[WillowTheWhisp]

This is so obviously an emotive issue and having read through the whole thread just now I think some of the "argument" has been due to misinterpretation, not only of what others have said but also of the original report..........quite possibly because people do have such strong opinions on the subject that they interpret something which doesn't completely echo their own view as somehow being a total opposite. It seems to me that there is actually more agreement than disagreement.

One of the problems is the emotive language such as "blame" and "shocking report"

A third of people in the UK believe a woman is partially or completely to blame for being raped if she has behaved in a flirtatious manner, according to "shocking" research.

OK so that means that two thirds of people think the victim is never to blame no matter what.

It also means that not all of that one third of the people questioned believe tthe woman to be fully to blame. Note that I said "people questioned" and not "people in the UK" which the report said because I'm a person in the UK and nobody asked my opinion. Who was asked?

OK so now we have less than a third who believe the woman was partly to blame. Not quite as dramatic that is it?

More than a quarter also believe a woman is at least partly responsible for being raped if she wears sexy or revealing clothing, or is drunk, the ICM study found.

"More than a quarter" here is used to cover two points of the "sexy clothing" or "drunk". Note that it says "or" not "and". AND please note that it says "partly". So now we have MORE than a quarter who think "partly" so between this "more than a quarter" and "one third" how many do we actually have left who think "totally"?

One in five thinks a woman is partly to blame if it is known she has many sexual partners,

I'll come back to this one.

while more than a third believe she is responsible to some degree if she has clearly failed to say "no" to the man.

This is the bit which really interests me "if she has clearly failed to say "no" to the man". Here we are not talking about "No" not meaning "No" and the man going ahead anyway. We are talking about a situation where a woman has failed to say "No". Not only failed but "clearly failed"

If a woman has dressed "provocatively" - which is open to interpretation because in her opinion she may have dressed "attractively" but it may be seen as provocative. If she has set out to attract the attention of men in the hope of nabbing one worth having. If she then flirts with him and encourages his attentions. If both become drunk. If they go back to her place and spend the night together and she has given out no signals which say "no" but then wakes in the morning realising that she didn't intend to go as far as intercourse and then claims he has raped her is it his fault? I would say not.

When it comes to how many sexual partners the woman has had I can't see that really has any bearing on an individual case, although if she is well known for "sleeping around" then the lads might have her already labelled as "easy" and not expect her to refuse. If she then accuses him of rape the next morning but has never accused any of the previous one night stands I can see where he might feel a bit victimised.

All of this is totally different to the situation where someone forces themselves upon a woman in a back alley or on a dark pathway and brutally attacks them. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever in those cases whatever a person is wearing or whether or not they are drunk.

I hope that makes sense. It's very difficult to explain what I mean by typing onto a message board.

Pendy said that rape is not about sex it's about control and in many cases that is absolutely correct and it wouldn't matter to the rapist if the woman was covered from head to toe (he may even get some sort of kick from that) or stark naked. That is a different set up to one where the man honestly believes the woman was encouraging him and wanting the same thing and then finds himself labelled a criminal the next morning.

As mentioned by others, I also feel that the accused should not be named unless found guilty because there are many cases where an innocent man's life has been ruined by people continuing to mutter "no smoke without fire" even when his innocence has been totally proved.