shrug their shoulders and admit their lack of knowledge or understanding about the opposite sex.
I don't happen to think it's "cute", and those misunderstandings that might occur could result in more serious consequences.
Arming oneself with extra information about the opposite sex can surely be a positive step.
Your original post did not read like satire. If a man had written a similar description re. women, calling it 'creative' would not have let them off the hook. You said that you thought your comments might offend and get a reaction. Well it did. You can't then complain and accuse people of bullying, even likening so called bullies to rapists after you've made such statements in full knowledge of the reaction its likely to get.
What about the truth - does that matter to you? You cannot lump all men together just because it suits your purposes. Your erratic rantings are quite disturbing. There is nothing worse than intelligent hyperbole masquerading as legitimate debate.
There are plenty of criminal, evil women, just as there are criminal, evil men. Some women are even accomplices to men's vile acts. So, I think you need to get a big dose of reality. Your exaggerations, over-generalisations and arrogant attitude towards men ARE offensive.
Most people of both sexes are decent, I think.
As others have pointed out, myself included in an earlier post, the word rape is not even mentioned in the advertisements. So how Rosie wrote an article based on it, and how you have gone off on a tangent about it, is a mystery to me. I feel sorry for both of you because you obviously have an agenda and will use any means to try and "sell" it.
Finally, let me state that I am a real woman and would not want to be associated with your views in any way, shape or form.
Her point, I think, is that no one can tell for certain whether a particular male will rape. Even one who has raped my have truly repented, or be ashamed enough not to do it again, or fearful enough of punishment not to rape again.
That uncle or cousin who likes to have his female relatives sit on his lap, that brother in law who slaps the girls on their butts, may not be inclined at all to rape them, or to have sex with them even if invited and encouraged.
Another who has never displayed the slightest inclination to approach his female relatives may be the one.
We just cannot tell until we know of an action.
I've been thinking about what the common link between bullies, on -line trolls and rapists is, and it's cowardice.
One of the reasons I've been hoping that the "Dislike" button is never implemented on Facebook - is the cowardly & disrespectful treatment of earnest & heartfelt comments by trolls.
I bet most of you have been targeted by these "cretins in underpants".
Some attacks are overt..........and some try something a little more subtle........but all are amateurish and cowardly.
The "techniques" I've seen on this site include
1. Lifting one of your paragraphs and using it in their comment - then accusing you of something bogus.
2.Criticising your views but never offering substantial ones of their own.
3. Criticising women for discussing women's problems on a women's site and accusing them of forgetting about the men.
4. Attacking someone's character in a strategy to focus attention on the attacker's agenda...........which in this case has been to derail or "bugger up" the discussion.
RAPE is mostly the action of someone cowardly......sometimes they're drunk, sometimes they're horribly violent - sometimes it ends in murder.
Maybe part of the education of our young people could be to examine (critical thinking) not just the feelings of others, but what constitutes cowardice.
In our present era it's too easy to be a coward on-line.
It's too easy to "hit & run".
It's too easy to harm others without consequences.
My critics on this page are far too adamantly against an attempt to educate men about women..........(I could easily have raised the subject of educating women about men - a "no-brainer and something that's also needed, but part of another conversation)........so I'm suspicious.
Is the suggestion of improved education being taken as a personal slight ?
Since most rapists are men I would suggest that that's part of the problem right there.........lol.
I think the problem with your argument and in fcat this article is that this ad doesnt mention rape at all. As quite a few people below haves said, there are many risks when you are off your face drunk. Rosie missed an opportunity to discuss the long term and short term effects of our binge drinking culture.
It doesn't actually SAY the word 'rape' but it's there.
The styling, the choice of a young beautiful (but dishevelled) woman as opposed to a man for this particular cautionary tale about being reckless. It implies that anything that happens to this woman after she 'recklessly' drank (1 bottle of wine, maybe? Amazing I've never been raped!) is her fault because she 'put herself at risk'.
Final thing I noticed...the 2 adverts depicting guys clearly warn against a specific thing, physical injury and drug driving. So what is the girl's ad warning us about specifically? The dangers of walking barefoot? Or that if you have a drunken spat with your best friend and storm off in tears you'd better hope your cheap mascara holds up?
Maybe if you read a bit further down you will see that a lot of people didn't read rape into it all but had personal experience of the risks associated with being off your face drunk eg walking into traffic, injuring yourself by falling over, getting into physical altercations with others, getting into a car with drunk drivers. Are you saying that because they chose a young beautiful woman it means rape but if they had chosen a less beautiful woman it would remind us of other risks?
Are you saying there are no risks associated with binge drinking? The sooner we are able to discuss this issue with some degree of maturity and seriousness instead being worried about people reading rape and victim blaming into everything the sooner we may be able to actually deal with it.