NationStates Jolt Archive

...after watching this. I can't understand how this computes to the message they are supposedly trying to send. Is my government just stupid, or are they trying to encourage sexual assault of young teenage girls? Or just more standard blame-the-victim crap:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24475306-3102,00.html

Some choice quotes:

It warns parents of the possible consequences if they supply liquor to minors and has been run to coincide with Schoolies.

Really? The parents have consequences? Or just the young girl? Where is the promotion to boys that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and illegal?

"The awful reality is that this is exactly what can happen to young people who drink too much and many of those young people are being supplied alcohol by their own parents," he [Treasurer Andrew Fraser] said.

They become rapists? Or is the implication that females who drink get what they deserve?

I cannot believe that a government of a supposedly civilised culture, would put something like this out. I am physically ill at the implications.

To me, it simply will promote the evil, but unfortunately prevalent idea that women are somehow to blame for their own rapes. And judging by the comments made at the end of the article, that's the impression out there.

I think you've missed the point entirely. They're just saying that when people drink too much, they become morons.

I think you've missed the point entirely. They're just saying that when people drink too much, they become morons.

So the whole idea of the ad has nothing to do with blaming the girl for her own sexual assault by daring to indulge in a drink? I'm sure that's what everyone will get out of this.

By your children alcohol, and THEY can pay the price.


Errrmmm....

...after watching this. I can't understand how this computes to the message they are supposedly trying to send. Is my government just stupid, or are they trying to encourage sexual assault of young teenage girls? Or just more standard blame-the-victim crap:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24475306-3102,00.html

Some choice quotes:



Really? The parents have consequences? Or just the young girl? Where is the promotion to boys that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and illegal?



They become rapists? Or is the implication that females who drink get what they deserve?

I cannot believe that a government of a supposedly civilised culture, would put something like this out. I am physically ill at the implications.

To me, it simply will promote the evil, but unfortunately prevalent idea that women are somehow to blame for their own rapes. And judging by the comments made at the end of the article, that's the impression out there.

Chill out man, I think it's a good thing. You have totaly missed the point.

The amount of young drunk woman being sexualy abused IS rising, and it is because of the booze.

I dare say that they have not shown a man getting sexualy abused because it happens less often, they should also put out a video of a young drunken man getting mugged, or beaten up perhaps.

It does not blame the yougsters, and as is said it is there as a scare tatic for parents who *gasp* are responsible for their childrens health and well being.

It's a good scare tatic, it made me sit up and take notice(speaking as a parent), it may just have some positive impact.

Chill out man, I think it's a good thing. You have totaly missed the point.

The amount of young drunk woman being sexualy abused IS rising, and it is because of the booze.

I dare say that they have not shown a man getting sexualy abused because it happens less often, they should also put out a video of a young drunken man getting mugged, or beaten up perhaps.

It does not blame the yougsters, and as is said it is there as a scare tatic for parents who *gasp* are responsible for their childrens health and well being.

It's a good scare tatic, it made me sit up and take notice(speaking as a parent), it may just have some positive impact.

The implication to me (and they are releasing something similar for over 18's) is that it's perfectly fine for the males to go out and piss up, but if the girl does it and is raped, well, that's the price you pay for trying to mix it with the boys.

And as to your point about not blaming the youngsters, who deserves more blame: the parents who bought the alcohol, or the boys who raped her?

The implication to me (and they are releasing something similar for over 18's) is that it's perfectly fine for the males to go out and piss up, but if the girl does it and is raped, well, that's the price you pay for trying to mix it with the boys.

And as to your point about not blaming the youngsters, who deserves more blame: the parents who bought the alcohol, or the boys who raped her?

I think you're over-reading it. This is a shock tactic aimed to make parents clamp down on their children. Sexual assault is probably the most shocking thing they could think of to show. I don't think it's any subtler than that.

...after watching this. I can't understand how this computes to the message they are supposedly trying to send. Is my government just stupid, or are they trying to encourage sexual assault of young teenage girls? Or just more standard blame-the-victim crap:
They're saying binge drinking makes you vulnerable/a target/etc.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally quoted by article
It warns parents of the possible consequences if they supply liquor to minors and has been run to coincide with Schoolies.

Really? The parents have consequences? Or just the young girl? Where is the promotion to boys that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and illegal?
No, it's saying "supply alcohol to minors and bad things happen to them, so don't do it". Sexual assault was a way of carrying that message.


Quote:
"The awful reality is that this is exactly what can happen to young people who drink too much and many of those young people are being supplied alcohol by their own parents," he [Treasurer Andrew Fraser] said.

They become rapists? Or is the implication that females who drink get what they deserve?
See above. Drinking to excess makes you vulnerable. That's the implication.


I cannot believe that a government of a supposedly civilised culture, would put something like this out. I am physically ill at the implications.

To me, it simply will promote the evil, but unfortunately prevalent idea that women are somehow to blame for their own rapes. And judging by the comments made at the end of the article, that's the impression out there.

I think you're overreacting. And random commenters after news articles are rarely representative.

The implication to me (and they are releasing something similar for over 18's) is that it's perfectly fine for the males to go out and piss up, but if the girl does it and is raped, well, that's the price you pay for trying to mix it with the boys.

And as to your point about not blaming the youngsters, who deserves more blame: the parents who bought the alcohol, or the boys who raped her?

Its not about blame, its about showing the risks of binge drinking. Just because you aren't to blame doesn't mean that its not an unforeseeable consequence that you should take steps to try and avoid.

The implication to me (and they are releasing something similar for over 18's) is that it's perfectly fine for the males to go out and piss up, but if the girl does it and is raped, well, that's the price you pay for trying to mix it with the boys.


That's a ridiculous assumption to make. The point of the video was to say, don't buy your children alcohol.


And as to your point about not blaming the youngsters, who deserves more blame: the parents who bought the alcohol, or the boys who raped her?

It's saying you shouldn't buy your kids alcohol. It's not making a judgement as to who is more morally blame worthy for the rape.

The implication to me (and they are releasing something similar for over 18's) is that it's perfectly fine for the males to go out and piss up, but if the girl does it and is raped, well, that's the price you pay for trying to mix it with the boys.

And as to your point about not blaming the youngsters, who deserves more blame: the parents who bought the alcohol, or the boys who raped her?

And there you go. That was not what I got from it, that is not the stated intent of the campaign, so the only conclusion then is that, you grossley misunderstand it.

I am a little worried though how you can actualy belive that anybody would belive that it is perfectly fine to commit rape. I mean come on the vast majority of people in the world just do not think like that, and thoses that do will not be spurred on to rape more by this, or do you think they will?

Chill out man, I think it's a good thing. You have totaly missed the point.

The amount of young drunk woman being sexualy abused IS rising, and it is because of the booze.

Wrong.

I've spent a lot more years as a young woman than you, and let me personally assure you that I have never once been raped by booze.

I drank like a fish during my late high school and early college years. There were countless times I got wicked pissed at a party or stumbling drunk at the pub, and yet I didn't get raped by anybody. There were plenty of times I walked home alone, drunk as a skunk, geared out in party clothes, and nobody raped me.

However, I was sober as a judge and wearing my pajamas, sitting in my own room, when somebody tried to rape me.

The only thing that increases the odds of rape is the presence of a rapist.

Booze doesn't rape anybody.

Blaming booze is bullshit.


I dare say that they have not shown a man getting sexualy abused because it happens less often, they should also put out a video of a young drunken man getting mugged, or beaten up perhaps.

Funny they didn't opt for such a vid, huh?


It does not blame the yougsters, and as is said it is there as a scare tatic for parents who *gasp* are responsible for their childrens health and well being.

It's a good scare tatic, it made me sit up and take notice(speaking as a parent), it may just have some positive impact.
It's a bullshit scare tactic.

If you, as a parent, are worried about your daughter being raped, then you should be instructing her to not have any male friends or have any contact with male relatives (including yourself), since those are the individuals most likely to rape her, statistically speaking.

You should remind her not to be in her own home or the home of somebody she knows, since those are the places she is most likely to be raped.

You certainly shouldn't be warning her against going out and getting drunk, because she's not going to get raped by a glass of whiskey or a bar stool.

Wrong.

I've spent a lot more years as a young woman than you, and let me personally assure you that I have never once been raped by booze.

I drank like a fish during my late high school and early college years. There were countless times I got wicked pissed at a party or stumbling drunk at the pub, and yet I didn't get raped by anybody. There were plenty of times I walked home alone, drunk as a skunk, geared out in party clothes, and nobody raped me.

However, I was sober as a judge and wearing my pajamas, sitting in my own room, when somebody tried to rape me.

The only thing that increases the odds of rape is the presence of a rapist.

Booze doesn't rape anybody.

Blaming booze is bullshit.
Eh, I disagree. Drunken women get targeted as vulnerable.


Funny they didn't opt for such a vid, huh?

You mean in a shock ad they chose the more shocking visual? Say it ain't so Joe.


It's a bullshit scare tactic.

If you, as a parent, are worried about your daughter being raped, then you should be instructing her to not have any male friends or have any contact with male relatives (including yourself), since those are the individuals most likely to rape her, statistically speaking.

You should remind her not to be in her own home or the home of somebody she knows, since those are the places she is most likely to be raped.

You certainly shouldn't be warning her against going out and getting drunk, because she's not going to get raped by a glass of whiskey or a bar stool.

Rapists are more commonly known to the victim (90% iirc) but that doesn't mean reducing the risk isn't still good. It filters back to the top argument that way. Do you believe that drinking to excess puts you at greater risk, I say it does. (And this is not ascribing blame to the woman in any way).

Wrong.

I've spent a lot more years as a young woman than you, and let me personally assure you that I have never once been raped by booze.

I drank like a fish during my late high school and early college years. There were countless times I got wicked pissed at a party or stumbling drunk at the pub, and yet I didn't get raped by anybody. There were plenty of times I walked home alone, drunk as a skunk, geared out in party clothes, and nobody raped me.

However, I was sober as a judge and wearing my pajamas, sitting in my own room, when somebody tried to rape me.

The only thing that increases the odds of rape is the presence of a rapist.

Booze doesn't rape anybody.

Blaming booze is bullshit..

For fuck sake Bottle don't be dense now.

I live in the UK as you know, and I can assure you that the number of young women being targeted for sexual assualt is on the rise. The reason for this IS that being so drunk they make an easy taget.

Now as to blaming booze, did I do that, or did you fail to read properly?


Funny they didn't opt for such a vid, huh?

Not funny no, perhaps they will get around to it. I really think they should.


It's a bullshit scare tactic.

If you, as a parent, are worried about your daughter being raped, then you should be instructing her to not have any male friends or have any contact with male relatives (including yourself), since those are the individuals most likely to rape her, statistically speaking.

You should remind her not to be in her own home or the home of somebody she knows, since those are the places she is most likely to be raped.

You certainly shouldn't be warning her against going out and getting drunk, because she's not going to get raped by a glass of whiskey or a bar stool.

I disagree I think it will have some positive impact, we'll have to wait of course.

Yes of course all of that is also applicable, but are you really saying that booze has nothing what-so-ever to do with how a rapist may choose his target?

As to the whisky comment, thats just plain silly mate, I don't think anybody here has suggested that booze is actulay capable of rape.

I side with the conclusions of this report:

http://www.athealth.com/Practitioner/ceduc/alc_assault.html

Similarly, approximately one-half of all sexual assault victims report that they were drinking alcohol at the time of the assault, with estimates ranging from 30 to 79 percent (Abbey et al. 1994; Crowell and Burgess 1996). It is important to emphasize, however, that although a woman's alcohol consumption may place her at increased risk of sexual assault, she is in no way responsible for the assault. The perpetrators are legally and morally responsible for their behavior.

The point of the video it seems is not to claim that parents giving their daughters alcohol, or the daughters themselves, are "legally and morally responsible for their behaviour". It's merely to say that giving alcohol to young girls increases the risk of sexual abuse, and thus they conclude it to be one of the reasons it's a bad idea to give alcohol to your young daughters.

Bottle, what they're saying is that the rapists are using booze in the classic method of "make your victim less able to resist" tactic.

Just because you're a ninja at resisting doesn't mean everyone is. ;)

I'm sorry, i'm missing something here too. Shouldn't money be spent on a broader campaign against sexual assault rather than directing a moral panic against alcohol?

Will sexual assault go away if alcohol is removed? I don't really think for a moment that someone with a serious intent of raping someone will all of a sudden stop if so - the social issues that precipitate violence are still there...

(And hiya Jade)

I see Kanabia... :eek:

don't see the big fuss, myself. pretty clear message to me: buy your kids alcohol, they're more likely to get into trouble. this ad would seem to highlight just one of the ways teenagers can get themselves in trouble through irresponsible drinking.

I'm sorry, i'm missing something here too. Shouldn't money be spent on a broader campaign against sexual assault rather than directing a moral panic against alcohol?

Will sexual assault go away if alcohol is removed? I don't really think for a moment that someone with a serious intent of raping someone will all of a sudden stop if so - the social issues that precipitate violence are still there...

(And hiya Jade)


I don't for a minute think that is the aim of this campaign.

I don't for a minute think that is the aim of this campaign.

So then, it's basically just a "Don't let your kids drink or they'll get raped" scare campaign, which makes it look like the government is being proactive and actually is doing something....but strangely enough still doesn't do much to address the aforementioned underlying social issues.

I don't necessarily disagree with tackling youth binge drinking as an issue...but -


"The awful reality is that this is exactly what can happen to young people who drink too much"

As Bottle said, it happens anyway. Why can't something be done in this department, or are we going to blame booze for it and say "naughty naughty, the victim was drunk - if only she wasn't drinking, this wouldn't have happened to her."?


Treasurer Andrew Fraser said the "confronting" advert reflected figures which showed 67 per cent of teenagers were assaulted or abused while under the influence of alcohol.

I'm willing to bet a large percentage of teenagers - young adults in general - have been assaulted or abused in some fashion while not under the influence of alcohol - i've had an attempted mugging, been threatened with a knife, punched in the face, etc. - all while sober. It's happened to many other people I know as well. Youth violence - including sexual violence - is a severe problem that needs to be tackled in its own right, and throwing a scare campaign into the mix only confuses things and cheapens the underlying issue here.

There are perfectly valid reasons to be tackling underage binge drinking. I simply don't feel that this is a particularly appropriate line to be taking on the issue. It sends out the wrong messages all round.

So then, it's basically just a "Don't let your kids drink or they'll get raped" scare campaign, which makes it look like the government is being proactive and actually is doing something....but strangely enough still doesn't do much to address the aforementioned underlying social issues.

Nope it's a 'Look this is just one of the dangers of youht drinking' scare campaign.


I don't necessarily disagree with tackling youth binge drinking as an issue...but -



As Bottle said, it happens anyway. Why can't something be done in this department, or are we going to blame booze for it and say "naughty naughty, the victim was drunk - if only she wasn't drinking, this wouldn't have happened to her."?

Yep I agree we should be takling this other issue, but the campaign is not about rape or sexual assault, it is about youth drinking.
Would you expect to see anti rape messages in an anti drink driving campaign?


I'm willing to bet a large percentage of teenagers - young adults in general - have been assaulted or abused in some fashion while not under the influence of alcohol - i've had an attempted mugging, been threatened with a knife, punched in the face, etc. - all while sober. It's happened to many other people I know as well. Youth violence - including sexual violence - is a severe problem that needs to be tackled in its own right, and throwing a scare campaign into the mix only confuses things and cheapens the underlying issue here.

The underlying issue here being the problems of youth drinking. I think it will yeild some positive result.


There are perfectly valid reasons to be tackling underage binge drinking. I simply don't feel that this is a particularly appropriate line to be taking on the issue. It sends out the wrong messages all round.

Like what? Coz the only message I'm getting from it is, 'If you as a young woman drink too much you leave yourself more vunerable'.

This is both true, and a message that I feel is important to inpart, do you disagree with this?

I'm sorry, i'm missing something here too. Shouldn't money be spent on a broader campaign against sexual assault rather than directing a moral panic against alcohol?

Will sexual assault go away if alcohol is removed? I don't really think for a moment that someone with a serious intent of raping someone will all of a sudden stop if so - the social issues that precipitate violence are still there...

(And hiya Jade)

This is a commercial intended to eliminate the habit of adults purchasing alcohol for minors. Clearly the designers of the ad believed that if they shocked viewers with a message like "If you buy alcohol for your underaged daughter she'll end up getting drunk and raped" the basic point of "don't buy alcohol for minors" would settle in more effectively than with a conventional lecture approach.

Nothing more.

Anyone who somehow sees this as "It's Okay To Rape Girls" is reading between the lines and doth protest too much.

I love the way some people are presented with a person who says "I have experience in this area, and the proposed scenario is false. It does not happen that way," and they all respond with blanket, "Yes, it does; you're wrong" without any actual argument about it.

I suppose before long, the statistics will start getting posted, but I'll jump the gun by saying that reality backs Bottle up. Women/girls are FAR more likely to be sexually assaulted in their own homes or workplaces than at a party or bar. Sexual assault is FAR more likely to be committed by someone known to the victim, who has frequent social contact with the victim -- such as a family member, friend, or co-worker.

Drunkenness does not turn a woman into a target IF there are no rapists around. Drunkenness does not turn a non-rapist into a rapist. All this blaming booze for sexual assault is just a convenient bogeyman to attack either alcohol or women living freely, or sometimes both.

If they want to scare parents into not providing booze to their kids, why don't they show kids getting killed and/or killing other people by drunk driving, which actually is a widespread problem with underage drinking and excessive drinking? All this ad does is perpetuate a myth.

I love the way some people are presented with a person who says "I have experience in this area, and the proposed scenario is false. It does not happen that way," and they all respond with blanket, "Yes, it does; you're wrong" without any actual argument about it.


I don't think the experience of one person actually proves anything. It's just anecdotal evidence.


I suppose before long, the statistics will start getting posted

I already have posted some:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14086717&postcount=14

I don't think the experience of one person actually proves anything. It's just anecdotal evidence.
Anecdotal example on Bottle's side versus NO evidence or examples on your side. Hm... which seems like an argument that has been reasoned out...

I already have posted some:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14086717&postcount=14
Here are some more:
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
The sources this site uses are listed at the bottom of the individual subject pages.

Victim profile numbers:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

Since we're worried about underage girls getting raped:
93% of juvenile sexual assault victims know their attacker.

34.2% of attackers were family members.
58.7% were acquaintances.
Only 7% of the perpetrators were strangers to the victim.
I'd be interested to know the number of rapes of juveniles and children committed by members of the victims' households involved binge drinking.

Rapist profile numbers:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders

Almost 2/3 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim.
73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger.
38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance.
28% are an intimate.
7% are a relative.

And as for going out partying being the dangerous activity:
More than 50% of all rape/sexual assault incidents were reported by victims to have occured within 1 mile of their home or at their home.

4 in 10 take place at the victim's home.
2 in 10 take place at the home of a friend, neighbor, or relative.
1 in 12 take place in a parking garage.
Going out is apparently not as dangerous as going home.

And as to the involvment of booze:
In 1 in 3 sexual assaults, the perpetrator was intoxicated — 30% with alcohol, 4% with drugs.
Maybe the people who criticized the ad for concentrating on the girl getting drunk rather than the guys who raped her, have a point.

I don't see this as a campaign condoning rape or blaming the girl for the rape. I look at it as a campaign against increasing your odds of being victimized. Will everyone who gets drunk wind up being raped or mugged? No, obviously. Are you guaranteed of not being attacked simply by remaining sober? Again, no. However, you are more likely to wind up as a victim of a predator when you are extremely intoxicated because your judgement is impaired, you are less aware of your environment and less able to fight back.

Kids (and not just the under 18 variety) tend to have a mentality of invincibility and think that nothing bad could ever happen to them. Adults should know better, and this appears to be the focus of the commercial--if as a parent you provide alcohol to someone who might be overly trusting to begin with due to a lack of negative experience in the world, happily allow them off to an unsupervised environment, and implicitly encourage drinking to excess, then your child runs a much higher risk of becoming a victim. Yes--you still can't have a rape without a rapist, but why not encourage actions and behaviors that leave you less vulnerable to predators you might encounter?

Muravyets:
If they want to scare parents into not providing booze to their kids, why don't they show kids getting killed and/or killing other people by drunk driving, which actually is a widespread problem with underage drinking and excessive drinking?

Unfortunately, since the "drunk driving kills" message has bean beaten into the ground and (apparently) is not making an impact, another approach is being tried. As a side note (with no supporting stats, strictly anecdotal...but I have a LOT of anecdotes) a young person is still more likely to be assaulted, molested or robbed due to intoxication than killed in an accident. The choice of a rape is obviously chosen because it evokes a more visceral reaction than the image of your son getting beaten up by someone for getting mouthy due to being drunk, or the image of your kid getting mugged in a park because they weren't paying attention to their surroundings; this choice of a scenario doesn't invalidate the message (and, hopefully, the discussions about personal protection that this could prompt).

-snip-

I don't actually see how any of this disproves that being intoxicated increases the risk of being raped.

I love the way some people are presented with a person who says "I have experience in this area, and the proposed scenario is false. It does not happen that way," and they all respond with blanket, "Yes, it does; you're wrong" without any actual argument about it.

I suppose before long, the statistics will start getting posted, but I'll jump the gun by saying that reality backs Bottle up. Women/girls are FAR more likely to be sexually assaulted in their own homes or workplaces than at a party or bar. Sexual assault is FAR more likely to be committed by someone known to the victim, who has frequent social contact with the victim -- such as a family member, friend, or co-worker.

Drunkenness does not turn a woman into a target IF there are no rapists around. Drunkenness does not turn a non-rapist into a rapist. All this blaming booze for sexual assault is just a convenient bogeyman to attack either alcohol or women living freely, or sometimes both.

If they want to scare parents into not providing booze to their kids, why don't they show kids getting killed and/or killing other people by drunk driving, which actually is a widespread problem with underage drinking and excessive drinking? All this ad does is perpetuate a myth.

Human beings are always frightened of sexual aberration and violence, especially when it is focused towards the underaged. Especially when the underaged are their own progeny.

Look at how the general public reacts towards rapists and child molesters disproportionately as opposed to mass murderers as an example. Why else would Dateline have such a compelling hit? The inherent Victorian legacy of Western society has lead to where anything hinting of sexual violence- especially towards minors will lead to disgust, revulsion and outrage.

The commercial exploits those human fears of sexual aberration and violence towards minors. If it stops purchase of alcohol for minors by making the target audience believe doing so will raise the likelihood of their daughters getting raped then it has succeeded in its purpose regardless of actual statistical facts.

Also, just because statistics say it's less likely to happen doesn't mean some women aren't sexually assaulted during intoxication. To imply otherwise might be construed as suggesting women who got drunk had it coming because they chose to drink in the first place.

There have been public service announcements for years that have warned of vehicular fatalities stemming from alcohol consumption. While they have likely reduced the instances of such by raising public awareness, they have not completely eliminated it at all. Clearly the ad makers thought using the fear of sexual violence on minors would trigger the proper response better than a traditional lecture on car fatalities.

<snip>
Muravyets:


Unfortunately, since the "drunk driving kills" message has bean beaten into the ground and (apparently) is not making an impact, another approach is being tried. As a side note (with no supporting stats, strictly anecdotal...but I have a LOT of anecdotes) a young person is still more likely to be assaulted, molested or robbed due to intoxication than killed in an accident.
Here is a site that you should be able to use to find evidence to back up that claim, because everything I have heard from law enforcement for the past 20 years contradicts you.

http://www.wiu.edu/library/govpubs/guides/dui.htm

I await your fully explained and supported argument.

The choice of a rape is obviously chosen because it evokes a more visceral reaction than the image of your son getting beaten up by someone for getting mouthy due to being drunk, or the image of your kid getting mugged in a park because they weren't paying attention to their surroundings; this choice of a scenario doesn't invalidate the message (and, hopefully, the discussions about personal protection that this could prompt).
It is basing the discussion on a myth that does send a message that is false enough to not help matters at all, and possibly make other matters (like sexual assault awareness) worse.

I don't actually see how any of this disproves that being intoxicated increases the risk of being raped.
As usual in rape discussion certain people are just determined to miss the point.

THE POINT:

1) Girls getting drunk IS NOT the cause of rape. Bolded so you can't miss it again. Also:

2) Pretending that it is by focussing on such images distorts BOTH the issue of binge/underage drinking and the issue of sexual assault/rape. And:

3) A girl getting drunk and then getting raped IS NOT the MAIN danger of binge drinking. There are other, far more prevalent dangers that will not go away even if every female on the planet went teetotaler tomorrow. Therefore:

4) The ad in question distorts the drinking issue and harms the rape issue by perpetuating a myth that does not actually address what it wants it to.

1) Girls getting drunk IS NOT the cause of rape. Bolded so you can't miss it again. Also:


That's because there is no one single cause of rape. I don't think the point of the video was that binge drinking caused rape, the point of the video was that binge drinking creates a risk of rape.


3) A girl getting drunk and then getting raped IS NOT the MAIN danger of binge drinking. There are other, far more prevalent dangers that will not go away even if every female on the planet went teetotaler tomorrow. Therefore:


But it's still, a danger.

Human beings are always frightened of sexual aberration and violence, especially when it is focused towards the underaged. Especially when the underaged are their own progeny.

Look at how the general public reacts towards rapists and child molesters disproportionately as opposed to mass murderers as an example. Why else would Dateline have such a compelling hit? The inherent Victorian legacy of Western society has lead to where anything hinting of sexual violence- especially towards minors will lead to disgust, revulsion and outrage.

The commercial exploits those human fears of sexual aberration and violence towards minors. If it stops purchase of alcohol for minors by making the target audience believe doing so will raise the likelihood of their daughters getting raped then it has succeeded in its purpose regardless of actual statistical facts.

Also, just because statistics say it's less likely to happen doesn't mean some women aren't sexually assaulted during intoxication. To imply otherwise might be construed as suggesting women who got drunk had it coming because they chose to drink in the first place.

There have been public service announcements for years that have warned of vehicular fatalities stemming from alcohol consumption. While they have likely reduced the instances of such by raising public awareness, they have not completely eliminated it at all. Clearly the ad makers thought using the fear of sexual violence on minors would trigger the proper response better than a traditional lecture on car fatalities.
So, in other words, you think it's a good idea to spread myths and misinformation about crime in order to manipulate the public?

That's because there is no one single cause of rape. I don't think the point of the video was that binge drinking caused rape, the point of the video was that binge drinking creates a risk of rape.



But it's still, a danger.
Getting those goalposts mounted up on those wheels?

You can try to softsoap it now all you like. I stand by my argument that the ad is faulty because it exploits a myth about rape that (a) is debunked by real numbers and (b) does put the burden of avoiding/preventing rape on the victims of it, rather than the burden of not raping on those most likely to commit the crime.

EDIT: I'd also point out that the ad fails because it's supposed to make people think about underage drinking, but instead it's making people think about the causes of rape and argue about whether what it says is true or not. So, in a way, it misses its own point.

So, in other words, you think it's a good idea to spread myths and misinformation about crime in order to manipulate the public?

Did I say I advocated it? I merely explained the mindset behind the service announcement. And given how similar tactics of visceral and emotional appeal seemed to work wonderfully in the last couple of U.S. Presidential elections one has to wonder if the people behind the public service announcement can be blamed for latching on to a similar tactic in hopes of triggering emotional responses to what they consider a serious issue.

Notice the target audience is adults who may potentially obtain alcohol for minors- not the minors themselves.

This is starting to feel like the non-existent firestorm over Absolut's Mexico Campaign.

Getting those goalposts mounted up on those wheels?


Again with the reading difficulties? Whats with you lately. My first post:

It's merely to say that giving alcohol to young girls increases the risk of sexual abuse.


You can try to softsoap it now all you like. I stand by my argument that the ad is faulty because it exploits a myth about rape that (a) is debunked by real numbers

If this myth is that binge drinking causes rape, then I don't think it's saying that at all.


and (b) does put the burden of avoiding/preventing rape on the victims of it, rather than the burden of not raping on those most likely to commit the crime.

Do you really think it's feasible to have an advert out there saying: "don't give your son drink, or there is a risk he may rape someone".

So, in other words, you think it's a good idea to spread myths and misinformation about crime in order to manipulate the public?

Shit man, if it does the job why not. Come on I bet you can think of plenty of lies we are told anyway, so what harm is this particular white lie going to bring?

Besides, if a young woman drinks too much booze, she does indeed run a higher risk of being sexualy assauted.

EDIT: I'd also point out that the ad fails because it's supposed to make people think about underage drinking, but instead it's making people think about the causes of rape and argue about whether what it says is true or not. So, in a way, it misses its own point.

Correction, it is makeing some people think like that, I still do not see it that way.

So all that shows it that some people have missed the point, or are caught n some strange sort of feminist loop where all they can think of is that somehow blame is being put onto the young woman.

Did I say I advocated it? I merely explained the mindset behind the service announcement. And given how similar tactics of visceral and emotional appeal seemed to work wonderfully in the last couple of U.S. Presidential elections one has to wonder if the people behind the public service announcement can be blamed for latching on to a similar tactic in hopes of triggering emotional responses to what they consider a serious issue.

Notice the target audience is adults who may potentially obtain alcohol for minors- not the minor themselves.

This is starting to feel like the non-existent firestorm over Absolut's Mexico Campaign.
No, I don't think it's equivalent. Considering that the Mexico dust-up was fueled by racists and xenophobes and that legal/illegal immigration and underage drinking and rape are three significantly different things, I frankly find the comparison insulting.

Also, I find your explanation of the mindset to be both obvious and pointless if you do not also mention an opinion concerning it. No shit, people will respond to sensationalist advertising. That does not make it a good campaign -- or even necessarily an effective one.

Shit man, if it does the job why not. Come on I bet you can think of plenty of lies we are told anyway, so what harm is this particular white lie going to bring?

Besides, if a young woman drinks too much booze, she does indeed run a higher risk of being sexualy assauted.

Correction, it is makeing some people think like that, I still do not see it that way.

So all that shows it that some people have missed the point, or are caught n some strange sort of feminist loop where all they can think of is that somehow blame is being put onto the young woman.
Responding to both of the above posts -- A person who is (a) content to live according to lies, and (b) quick to slap a dismissive label on anyone who finds something to criticize in the ad is clearly someone who does not care about the truth or about free and open discussion. Thank you for identifying yourself as closed-minded and uninterested in truth.

No, I don't think it's equivalent. Considering that the Mexico dust-up was fueled by racists and xenophobes and that legal/illegal immigration and underage drinking and rape are three significantly different things, I frankly find the comparison insulting.

They have one thing in common: They both stirred up outrage from people considerably out of their respective target demographics (Mexicans and Australian adults) which ignored the fact that they are both campaigns designed to stir up certain thoughts and imagery without mounds of factual and statistical information to dilute their emotional impacts.

Also, I find your explanation of the mindset to be both obvious and pointless if you do not also mention an opinion concerning it. No shit, people will respond to sensationalist advertising. That does not make it a good campaign -- or even necessarily an effective one.

Sensationalist campaigns work, otherwise there wouldn't be any in the world today. Especially in political venues. And what's the point of options if the commercial's been done and nothing we can do will influence it? The creators chose that approach for visceral shock value and from the controversy it's stirring it appears to be working.

Again with the reading difficulties? Whats with you lately.
Again with the personal insults. What's with you all the time?

My first post:

It's merely to say that giving alcohol to young girls increases the risk of sexual abuse.
You have ignored the statistics I posted that indicate otherwise.

If this myth is that binge drinking causes rape, then I don't think it's saying that at all.
Obviously I disagree.

Do you really think it's feasible to have an advert out there saying: "don't give your son drink, or there is a risk he may rape someone".
I think it's far more feasible to show things that really do happen to BOTH sexes as a result of binge drinking, rather than solely concentrate on the myth that drinking increases a woman's risk of rape -- because it doesn't. You all keep saying that, but the numbers don't bear it out.

Oh, and if you really want to make a dent in the problem of parents providing alcohol to their kids, here's a nutty crazy suggestion -- try enforcing the laws against giving alcohol to minors. Try making ads about that, why don't they?

Thank you for identifying yourself as closed-minded and uninterested in truth.
Maybe truth has little to do with the human condition? The more you think about it, the less relevance truth and reason seem to have with how people behave and how society is structured.

I can see Peep's argument on that one point (and that point alone - he otherwise seems to be, typically, acting as the world would expect him to) - the world functions on the back of gross misinformation and naivity, so why differ here?

NO, the gov't's using the add to say "If you give your kids alchohol, they're more likely to be raped or assaulted in some manner". Not, if your kid drinks, they get raped, and they deserve it.

They have one thing in common: They both stirred up outrage from people considerably out of their respective target demographics (Mexicans and Australian adults) which ignored the fact that they are both campaigns designed to stir up certain thoughts and imagery without mounds of factual and statistical information to dilute their emotional impacts.



Sensationalist campaigns work, otherwise there wouldn't be any in the world today. Especially in political venues. And what's the point of options if the commercial's been done and nothing we can do will influence it? The creators chose that approach for visceral shock value and from the controversy it's stirring it appears to be working.
Has it? Have the numbers of kids binging on booze they get from their parents already gone down because of this ad? Have such numbers been published?

Look, just save your efforts, G. I am not going to accept any argument that supports the spreading of bullshit to the public. Arguing it further with me is going to be a waste of your time. I get it -- you think it's okay. Now it's your turn to get that I don't think it's okay.

I've never agreed with "live in fear" tactics that supposedly keep you safe. I walk alone at night. I even occasionally walk alone while drunk.

However, I don't think making you aware of risks and posited solutions to those risks is blaming the victim. Is teaching a woman self-defense suggesting that women who don't learn self-defense are to blame? Is teaching Marines the places where Marines are likely to be attacked during combat training (we had a seminar when we first arrived at combat training to teach us where they'd prefer we stayed away from right at the beginning of our second bit of training)? Was that blaming the Marines who actually were attacked for going to those places?

I don't agree that you should live in fear or that fear should have us hording electrical tape and plastic bags, only going out in daylight, and frisking all the brown people. However, I do understand why some people would rather adjust their life due to their fears than take risks. It's not the same as blaming themselves for the risks.

Maybe truth has little to do with the human condition? The more you think about it, the less relevance truth and reason seem to have with how people behave and how society is structured.

I can see Peep's argument on that one point (and that point alone - he otherwise seems to be, typically, acting as the world would expect him to) - the world functions on the back of gross misinformation and naivity, so why differ here?
Have you been reading the goth-emo fortune cookies again? Sorry, but your post reads as content-free to me. Little more than a trite, cliched excuse for shrugging something off.

Has it? Have the numbers of kids binging on booze they get from their parents already gone down because of this ad? Have such numbers been published?

How long has the announcement been played on Australian television? And has anyone commissioned a study on the correlation between this announcement and the number of illegal purchase of alcohol for minors?

Look, just save your efforts, G. I am not going to accept any argument that supports the spreading of bullshit to the public. Arguing it further with me is going to be a waste of your time. I get it -- you think it's okay. Now it's your turn to get that I don't think it's okay.

Modern commercials and announcements are inherently about spreading of bullshit to the public. Whether or not you accept this it's pretty much a given. Making a howling epic outrage over it is only going to keep the public's attention longer, make it even more popular, or turn it into the latest Anon meme.

And if it's still getting attention, it's still working.

Responding to both of the above posts -- A person who is (a) content to live according to lies, and (b) quick to slap a dismissive label on anyone who finds something to criticize in the ad is clearly someone who does not care about the truth or about free and open discussion. Thank you for identifying yourself as closed-minded and uninterested in truth.


Bwahhahahahha! And that is so, why? Because you say so?

You are a power of observational expertise huh.

Let me put it simply for you. We all lie, sometimes for bad reasons sometimes for good. If a lie ultimatly brings about good, then I say good. This does not mean that I am content to live according to lies, it simply means that I have realised that a white lie is not really a great sin.

As for dismisive label, come on now please quote for me which of my words led you to this conclusion. Because I thought we where haveing a healty debate, you know I disagree with you, but so what, you can surly deal with that?

I have to log off for a while. You folks have fun piling up reasons why (a) the myths promoted by the ad are not myths, and (b) why even if they are it's okay to promote them rather than focus on the real dangers of binge drinking and the real crime of giving booze to minors. I look forward to lots of targets to tilt at over the weekend. Just try not to be too redundant, okay?

.....rather than solely concentrate on the myth that drinking increases a woman's risk of rape -- because it doesn't. You all keep saying that, but the numbers don't bear it out.

You know I don't know where in the world you are, but here in the UK, but records DO show that young woman ARE at an increase of sexual assult if they are blind drunk.

How long has the announcement been played on Australian television? And has anyone commissioned a study on the correlation between this announcement and the number of illegal purchase of alcohol for minors?



Modern commercials and announcements are inherently about spreading of bullshit to the public. Whether or not you accept this it's pretty much a given. Making a howling epic outrage over it is only going to keep the public's attention longer, make it even more popular, or turn it into the latest Anon meme.

And if it's still getting attention, it's still working.
If you have no numbers to show its effect on underage bingedrinking and/or parents supplying booze to kids, then you have no basis on which to assert it is working. Ergo, you are spreading BS in a way not dissimilar to the ad itself, claiming that something is so even though your claim does not match reality.

Bwahhahahahha! And that is so, why? Because you say so?

You are a power of observational expertise huh.

Let me put it simply for you. We all lie, sometimes for bad reasons sometimes for good. If a lie ultimatly brings about good, then I say good. This does not mean that I am content to live according to lies, it simply means that I have realised that a white lie is not really a great sin.

As for dismisive label, come on now please quote for me which of my words led you to this conclusion. Because I thought we where haveing a healty debate, you know I disagree with you, but so what, you can surly deal with that?
You characterized critics of this ad ad being caught in some "feminist loop." That is a dismissive characterization.

You know I don't know where in the world you are, but here in the UK, but records DO show that young woman ARE at an increase of sexual assult if they are blind drunk.
I have listed sources for my information already in this thread.

Now I'm off. Later, all.

You characterized critics of this ad ad being caught in some "feminist loop." That is a dismissive characterization.

Ohhh poor baby. This is what I actualy said:

'Correction, it is makeing some people think like that, I still do not see it that way.

So all that shows it that some people have missed the point, or are caught n some strange sort of feminist loop where all they can think of is that somehow blame is being put onto the young woman.'

Note the words 'some people' and 'or', yes of course I think that the people shouting about blaming the woman, have totaly missed the point.

As to dismissive characterisation, shit man you told me that I live in lies, and do not wish to know the truth. Umm wazzat called then?

If you have no numbers to show its effect on underage bingedrinking and/or parents supplying booze to kids, then you have no basis on which to assert it is working. Ergo, you are spreading BS in a way not dissimilar to the ad itself, claiming that something is so even though your claim does not match reality.

The announcement is not intended to curb underage drinking directly. It is aimed at cutting off potential supply lines- the adults who may purchase alcohol for minors.

Trying to demand proof that it curbs underage drinking directly is rather disingenous: without those statistics you can neither prove the announcements work- nor can you prove they don't. The same applies with illegal purchase.

The Australian government is also taking more direct approaches to combatting underaged drinking. Expecting the ads alone to reduce the problem is the same as having faith in Abstinence-only education:

Police plan further crackdown on underage drinking, gambling (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/03/2354378.htm)

A solution for underage drinking problem in Australia (http://latestfreshnews.blogspot.com/2008/02/solution-for-underage-drinking-problem.html)

Back to the bottle shop as drinkers stay at home (http://business.theage.com.au/business/back-to-the-bottle-shop-as-drinkers-stay-at-home-20080423-285p.html)

You have ignored the statistics I posted that indicate otherwise.


I didn't ignore them, I read them, then deemed them irrelevant, since they don't disprove that intoxication increases the risk.


I think it's far more feasible to show things that really do happen to BOTH sexes as a result of binge drinking, rather than solely concentrate on the myth that drinking increases a woman's risk of rape -- because it doesn't. You all keep saying that, but the numbers don't bear it out.


I don't think it's a myth that drinking increases the women's risk of rape, and your statistics doesn't show that either.


Oh, and if you really want to make a dent in the problem of parents providing alcohol to their kids, here's a nutty crazy suggestion -- try enforcing the laws against giving alcohol to minors. Try making ads about that, why don't they?

Sure, that probably would be a good idea. That doesn't mean what the ad is saying is a myth and sexist.

I don't see what the fuss is. maybe they do things different in Australia but in the USA, such ads are actually part of a series of ads. so yes, one could expect to see an ad targeting boys as well as one targetting both sexes.

To blame the ad or to see it as a focus to 'blame the victim' is to be incredibly narrow minded and short sighted.

but the question does remain. is this the ONLY ad cautioning parents on buying alcohol for their children?

Have you been reading the goth-emo fortune cookies again?
Sorry, Plato's "The Last Days of Socrates". Kinda disenfranchising. But seriously, don't expect truth to dictate how society works.


In any case, I ironically pass on a paper (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/r215.pdf) released by the UK Home Office. There's a lot in it, but there do seem to be very clear links between alcohol consumption of the perpetrator and rape, and also between sexual violence and alcohol consumption of both parties. A couple of papers are cited concerning the relationship between alcohol consumption in the victim and the occurrence of rape, but numbers vary too much for a clear-cut correlation.

I think there is sufficient reason for concern about the connection between Alcohol and sexual assault. Now, it might be argued that the problem with alcohol is simply that its effects gives unhelpful signals to potential attackers - namely, that the person under its effects is in a vulnerable state - but if that connection is there, it's worth bringing it up.

The thing is, if all that is being done is that potential victims are being told to watch their drinks then that's absolutely appalling. If, however, it's accompanied by a concerned campaign to stamp out sexual assault, then there's nothing wrong with telling people to watch out themselves.

(That enough content for you? :p)

...after watching this. I can't understand how this computes to the message they are supposedly trying to send. Is my government just stupid, or are they trying to encourage sexual assault of young teenage girls? Or just more standard blame-the-victim crap:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24475306-3102,00.html

Some choice quotes:



Really? The parents have consequences? Or just the young girl? Where is the promotion to boys that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and illegal?



They become rapists? Or is the implication that females who drink get what they deserve?

I cannot believe that a government of a supposedly civilised culture, would put something like this out. I am physically ill at the implications.

To me, it simply will promote the evil, but unfortunately prevalent idea that women are somehow to blame for their own rapes. And judging by the comments made at the end of the article, that's the impression out there.

I agree 100%.
There is no ads to inform BOYS of the consequences of these behaviour, just girls.
How many boys get drunk and are ran over by a car/raped/etc?
Well, we don't know 'cause we were never told!

I agree 100%.
There is no ads to inform BOYS of the consequences of these behaviour, just girls.
How many boys get drunk and are ran over by a car/raped/etc?
Well, we don't know 'cause we were never told!

No this is an ad to scare parents.

I AM SHOCKED. They show the FATHER, a MALE, buying and giving alot of alcohol to the girl. It's SOOOO apparent that HE wants HER to be raped. That is such a sick ad!

After all, according to the ad, MOTHERS won't ever do such a thing like buy a rape enabling device like alcohol for their daughters!

the ad should be pulled and those who made it shot! :rolleyes:

I AM SHOCKED. They show the FATHER, a MALE, buying and giving alot of alcohol to the girl. It's SOOOO apparent that HE wants HER to be raped. That is such a sick ad!

After all, according to the ad, MOTHERS won't ever do such a thing like buy a rape enabling device like alcohol for their daughters!

the ad should be pulled and those who made it shot! :rolleyes:

Sexist

:p

Sexist

:p

look at the Father's face as his daughter leaves... you can see the "knowing smirk"... he knew what was going to happen! ;)

That's because there is no one single cause of rape.

Of course there is. Rapists are the only cause of rape.

I think it's far more feasible to show things that really do happen to BOTH sexes as a result of binge drinking, rather than solely concentrate on the myth that drinking increases a woman's risk of rape -- because it doesn't. You all keep saying that, but the numbers don't bear it out.

Actually, the numbers don't bear it out because I have yet to find any official numbers on the stats of crime victims that were intoxicated at the time of the crime. Stats exist on the state of the offender, but none on the victim. I assume that such studies are not done because of an unwillingness to conduct a statistical study that appears to implicate the victim. Yes, blaming the victim avoids the fact that a rape (or any other crime for that matter) is caused by an attacker and is counterproductive; however, part of basic crime prevention is NOT putting yourself in positions where an opportunistic predator can take advantage of you. Not having stats about victims can also contribute to the midset of "rape/crime happens and nothing that I do has any bearing on it".

Not all rapes involve intoxicated victims and not all intoxicated girls are going to get raped--then again not all car fatalities involve drunk drivers, and not all drunk drivers are going to crash, kill or die. I recognise that this is an imperfect analogy as these situations put you on opposite sides of the victim/offender category, but both campaigns deal with the concept that you have control over your behavior and the voluntary abuse of alcohol can increase your risk of harm (in one, the risk of being taken advantage of and in the other, the risk of being the cause of the harm). It also assumes that neither the victim nor the driver want an outcome of harm--the drunk that wants to kill himself and the rapist that wants to attack women are not going to be affected in any way by these campaigns.

I agree that the causation, consequence and reporting of rape needs to be discussed more fully and openly, and I agree that this PSA's use of the depiction of a forcible rape (vs. the more common but no less despicable "taking advantage of" of a woman who is obliterated/passed out at a Frat party) is sensationalistic and somewhat over the top, but I think that the concept of getting parents to think twice about encouraging and supporting this behavior in juveniles is valid and valuable. Could they follow this up with another PSA showing someone's man-cub getting robbed while walking home drunk? Sure they could, but it would have less impact because the loss of personal property causes far less physical, emotional and psychological trauma than a sexual assault (forcible or otherwise).

JuNii:
look at the Father's face as his daughter leaves... you can see the "knowing smirk"... he knew what was going to happen!

Who do you think was filming it...


Sorry, even I'm appalled at that.

You mean in our society we consistantly downplay the man's (rapist's) role in a rape incident?


Im stunned.

You mean in our society we consistantly downplay the man's (rapist's) role in a rape incident?


Im stunned.

actually, I remember quite alot of ads and psa's that focused on Guys in reguard to Rape.

remember "No means NO!" ads

there were others shown. so it's not just focusing on women. but that's here in the USA. dunno about Australia and how they view rape.

actually, I remember quite alot of ads and psa's that focused on Guys in reguard to Rape.

remember "No means NO!" ads

there were others shown. so it's not just focusing on women. but that's here in the USA. dunno about Australia and how they view rape.

lol why did you assume Im from Australia? Im in the US.

And yes, I remember those ads, but theyre unfortunitally in the minority and never gained much traction.

lol why did you assume Im from Australia? Im in the US.

And yes, I remember those ads, but theyre unfortunitally in the minority and never gained much traction.

not you. the OP and the Ad are from Australia. won't assume what goes on in the USA (where I'm from) is the same all over the world.

I think what it is saying is be careful, these whole ads are shit anyway but that is what it is saying be careful out there. The same way be you should be careful with your drinks in case someone decides to spike it for fun.

*awaits to be yelled at*

Do you really think it's feasible to have an advert out there saying: "don't give your son drink, or there is a risk he may rape someone".

Why not? It's backed up by the statistics, as Murayvets already pointed out.

Why is the female always focussed on? I think it is just as big a danger that young boys will be more likely to rape a young girl, particularly at schoolies, and particularly if there are advertisements like this which exploit the mindset that the victim is somehow responsible. There are no ads whatsoever presenting the myriad dangers of teen drinking for boys including the fact that they are far more likely to be assaulted or involved in fights when drunk than sober. Recently there has been a spate of young boys dying or being seriously injured due to fights starting when both parties are drunk. That to me, is a far more relevant issue to focus on. And more shocking.

I agree 100%.
There is no ads to inform BOYS of the consequences of these behaviour, just girls.
How many boys get drunk and are ran over by a car/raped/etc?
Well, we don't know 'cause we were never told!

Do you think the australian government gives a shit about boys?

I agree that the causation, consequence and reporting of rape needs to be discussed more fully and openly, and I agree that this PSA's use of the depiction of a forcible rape (vs. the more common but no less despicable "taking advantage of" of a woman who is obliterated/passed out at a Frat party) is sensationalistic and somewhat over the top, but I think that the concept of getting parents to think twice about encouraging and supporting this behavior in juveniles is valid and valuable. Could they follow this up with another PSA showing someone's man-cub getting robbed while walking home drunk? Sure they could, but it would have less impact because the loss of personal property causes far less physical, emotional and psychological trauma than a sexual assault (forcible or otherwise).


I personally would feel far more shock value at an ad that depicted a girl being extremely intoxicated and behaving in a 'loose' manner (which they have on the Salvo vans) which she ordinarily wouldn't, than at this ad depicting a forcible and violent crime where the message to me is, if you're young, drunk, and female, you're making yourself a victim.

There have been some small campaigns like 'One Punch Can Kill' that focus on male violence, but these are not wide-spread and are not in your face or as accusatory as these ads.

Why not? It's backed up by the statistics, as Murayvets already pointed out.

Why is the female always focussed on? I think it is just as big a danger that young boys will be more likely to rape a young girl, particularly at schoolies, and particularly if there are advertisements like this which exploit the mindset that the victim is somehow responsible. There are no ads whatsoever presenting the myriad dangers of teen drinking for boys including the fact that they are far more likely to be assaulted or involved in fights when drunk than sober. Recently there has been a spate of young boys dying or being seriously injured due to fights starting when both parties are drunk. That to me, is a far more relevant issue to focus on. And more shocking.

Yes but who gives a shit about young males? Certainly not the government.

I don't see what the fuss is. maybe they do things different in Australia but in the USA, such ads are actually part of a series of ads. so yes, one could expect to see an ad targeting boys as well as one targetting both sexes.

To blame the ad or to see it as a focus to 'blame the victim' is to be incredibly narrow minded and short sighted.

but the question does remain. is this the ONLY ad cautioning parents on buying alcohol for their children?

At this stage yes. Another campaign for overage drinkers is planned, but expect it to focus on the same sensationalist crap. The mindset here is that there is a huge problem with women binge-drinking. Men binge-drinking and causing fights doesn't seem to be an issue.

Yes but who gives a shit about young males? Certainly not the government.

Which is why we have targeted programs to encourage men into primary and prep teaching? Why we have identified boys as a special needs group when it comes to literacy? Why we have programs targeting male youth offenders? Why we have BoysTown and school-based apprenticeships?

Which is why we have targeted programs to encourage men into primary and prep teaching? Why we have identified boys as a special needs group when it comes to literacy? Why we have programs targeting male youth offenders? Why we have BoysTown and school-based apprenticeships?

In regards to binge drinking, I think not. Your post above says the same thing.

In regards to binge drinking, I think not. Your post above says the same thing.

Which is my point about the ad. It doesn't demonstrate that there are any effects on young males or anything that can happen to them as a result of binge drinking. Which does nothing to eliminate the worst problems.

Which is my point about the ad. It doesn't demonstrate that there are any effects on young males or anything that can happen to them as a result of binge drinking. Which does nothing to eliminate the worst problems.

Which is exactly my point as well they don't give a damn about young males. One of the reasons they used to increase the tax on "alco-pops" was because the low price was endangering to young females, nothing about alcohol endangering young males on any other drinks or even the "alco-pops" endangering young males. I wonder if their are some lobbying groups in play here.

Which is my point about the ad. It doesn't demonstrate that there are any effects on young males or anything that can happen to them as a result of binge drinking. Which does nothing to eliminate the worst problems.

They should make a vid about some innocent teenager who goes on a drinking binge with friends, only to find out after an hour that they're actually in a gay bar, surrounded by burly men.

That would make them think twice about getting wasted, methinks. And it's pretty much on the same level as the ad telling young women not to drink or else they'll get raped.

I think the ad is good but they should also run one that focusses on the consequences of young men drinking.

At this stage yes. Another campaign for overage drinkers is planned, but expect it to focus on the same sensationalist crap. The mindset here is that there is a huge problem with women binge-drinking. Men binge-drinking and causing fights doesn't seem to be an issue.the difference is that Rape is mentally and emotionally devistating to the victim. causing fights are badges of honor for men. ;)

seriously tho. write to the producers/payers of the ads with statistics of teen drunk driving. if you can get statistics of Teen drunk brawls, then send those in. don't accuse them of being sexists but politely ask them when they will also address and bring to light these problems.

Why is the female always focussed on? I think it is just as big a danger that young boys will be more likely to rape a young girl, particularly at schoolies, and particularly if there are advertisements like this which exploit the mindset that the victim is somehow responsible. There are no ads whatsoever presenting the myriad dangers of teen drinking for boys including the fact that they are far more likely to be assaulted or involved in fights when drunk than sober. Recently there has been a spate of young boys dying or being seriously injured due to fights starting when both parties are drunk. That to me, is a far more relevant issue to focus on. And more shocking.This is Speculation...
usually... when a rape is planned... or even thought up on the spur of the moment. the male will not be the one binge drinking. He will encourage his target to drink up. that's not to say he won't drink, but he'll be more controlled and less likely to be 'stone cold blotto' or whatever the phrase would be, while getting her to that point of least resistance.

the angle they MIGHT be trying for is the "educate the victims" but apparently you feel they missed the mark by miles.

Why not? It's backed up by the statistics, as Murayvets already pointed out.

Why is the female always focussed on? I think it is just as big a danger that young boys will be more likely to rape a young girl, particularly at schoolies, and particularly if there are advertisements like this which exploit the mindset that the victim is somehow responsible. There are no ads whatsoever presenting the myriad dangers of teen drinking for boys including the fact that they are far more likely to be assaulted or involved in fights when drunk than sober. Recently there has been a spate of young boys dying or being seriously injured due to fights starting when both parties are drunk. That to me, is a far more relevant issue to focus on. And more shocking.

Drinking isn't helping boys become rapists. That's absurd. Correllation is not causation.

However, there is evidence that drinking is specifically used to lower the defenses of victims for all sorts of crimes. That's not correllation, that's causation.

There are no ads whatsoever? Or you aren't aware of the ads?

Ads target demographics. Water is wet. The sky is blue.

You mean in our society we consistantly downplay the man's (rapist's) role in a rape incident?


Im stunned.

Oh, bullshit. We address the rapists role by throwing them in jail. They're rapists. As such, there isn't much reason to expect them to be reasonable. There is however reason to inform people of risky behaviors. Similarly, there aren't as many ads focusing on drug dealers as there are ads focusing on drug users. Shocker. It's like they don't care about stopping the dealers. Or maybe, just maybe, they realize that they aren't nearly as likely to reach people who are in (what they view to be) real danger, the users.

Seriously, is there any part of this thread that isn't just wild assertions that are unsupported. Jesus.

Oh, bullshit. We address the rapists role by throwing them in jail. They're rapists. As such, there isn't much reason to expect them to be reasonable. There is however reason to inform people of risky behaviors. Similarly, there aren't as many ads focusing on drug dealers as there are ads focusing on drug users. Shocker. It's like they don't care about stopping the dealers. Or maybe, just maybe, they realize that they aren't nearly as likely to reach people who are in (what they view to be) real danger, the users.

Seriously, is there any part of this thread that isn't just wild assertions that are unsupported. Jesus.
Yes. I posted a link with statistics. You could go look for it, if you wanted to...

By the way, it states a specific statistic for the number of males who committed rape under the influence of intoxicants, but not one for the number of victims who were intoxicated when attacked.

Hm...you think maybe this is because a male who has the potential to commit rape and may act on that impulse if his inhibitions are lowered by enough alcohol will attack a woman REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SHE IS DRUNK OR NOT?

Just a suggestion as to why focussing all the attention on women drinking and then getting raped is not an argument based in reality.

Hm...you think maybe this is because a male who has the potential to commit rape and may act on that impulse if his inhibitions are lowered by enough alcohol will attack a woman REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SHE IS DRUNK OR NOT?
except that which woman has a better chance of fighting off and escaping a single rapist... a drunk woman or a sober one.

and you admitted that it doesn't show how many intociated victims there were.

but as for intoxicated offenders... well, as Robin Williams once said.
Mai Tai? Polynesan for 'Dumb Fuck'

Yes. I posted a link with statistics. You could go look for it, if you wanted to...

By the way, it states a specific statistic for the number of males who committed rape under the influence of intoxicants, but not one for the number of victims who were intoxicated when attacked.

Hm...you think maybe this is because a male who has the potential to commit rape and may act on that impulse if his inhibitions are lowered by enough alcohol will attack a woman REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SHE IS DRUNK OR NOT?

Just a suggestion as to why focussing all the attention on women drinking and then getting raped is not an argument based in reality.

I'm not focusing that attention. If a rapist uses the excuse they're drunk to commit rape, they're a rapist. They weren't sort of a rapist before. They wanted to commit rape so they gave themselves an excuse. They aren't good citizens absent the excuse.

However, when an innocent person walks down a dark alley they aren't trying to excuse themselves from the responsibility of being mugged. Either way, they aren't responsible. The dark alley isn't the cause of the mugging, it's just the location. It's not unfair to suggest to someone, "hey, you might avoid that dark alley. A lot of mugging happen there." I certainly wouldn't be placing the blame on them if they were mugged.

People keep talking about focusing on the victim, and they are. The victim is innocent either way. The victim is the person who deserves to be informed. The victim is the person who deserves to be protected from harm and to be treated as the focus of any efforts in the positive. Whether you agree with these ads or not (I happen to disagree) they are focusing on helping the victim avoid bad situations. It has nothing to do with blame.

As for statistics, I was echoing an argument from you earlier in the thread. I wasn't specifically talking about you, though it's pretty clear you're extrapolating things from those statistics that aren't there. For example, being raped while at home appears to be pretty likely. How many people go to a party and are then escorted home by someone from the party? That hardly discards the relationship to partying.

You'll also not from the same source that college-aged women are 4 times more likely to be rape victims. Hmmm... is this because college-aged women are more likely to spend time at home? Or could there be some other factor, that would include the likelihood of being raped by an acquaintence, the likelihood of partying being involved, and the likelihood of being raped in your own home.

Nevermind, I know when I was in college, women hardly ever left parties wasted with some guy they know from class or some guy they're somewhat friends with. Those women never let those guys into their homes to be alone with them for the first time. Those guys are never drunk. None of this ever happens. It's totally unusual at college. Forget I mentioned it.

...after watching this. I can't understand how this computes to the message they are supposedly trying to send. Is my government just stupid, or are they trying to encourage sexual assault of young teenage girls? Or just more standard blame-the-victim crap:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24475306-3102,00.html

Some choice quotes:



Really? The parents have consequences? Or just the young girl? Where is the promotion to boys that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and illegal?



They become rapists? Or is the implication that females who drink get what they deserve?

I cannot believe that a government of a supposedly civilised culture, would put something like this out. I am physically ill at the implications.

To me, it simply will promote the evil, but unfortunately prevalent idea that women are somehow to blame for their own rapes. And judging by the comments made at the end of the article, that's the impression out there.

While I question the effectiveness (and ethics) of such disgusting propoganda shock tactics, I don't think this looks like a case of blame the victim. How is "blame the idiot who supplied the alchohol" a case of "blame the victim"? And your suggestion that the add is trying to encourage rape of girls is strange, if not down right retarded.

What I see here is a shock value aproach of questionable effectiveness, and a knee-jerk emotional response from some one who somehow assumes that an add portraying a rape is "blaming the victim". However, one could argue that shock value adds provoke such response, further bringing into question their effectiveness.

Also, I will admit I haven't watched the actual add. I don't go out of my way to watch simulated rape, and I don't want to play it at a public internet station without knowing how graphic it is.

I can see the ad working, on some parents at least. Certainly dishonest. I'll add my name to the list of people who have been drunk many times and come out of it intact(falling down related injuries aside). But yeah, I'm sure some parents will be scared into withholding alcohol from their children.

While I question the effectiveness (and ethics) of such disgusting propoganda shock tactics, I don't think this looks like a case of blame the victim. How is "blame the idiot who supplied the alchohol" a case of "blame the victim"? And your suggestion that the add is trying to encourage rape of girls is strange, if not down right retarded.

What I see here is a shock value aproach of questionable effectiveness, and a knee-jerk emotional response from some one who somehow assumes that an add portraying a rape is "blaming the victim". However, one could argue that shock value adds provoke such response, further bringing into question their effectiveness.

Also, I will admit I haven't watched the actual add. I don't go out of my way to watch simulated rape, and I don't want to play it at a public internet station without knowing how graphic it is.

It's not simulated rape. it starts by showing a girl crying... then it back tracks "Momento Mori" style to her walking/staggering with some 'friends' into a dark street? alleyway? then it shows her at a party drinking with other friends, then shows her getting ready for the party at a hotel, then it shows her getting into a car with her father watching, then it shows the father giving her a case of beer in their kitchen.

and the PSA style voice-over makes it clear it's a commercal or at least a PSA.

so it's rather "safe" to watch in a public place.

except that which woman has a better chance of fighting off and escaping a single rapist... a drunk woman or a sober one.
Neither, actually.

If you think differently account for the millions of sober women who get sexually assaulted/raped every year.

and you admitted that it doesn't show how many intociated victims there were.
I "admitted" nothing. What I suggested is that whether the victims were drunk or not is not considered a significant factor. You, however, seem to be insisting that since the numbers on drunk victims are fuzzier, then it's okay to assume it makes a difference and concentrate on that instead of on the firm numbers concerning perpetrators. In other words, you'd rather make up stories about what we don't know than deal straightforwardly with what we do know -- or in yet other words, you'd rather perpetuate a myth than spread real information.

but as for intoxicated offenders... well, as Robin Williams once said.
Referring to comedians in rape discussions pisses me off.

I'm not focusing that attention. If a rapist uses the excuse they're drunk to commit rape, they're a rapist. They weren't sort of a rapist before. They wanted to commit rape so they gave themselves an excuse. They aren't good citizens absent the excuse.

However, when an innocent person walks down a dark alley they aren't trying to excuse themselves from the responsibility of being mugged. Either way, they aren't responsible. The dark alley isn't the cause of the mugging, it's just the location. It's not unfair to suggest to someone, "hey, you might avoid that dark alley. A lot of mugging happen there." I certainly wouldn't be placing the blame on them if they were mugged.

People keep talking about focusing on the victim, and they are. The victim is innocent either way. The victim is the person who deserves to be informed. The victim is the person who deserves to be protected from harm and to be treated as the focus of any efforts in the positive. Whether you agree with these ads or not (I happen to disagree) they are focusing on helping the victim avoid bad situations. It has nothing to do with blame.

As for statistics, I was echoing an argument from you earlier in the thread. I wasn't specifically talking about you, though it's pretty clear you're extrapolating things from those statistics that aren't there. For example, being raped while at home appears to be pretty likely. How many people go to a party and are then escorted home by someone from the party? That hardly discards the relationship to partying.

You'll also not from the same source that college-aged women are 4 times more likely to be rape victims. Hmmm... is this because college-aged women are more likely to spend time at home? Or could there be some other factor, that would include the likelihood of being raped by an acquaintence, the likelihood of partying being involved, and the likelihood of being raped in your own home.
You are speculating in the above paragraph.

Nevermind, I know when I was in college, women hardly ever left parties wasted with some guy they know from class or some guy they're somewhat friends with. Those women never let those guys into their homes to be alone with them for the first time. Those guys are never drunk. None of this ever happens. It's totally unusual at college. Forget I mentioned it.
I have no objection to what you say here, except for the speculation part.

My objection is that ads like the one in the OP are not actually informing potential victims REALISTICALLY of what dangers they may face if they binge drink. Such ads do link women getting drunk to women getting raped. However, rape statistics do not make that connection. Rather, they connect rape to many other factors, and they more strongly connect perpetrator statistics to intoxication. There is a way to frame such information so that it will give young women a realistic view of what the dangers they have to deal with are. The OP ad is not that way. The OP ad opts for a sensationalistic myth rather than real information. This particular myth, while seeking to stop one bad thing -- underage/binge drinking -- actually gives distorted and incorrect information about another bad thing -- rape/sexual assault.

It is that distortion that I object to.

My objection is that ads like the one in the OP are not actually informing potential victims REALISTICALLY of what dangers they may face if they binge drink.

The ad in the OP is not intended for potential victims. It is intended for parents who would buy their child alcohol. It is intended to scare them into not doing so.

You are speculating in the above paragraph.


I have no objection to what you say here, except for the speculation part.

My objection is that ads like the one in the OP are not actually informing potential victims REALISTICALLY of what dangers they may face if they binge drink. Such ads do link women getting drunk to women getting raped. However, rape statistics do not make that connection. Rather, they connect rape to many other factors, and they more strongly connect perpetrator statistics to intoxication. There is a way to frame such information so that it will give young women a realistic view of what the dangers they have to deal with are. The OP ad is not that way. The OP ad opts for a sensationalistic myth rather than real information. This particular myth, while seeking to stop one bad thing -- underage/binge drinking -- actually gives distorted and incorrect information about another bad thing -- rape/sexual assault.

It is that distortion that I object to.



I agree with most of that. I don't think these are effective ways to protect yourself. Broad assumptive ways of protecting yourself rarely work. Just like I don't agree with pulling your kids from school so they don't get shot.

However, you are bitching about an ad being *gasp* an ad. That's what ads do. They generally choose a demographic and they exaggerate in order to make their point. By the by, other burger joints don't have one inch wide patties despite what you might have heard in "Where's the beef?" commercials.

You keep saying it's a myth? Are you telling me you can demonstrate that being drunk is NOT a risk factor for rape? Because it doesn't have to be the most prevalent or even in the top five for it not to be something worth warning against. It certainly wouldn't qualify as a myth.

Cell phones are like tenth on the risk factors for accidents. However, commercials warning you not to talk on them while you drive aren't based on a myth.

Neither, actually.

If you think differently account for the millions of sober women who get sexually assaulted/raped every year. ah, but to get a true picture, one has to also account for every woman who's been attacked as well as those who managed to escape their assalant. and then break it down to include intoxication levels. an impossible task in itself due to the number that goes unreported but to just focus on one aspect like "the number of sober women who are attacked" and not have the other is an empty argument. For all we know, the number of intoxicated women attacked might be double that of sober women.

I agree that women are assaulted wether they are intoxicated or not. I was just wondering about the total numbers and their breakdown.

I "admitted" nothing. What I suggested is that whether the victims were drunk or not is not considered a significant factor. You, however, seem to be insisting that since the numbers on drunk victims are fuzzier, then it's okay to assume it makes a difference and concentrate on that instead of on the firm numbers concerning perpetrators. In other words, you'd rather make up stories about what we don't know than deal straightforwardly with what we do know -- or in yet other words, you'd rather perpetuate a myth than spread real information. I'm not spreading anything. I'm seeking information. I've stated in other posts that it's spectulation on my part, not fact. Sorry if you thought otherwise.

Referring to comedians in rape discussions pisses me off.
Rape discussion? sorry, I thought this was about alcohol and it's effects on people in both being victims and being perpetrators of crimes.

The ad in the OP is not intended for potential victims. It is intended for parents who would buy their child alcohol. It is intended to scare them into not doing so.
In. A. Way. That. I. Object. To.

Everybody keeps telling me what the ad's intention is, and I explain why I don't like its approach to that intention, and the only response is to tell me what it's intention is again as if that's going to change my mind.

I'm beginning to think none of you has an actual response to my objection.

I agree with most of that. I don't think these are effective ways to protect yourself. Broad assumptive ways of protecting yourself rarely work. Just like I don't agree with pulling your kids from school so they don't get shot.

However, you are bitching about an ad being *gasp* an ad. That's what ads do. They generally choose a demographic and they exaggerate in order to make their point. By the by, other burger joints don't have one inch wide patties despite what you might have heard in "Where's the beef?" commercials.
This is such utter BS, I'm not even going to argue it with you. I know you are too smart not to see the various ways in which you are (a) missing my point and (b) distorting what I said, so I can only assume you are just busting my chops for something to do, and you know how I respond when you do that.

You keep saying it's a myth? Are you telling me you can demonstrate that being drunk is NOT a risk factor for rape? Because it doesn't have to be the most prevalent or even in the top five for it not to be something worth warning against. It certainly wouldn't qualify as a myth.

Cell phones are like tenth on the risk factors for accidents. However, commercials warning you not to talk on them while you drive aren't based on a myth.
If you are too lazy to read the thread, then I'm not going to argue with you about that, either.

ah, but to get a true picture, one has to also account for every woman who's been attacked as well as those who managed to escape their assalant. and then break it down to include intoxication levels. an impossible task in itself due to the number that goes unreported but to just focus on one aspect like "the number of sober women who are attacked" and not have the other is an empty argument. For all we know, the number of intoxicated women attacked might be double that of sober women.

I agree that women are assaulted wether they are intoxicated or not. I was just wondering about the total numbers and their breakdown.

I'm not spreading anything. I'm seeking information. I've stated in other posts that it's spectulation on my part, not fact. Sorry if you thought otherwise.
I suggested that you were arguing in favor of spreading a myth because you seem to be arguing in favor of excusing what I see as gross errors in the content of the ad. If you are not arguing that the ad is ok, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Rape discussion? sorry, I thought this was about alcohol and it's effects on people in both being victims and being perpetrators of crimes.
And that is another specific objection to the ad that I raised earlier in this thread -- that it seems to raise more controversy about rape than it does about underage drinking facilitated by parents.

I suggested that you were arguing in favor of spreading a myth because you seem to be arguing in favor of excusing what I see as gross errors in the content of the ad. If you are not arguing that the ad is ok, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. It is my opinon that the ad tries to focus on underage drinking and not about rape.

And that is another specific objection to the ad that I raised earlier in this thread -- that it seems to raise more controversy about rape than it does about underage drinking facilitated by parents. a missed attempt surely. but not a blatent and purposeful "blame the victim" campaign that the OP ranted about.

a point the ad might be trying to make might've been this.

Being under the influence of drugs or alcohol makes a person vulnerable and unable to give consent. Being in a vulnerable position does not imply consent.

thus it's the vulerability they are trying to 'warn' parents about.

***

*re watched the ad with sound up to max.*
actually, the ad doesn't mention sexual assault nor sexual abuse.
from the ad
"67% of teenagers have been abused or assaulted whilst under the influence of alcohol"
"Don't Kid yourself"
"Buy your children alcohol and they could pay the price."

even the pictures don't show sexual assault or abuse. the aftermath (the girl crying) could be from any form of assault or abuse (i.e. mugging).

we are left to assume Rape or Sexual assault/sexual abuse because they are focusing on a girl, but the narration doesn't focus on any gender. it only states assaulted and abused... so the 67% could also include those drunken brawls that drunk teen boys get into that others asked about.

Edit II: the picture was dark, so I'll admit that I may have details of what is shown during the nighttime scenes wrong.

In. A. Way. That. I. Object. To.

Everybody keeps telling me what the ad's intention is, and I explain why I don't like its approach to that intention, and the only response is to tell me what it's intention is again as if that's going to change my mind.

I'm beginning to think none of you has an actual response to my objection.

Your objection is comparable to objecting to a brand of shampoo because it doesn't get a stain out of your pants.

Your objection is comparable to objecting to a brand of shampoo because it doesn't get a stain out of your pants.
Actually, shampoo is very good for removing stains from pants. I use shampoo for all the clothes I wash by hand and for spot washing stains. It'll get out almost anything.

And I disagree with what you seem to be suggesting -- that we should excuse the ad for spreading a myth about rape so that it can aim for a different goal.

It is my opinon that the ad tries to focus on underage drinking and not about rape.
That doesn't need to be just an opinion because it is a fact. However, that fact does not excuse the misinformed message concerning sexual assault/rape that it also carries. THAT is MY opinion.

a missed attempt surely. but not a blatent and purposeful "blame the victim" campaign that the OP ranted about.
I never argued that it was deliberate. I only agreed that it reinforces a potentially harmful myth. Doing that by accident is still not good, again in my opinion.

a point the ad might be trying to make might've been this.



thus it's the vulerability they are trying to 'warn' parents about.
Whatever its intended message, my argument is that it is perpetuating a myth in the way that it is structured.

***

*re watched the ad with sound up to max.*
actually, the ad doesn't mention sexual assault nor sexual abuse.
from the ad
"67% of teenagers have been abused or assaulted whilst under the influence of alcohol"
"Don't Kid yourself"
"Buy your children alcohol and they could pay the price."

even the pictures don't show sexual assault or abuse. the aftermath (the girl crying) could be from any form of assault or abuse (i.e. mugging).

we are left to assume Rape or Sexual assault/sexual abuse because they are focusing on a girl, but the narration doesn't focus on any gender. it only states assaulted and abused... so the 67% could also include those drunken brawls that drunk teen boys get into that others asked about.

Edit II: the picture was dark, so I'll admit that I may have details of what is shown during the nighttime scenes wrong.
Oh, come on. "Abused" means some form of sexual assault. It is a common modern usage. Don't start splitting semantical hairs with me, pretending to have confusion over what the words in the ad mean.

It doesn't have to SHOW a sexual assault. It only has to imply it and use language like "abused." Please, let's try to be real.

That doesn't need to be just an opinion because it is a fact. However, that fact does not excuse the misinformed message concerning sexual assault/rape that it also carries. THAT is MY opinion. and I never said you were wrong in how you viewed the ad. ;)

I never argued that it was deliberate. I only agreed that it reinforces a potentially harmful myth. Doing that by accident is still not good, again in my opinion. sorry, I said the OP's rant, not you.

Whatever its intended message, my argument is that it is perpetuating a myth in the way that it is structured. sorry, but which myth is this? trying to look back on your posts, but either I missed it or didn't get to it yet.

edit: found it. if the myth you're referring to is that Alcohol causes rape, then I have to say you're wrong. Not about the myth itsself, but that the ad supports that myth.

I agree. Alcohol does not cause rape. a drunk woman won't be raped because she's drunk and a drunk man won't rape anyone because he's drunk.

Just like a gun won't cause someone to die in a shooting accident.

however...

Will you agree that alcohol impares judgement?

will you agree that alcohol will make someone vulnerable to be assaulted (not just raped, but mugged, kidnapped or whatever.)

will you agree that alcohol can embolden someone to assault someone else (a fight, Rape, or even get into a driving accident.)

nowhere in the ad does it say "drink and you will be raped." the ad narrator does not say "100% of all drunk teens are sexually assaulted or abused sexually."

Oh, come on. "Abused" means some form of sexual assault. It is a common modern usage. Don't start splitting semantical hairs with me, pretending to have confusion over what the words in the ad mean. sorry, but abuse is the infliction of physical or emotional injury and not JUST physical.

if it's mainly sexual in nature, then it's sexual abuse. if it's mainly physical, then it's physical abuse. if it's mainly emotional, then it's emotional abuse.

It doesn't have to SHOW a sexual assault. It only has to imply it and use language like "abused." Please, let's try to be real. I am "being real". the use of the word abuse does NOT exclusively mean sexual abuse. it includes sexual abuse but it does NOT only mean sexual abuse.

This is such utter BS, I'm not even going to argue it with you. I know you are too smart not to see the various ways in which you are (a) missing my point and (b) distorting what I said, so I can only assume you are just busting my chops for something to do, and you know how I respond when you do that.


If you are too lazy to read the thread, then I'm not going to argue with you about that, either.

There is no one who gets away with this. Not you, not anybody. If you don't have the faith in your argument enough to, you know, actually present an argument, then that's unfortunate, but your reply cops out of making an argument.

Why don't you call me a dick again? That will work. Or we can pretend like there is such a thing as good debate and you can actually try to participate in it.

I made the "mistake" of asking you to support your claims. You showed that you didn't think it was a cause. Fair enough. But there is NOTHING about that ad that suggests it's a cause. What the ad said is that it increases your risk, something you've utterly failed to address, rather focusing on a strawman "myth".

*snip*

They showed a girl being sexually assaulted. No question.

However, it's just one example they gave. Clearly, when rewatching the ad one can see that they aren't solely talking about rape, nor sexual assault. 67% of all teenagers was the number they used. There is no way that is a reference to only sexual incidents, nor is it a reference to only women.

They showed a girl being sexually assaulted. No question.
ah. as I said, the images were dark on my pc and I only saw a girl crying.

and I never said you were wrong in how you viewed the ad. ;)

sorry, I said the OP's rant, not you.
Very well then.

sorry, but which myth is this? trying to look back on your posts, but either I missed it or didn't get to it yet.

edit: found it. if the myth you're referring to is that Alcohol causes rape, then I have to say you're wrong. Not about the myth itsself, but that the ad supports that myth.

I agree. Alcohol does not cause rape. a drunk woman won't be raped because she's drunk and a drunk man won't rape anyone because he's drunk.

Just like a gun won't cause someone to die in a shooting accident.

however...

Will you agree that alcohol impares judgement?
Yes.

will you agree that alcohol will make someone vulnerable to be assaulted (not just raped, but mugged, kidnapped or whatever.)
No. I do not believe it makes a person (generic) MORE vulnerable than if they are sober. The reason I will not agree with that point is that it is vague and over-broad. Many people, male and female, appear so vulnerable to attack that they do not need to also appear impaired to become targets. Many people, male and female, appear so non-vulnerable (I won't say invulnerable, because nobody is that) that even when they are drunk off their asses, criminals are more likely to pass them by. Also, I do not believe that crime statistics bear out the assumption that being drunk increases the likelihood of being victimized. I believe the majority of crimes overall are still committed against sober or mostly sober people in full control of their faculties.

will you agree that alcohol can embolden someone to assault someone else (a fight, Rape, or even get into a driving accident.)
Yes, especially if the person in question is not a habitual criminal. However, a point of correction -- one does not need to be "emboldened" to get into an accident. That's why they are called "accidents." But one does need to be emboldened to ignore the law, or impaired enough to forget it, and drive while drunk.

nowhere in the ad does it say "drink and you will be raped." the ad narrator does not say "100% of all drunk teens are sexually assaulted or abused sexually."
I told you, it does not need to say it explicitly. Kindly do not make me repeat myself again.

sorry, but abuse is the infliction of physical or emotional injury and not JUST physical.

if it's mainly sexual in nature, then it's sexual abuse. if it's mainly physical, then it's physical abuse. if it's mainly emotional, then it's emotional abuse.

I am "being real". the use of the word abuse does NOT exclusively mean sexual abuse. it includes sexual abuse but it does NOT only mean sexual abuse.
You are wasting my time with hair-splitting, and I believe you know it. If not, you should at least know by now that I think you are. If you want to convince me that you have a point to make, you're going to have to do more than just repeat the same things again. Otherwise, I have explained why I reject this part of your argument, and I have nothing further to say about it.

There is no one who gets away with this. Not you, not anybody. If you don't have the faith in your argument enough to, you know, actually present an argument, then that's unfortunate, but your reply cops out of making an argument.

Why don't you call me a dick again? That will work. Or we can pretend like there is such a thing as good debate and you can actually try to participate in it.

I made the "mistake" of asking you to support your claims. You showed that you didn't think it was a cause. Fair enough. But there is NOTHING about that ad that suggests it's a cause. What the ad said is that it increases your risk, something you've utterly failed to address, rather focusing on a strawman "myth".

I DID present my argument. You distorted it.

I DID support my claims in this thread and told you so. You refused to look at my posts.

I DID address the way the ad approaches the issue of drinking and sexual assault/rape. You simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of my previous posts, apparently.

Now you are wasting everyone's time by pitching a fit instead of addressing the argument.

It is not my job to re-present all my arguments especially for you, on demand. If you cannot be bothered to read the posts of the people you want to debate with, then I'm sorry, I am not the debating partner for you, because I will not put on a private show just for you.

And if all you can do now is stamp and fret because you don't like that I will not dance to your tune, then I guess I may as well just ignore your existence, just as you do to my posts.

'Bye.

They showed a girl being sexually assaulted. No question.

However, it's just one example they gave. Clearly, when rewatching the ad one can see that they aren't solely talking about rape, nor sexual assault. 67% of all teenagers was the number they used. There is no way that is a reference to only sexual incidents, nor is it a reference to only women.

good point. Unless there are way more female teens in Australia than male teens the statistic they gave has to include more than Sexual Abuse and Sexual Assult. When I was a teenager I never heard of girls getting raped but I did hear of people getting into drunk fights and ending up in hospital.

Drinking isn't helping boys become rapists. That's absurd. Correllation is not causation.

The statistics Murayvets pointed out earlier in the thread state that 1 in 3 perpetrators are intoxicated when they attack their victims.

However, there is evidence that drinking is specifically used to lower the defenses of victims for all sorts of crimes. That's not correllation, that's causation.

Regardless, there are far worthier dangers of youth binge-drinking for the State Government to focus on. Why an ad featuring a girl being sexually assaulted after drinking? You can't tell me this isn't playing into the blame-the-victim mentality which leads to so many rapists being convicted?

There are no ads whatsoever? Or you aren't aware of the ads?

There were a small spate of advertisements a few years back called the 'One Punch Can Kill campaign. They ceased soon after they were brought out since it was shown that the campaign was not effective. Nothing since except your standard drink-driving advertisements.

Ads target demographics. Water is wet. The sky is blue.

and rape victims bring rape on themselves if they are drinking.

The statistics Murayvets pointed out earlier in the thread state that 1 in 3 perpetrators are intoxicated when they attack their victims.


Just a clarification: I do not think it is that boys are being made into rapists by drinking. It is that those boys/young men who are already inclined to take what they want from a girl without her consent, but who may be inhibited by social awareness when sober, may be more likely to act on their impulses when their inhibitions are lowered by excessive drinking.

I do not believe that boys who have no inclination to commit sexual assault or rape will suddenly get it from drinking.

To me the statistic about perpetrators being drunk or high when they commit their crimes goes to show the degree to which intoxication increases danger -- but it is not because of what it does to the girls. It is because of what it does to boys who have such inclinations but would restrain themselves, if not for being drunk.

The ad in the OP is not intended for potential victims. It is intended for parents who would buy their child alcohol. It is intended to scare them into not doing so.

And my issue with that ad is that it exploits a powerful and insidious myth to do so. I want to know why they are not focusing on the possibility of boys being raped at schoolies, since according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2005 (http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html), men are most at risk of sexual assault in public spaces and licensed premises from men they don't know, whereas a woman is most at risk in her own home from someone she does know.

Clearly, the demographic is way off here. Why focus on girls being sexually assaulted? Perhaps because it plays directly into the same community attitudes that see rape conviction rate so low? The myths that women often ask for it, that women are often responsible, and that victims don't actually mean what they say, as per the report into juror attitudes (http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2007/20071012-2.html) by the ABS?

This is my issue with the advert. The fact that it plays directly into this mentality.

Just a clarification: I do not think it is that boys are being made into rapists by drinking. It is that those boys/young men who are already inclined to take what they want from a girl without her consent, but who may be inhibited by social awareness when sober, may be more likely to act on their impulses when their inhibitions are lowered by excessive drinking.

I do not believe that boys who have no inclination to commit sexual assault or rape will suddenly get it from drinking.

To me the statistic about perpetrators being drunk or high when they commit their crimes goes to show the degree to which intoxication increases danger -- but it is not because of what it does to the girls. It is because of what it does to boys who have such inclinations but would restrain themselves, if not for being drunk.

I recognise that. I read a book recently which also posited a theory about why that is: Males who are already predisposed to rape or other sexual violence need something to lower their natural inhibitions and fears about getting caught to be able to perform the act.

EDIT: I hope that it's clear that I am not suggesting that all boys will turn into rapists if they drink, merely that it makes as much sense to suggest that supplying your son alcohol will turn him into a rapist as it does to suggest that giving your daughter alcohol will cause her to be raped.

However, you are bitching about an ad being *gasp* an ad. That's what ads do. They generally choose a demographic and they exaggerate in order to make their point. By the by, other burger joints don't have one inch wide patties despite what you might have heard in "Where's the beef?" commercials.


And in this advert, they are distorting and misrepresenting the dangers of binge-drinking which plays into community attitudes regarding rape and will actually hurt the cause of rape victims by encouraging this mentality of blaming the victim.

However, you are bitching about an ad being *gasp* an ad. That's what ads do. They generally choose a demographic and they exaggerate in order to make their point. By the by, other burger joints don't have one inch wide patties despite what you might have heard in "Where's the beef?" commercials.

I'm not wading into the minutiae of this back and forth, but think for a moment: isn't at least reasonable to be upset by an ad (and/or the defense of an ad) that treats rape with the same sensitivity as beef patties?

The statistics Murayvets pointed out earlier in the thread state that 1 in 3 perpetrators are intoxicated when they attack their victims.

Which shows correllation. You do know how that works, yeah?



Regardless, there are far worthier dangers of youth binge-drinking for the State Government to focus on. Why an ad featuring a girl being sexually assaulted after drinking? You can't tell me this isn't playing into the blame-the-victim mentality which leads to so many rapists being convicted?

I'd agree. There are far worthier dangers, but that's not your decision to make. There are far worthier dangers than drinking and driving, but I still have to watch those commercials.

I can tell you it's not playing into blame the victim. It's playing into the fact that of the things a parent can imagine happening to their child, sexual assault is pretty much the top of the list.



There were a small spate of advertisements a few years back called the 'One Punch Can Kill campaign. They ceased soon after they were brought out since it was shown that the campaign was not effective. Nothing since except your standard drink-driving advertisements.

Shocker. They don't use advertisements that don't work. What are you going to tell me next? McCain is white?


and rape victims bring rape on themselves if they are drinking.

Nothing better than strawmen. Fortunately, that's not the argument the ad makes. It doesn't even talk about the likelihood of rape, itself, but the overall likelihood of becoming a victim.

I'm curious. Are ads that encourage people to learn self-defense also blaming the victim?

I'm not wading into the minutiae of this back and forth, but think for a moment: isn't at least reasonable to be upset by an ad (and/or the defense of an ad) that treats rape with the same sensitivity as beef patties?

I don't like ads in general. They pander and insult our intelligence. More particularly, I thoroughly dislike the idea that making people afraid is helpful. However, I'm not going to pretend this is anymore stupid than ads that discourage cell phone use while driving but don't mention that passengers distracting you is a much greater risk or ads that suggest marijuana isn't harmless because you can kill someone if you drive under the influence.

The most important bit here is that this isn't someone getting upset with what the ad actually says, but what they decided it says. It doesn't focus on sexual assault at all. It's simply the example it used and I'm pretty sure we can all imagine why. It's not because the victim is at fault, that's for certain.

And in this advert, they are distorting and misrepresenting the dangers of binge-drinking which plays into community attitudes regarding rape and will actually hurt the cause of rape victims by encouraging this mentality of blaming the victim.

They are? What specifically did they distort, pray tell?

Meanwhile, they didn't blame the victim, your inability to see the ad for what it is, notwithstanding.

They are? What specifically did they distort, pray tell?

They presented a highly unlikely and rare situation and made it seem like an everyday occurrence.

Meanwhile, they didn't blame the victim, your inability to see the ad for what it is, notwithstanding.

You are seriously going to tell me, that with the low rates of conviction, persistent belief that women are somehow asking for it, and that women regularly falsely report rapes to cover up their shame and guilt over drunken sex, that this ad is not playing directly into this mentality? Which, to my way of thinking is to blame the victim. And as statistics I posted earlier today show, men are at far greater risk of being raped at licenced venues in Australia. Why not show a man being sexually assaulted? Far more shocking image if it is indeed shock value that they want. But no, they go for the tried and true formula of telling people; girls who get drunk should expect to get raped.

Which shows correllation. You do know how that works, yeah?

Yes. But why is it correlative in this instance and not when regarding the victim?

I'd agree. There are far worthier dangers, but that's not your decision to make. There are far worthier dangers than drinking and driving, but I still have to watch those commercials.

My issue with this advert is the fact that it doesn't actually focus on any of the real dangers of Schoolie's Week. The amount of sexual assaults reported is quite low. The dangers of Schoolie's Week lie in other things - drink-spiking, experimentation with drugs, fighting, and being attacked.

I can tell you it's not playing into blame the victim. It's playing into the fact that of the things a parent can imagine happening to their child, sexual assault is pretty much the top of the list.

But the advert confuses the issue. It is designed to scare parents out of buying alcohol for Schoolie's Week. Do you see how such adverts play into the mentality of most of the population that women are asking for it if they are raped? Do you not see how this sort of advertisement can hurt the cause of rape convictions by perpetuating that myth?

Shocker. They don't use advertisements that don't work. What are you going to tell me next? McCain is white?

What I want to know is where is the follow-up? The redesign? The fresh attempt to alleviate the problem. The problem still exists and male on male youth violence, fuelled by alcohol is one of the biggest problems in this country when looking at crime statistics.

Nothing better than strawmen. Fortunately, that's not the argument the ad makes. It doesn't even talk about the likelihood of rape, itself, but the overall likelihood of becoming a victim.

And chooses rape as the overriding image? When there are far more serious dangers at the event that the campaign is for?

I'm curious. Are ads that encourage people to learn self-defense also blaming the victim?

In some ways, yes they could be viewed that way. I have always advocated that men should be targeted in ads on this subject. That the focus shift to men. We don't tell people to stop driving their cars because they might get hit by a drunk driver, we tell drunk drivers to stop driving drunk. Why should a rape victim be told to protect herself, by not engaging in normal, legal activities or by having to learn self-defence, if rapists are not similarly told, don't do it.

They presented a highly unlikely and rare situation and made it seem like an everyday occurrence.

Yes, as do insurance ads and any number of ads like them.

You are seriously going to tell me, that with the low rates of conviction, persistent belief that women are somehow asking for it, and that women regularly falsely report rapes to cover up their shame and guilt over drunken sex, that this ad is not playing directly into this mentality? Which, to my way of thinking is to blame the victim. And as statistics I posted earlier today show, men are at far greater risk of being raped at licenced venues in Australia. Why not show a man being sexually assaulted? Far more shocking image if it is indeed shock value that they want. But no, they go for the tried and true formula of telling people; girls who get drunk should expect to get raped.

The persistent belief? Now who is talking about unlikely scenarios. That you choose to focus on the minority of people who blame the victim doesn't make your assumption the ad says something else a correct one.

Worse, they aren't even talking about rape. It's simply the example they chose, but the ad is about all violent crimes perpetrated against drunk victims.

Why not show a man? You know the answer. It wouldn't have the same impact. That's not the same as blaming the victim.

Meanwhile, even if getting drunk was a sure way to get raped, it still wouldn't make it a woman's fault. The ad does not suggest otherwise.

You chose to ignore most of the ad, pick up on an argument it doesn't make, and argue the hell out of that strawman. Forgive me if I'm unimpressed.

I notice you didn't answer my question? What's the matter, worried it will undermine your argument? Are ads that suggest self-defense classes blaming the victim?

Yes. But why is it correlative in this instance and not when regarding the victim?

Who said it wasn't? No one is claiming it is a cause. The ad certainly doesn't. It suggests a correllation and suggests that because it increases the risk (for a whole lot of reasons we can all identify) that parents should not encourage their children's drinking by purchasing alcohol for them.

My issue with this advert is the fact that it doesn't actually focus on any of the real dangers of Schoolie's Week. The amount of sexual assaults reported is quite low. The dangers of Schoolie's Week lie in other things - drink-spiking, experimentation with drugs, fighting, and being attacked.

It doesn't focus on sexual assaults. It talks about all assaults and abuse. It shows one example. It talks about all of the things you mentioned save the drug experimentation.

But the advert confuses the issue. It is designed to scare parents out of buying alcohol for Schoolie's Week. Do you see how such adverts play into the mentality of most of the population that women are asking for it if they are raped? Do you not see how this sort of advertisement can hurt the cause of rape convictions by perpetuating that myth?

No, I don't. It says no such thing. It suggest no such thing. It suggests that people are more vulnerable when drunk, whcih, frankly, is a pretty easy argument to make.

What I want to know is where is the follow-up? The redesign? The fresh attempt to alleviate the problem. The problem still exists and male on male youth violence, fuelled by alcohol is one of the biggest problems in this country when looking at crime statistics.

And? The ad speaks to that problem, in fact. Unfortunately, many parents find their child getting in a fight to be less of a concern than their child getting raped. You're upset that parents would be more concerned about rape?


And chooses rape as the overriding image? When there are far more serious dangers at the event that the campaign is for?

Again, you're upset that generally a parent would be more upset about their child getting raped than their child getting in a fight? Do you realize how inconsistent that it was with some of your other arguments?


In some ways, yes they could be viewed that way. I have always advocated that men should be targeted in ads on this subject. That the focus shift to men. We don't tell people to stop driving their cars because they might get hit by a drunk driver, we tell drunk drivers to stop driving drunk. Why should a rape victim be told to protect herself, by not engaging in normal, legal activities or by having to learn self-defence, if rapists are not similarly told, don't do it.

Even if they're less effective? You'd have a real problem convincing anyone to pay for less effective advertising. No one here has addressed the idea that parents find rape more concerning than most other types of violence.

To the last part, I agree. NO ONE should be discouraged from living their lives in order to protect themselves from crime. Still, while it's perfectly legal to pass out in a dark alley, I wouldn't recommend it. I also wouldn't excuse the person who takes your wallet why you're passed out.

I'm curious where your line is. It's perfectly legal to go home with random guys all the time. It's perfectly legal to go to a frat house alone with men you don't know. It's perfectly legal to walk around at 4AM in some of the roughest neighborhoods in the country. Would you willing pass out at those places? Would you willing leave your drink sitting around at a party with people you don't know? Can you think of anything that's a bad idea that might make you more likely to be a victim or to be unable to protect yourself when someone victimizes you? Anything you'd recommend people not do or be wary of? Because if there is anything, anything, you'd tell a friend to be wary of, you're a hypocrite.

Yes.


No. I do not believe it makes a person (generic) MORE vulnerable than if they are sober. The reason I will not agree with that point is that it is vague and over-broad. Many people, male and female, appear so vulnerable to attack that they do not need to also appear impaired to become targets. Many people, male and female, appear so non-vulnerable (I won't say invulnerable, because nobody is that) that even when they are drunk off their asses, criminals are more likely to pass them by. Also, I do not believe that crime statistics bear out the assumption that being drunk increases the likelihood of being victimized. I believe the majority of crimes overall are still committed against sober or mostly sober people in full control of their faculties.
So while you admit that it impares judgement, it doesn't make the person more vulerable to attack? doesn't alcohol slow reaction time as well? and that doesn't make a person vulnerable to attack?

yes, alot of crimes are committed by sober people NO ONE HERE (including the ad) ever said that crimes are ONLY comitted by drunk people and that crimes are only committed ON drunk people.. nice strawman you're trying to construct there.

Yes, especially if the person in question is not a habitual criminal. However, a point of correction -- one does not need to be "emboldened" to get into an accident. That's why they are called "accidents." But one does need to be emboldened to ignore the law, or impaired enough to forget it, and drive while drunk. except it makes them confident that they are well enough to drive. If the person was under the same state of imparement due to injury or illness, you think that person would be soo keen on driving? no Drunk Driving accidents occure because one person decides (s)he can still drive even tho (s)he can barely stand straight.

Remember the slogan "Friends don't let friends drive drunk"? "Have a Designated Driver"? why unless alot of drunks are confident they can drive safely while inebrated!

so YES, Alcohol can embolden a person into an accident.

and I'm so glad you think that only Habitual Criminals will commit crimes while drunk and that anyone else won't... so how can you tell who the Habitual Criminals are? are they the only ones with a police record? are they required to commit crimes sober before they start comitting crimes while drunk? :rolleyes:

I told you, it does not need to say it explicitly. Kindly do not make me repeat myself again. yet you would rather focus on the nice pictures and not the words. as you keep insisting that the ad is focusing on the MYTH that ALCOHOL CAUSES RAPE where that isn't even implied unless you are only focusing on the nice flashing pictures and NOT paying attention to the ad in whole.

You are wasting my time with hair-splitting, and I believe you know it. If not, you should at least know by now that I think you are. If you want to convince me that you have a point to make, you're going to have to do more than just repeat the same things again. Otherwise, I have explained why I reject this part of your argument, and I have nothing further to say about it.
considering YOUR WHOLE stance against the ad is focused only on the pictures being shown, you have some nerve to accuse me of Hair Splitting.

then again, maybe you think the pysical beating of women is NOT a PROBLEM because it's not sexual in nature. or the EMOTIONAL manipulation many women undergo is another myth because EMOTIONAL ABUSE doesn't exist in your little world. Abuse takes on many forms and it's rather narrow-minded of you to only say ABUSE MEANS SEXUAL ABUSE ONLY.

yet you would rather focus on the nice pictures and not the words. as you keep insisting that the ad is focusing on the MYTH that ALCOHOL CAUSES RAPE where that isn't even implied unless you are only focusing on the nice flashing pictures and NOT paying attention to the ad in whole.


considering YOUR WHOLE stance against the ad is focused only on the pictures being shown, you have some nerve to accuse me of Hair Splitting.

then again, maybe you think the pysical beating of women is NOT a PROBLEM because it's not sexual in nature. or the EMOTIONAL manipulation many women undergo is another myth because EMOTIONAL ABUSE doesn't exist in your little world. Abuse takes on many forms and it's rather narrow-minded of you to only say ABUSE MEANS SEXUAL ABUSE ONLY.

You defend the ad, fine. I even agree to a limited extent.

You try to argue that the ad isn't very clearly about sexual abuse, you lose all credibility.

You defend the ad, fine. I even agree to a limited extent.

You try to argue that the ad isn't very clearly about sexual abuse, you lose all credibility.

are you saying the ad is ONLY about sexual abuse?
so 67% of teens in australia are sexually abused?

So while you admit <snip a bunch of distortions of what I did say as well as things I did not say>
The Cat-Tribe just posted nearly exactly what my response would have been. I should really get my old fillings replaced, as they have apparently been broadcasting my thoughts to other people quite a lot recently. In any event, I refer you to TCT's post.

In addition, you blame me for criticizing the ad for some of its content on the grounds that it also has other content. That is a nonsensical argument. If someone is saying a lot of things, one just one of them is totally wrong, am I not supposed to point that out just because it's not the only thing they said? Don't be ridiculous.

I believe we have said all we can to each other on this issue. As far as I'm concerned, your counter-arguments have done nothing but distort my arguments, and nothing in your arguments has in any way caused me to doubt my own view of the ad. I see no reason to continue this particular back and forth unless/until some new information or material comes in. Shall we shelve it till then?

are you saying the ad is ONLY about sexual abuse?

First, this is the kind of hairsplitting duplicity to which I was objecting.

Second, what other kind of abuse is actually depicted in the ad?

so 67% of teens in australia are sexually abused?

You seem to be confusing the accompanying article with the ad itself.

Perhaps you are just confused, period.

First, this is the kind of hairsplitting duplicity to which I was objecting. Hair splitting duplicity cat tribe? people are arguing including Muryvets, whom you are defending, that the ad is perpetuating a myth that alcohol causes rape. The OP is arguing that the ad is a "blame the victim" campaign. and you say I'm hair splitting?

again cat tribe. do you think the ad is ONLY about sexual assault?

Second, what other kind of abuse is actually depicted in the ad? the image shows sexual assault, the narration is about all forms of assault and abuse. what do you think the ad is about cat tribe?

You seem to be confusing the accompanying article with the ad itself. considering I quoted the AD itself while everyone else is focusing on the sexual assault mentioned in the article, I think you got that backwards Cat Tribe. I am assuming you did watch the ad with sound on.

Perhaps you are just confused, period. I would re read all my posts Cat Tribe. You are the one confused.

The Cat-Tribe just posted nearly exactly what my response would have been. I should really get my old fillings replaced, as they have apparently been broadcasting my thoughts to other people quite a lot recently. In any event, I refer you to TCT's post.

In addition, you blame me for criticizing the ad for some of its content on the grounds that it also has other content. That is a nonsensical argument. If someone is saying a lot of things, one just one of them is totally wrong, am I not supposed to point that out just because it's not the only thing they said? Don't be ridiculous.

I believe we have said all we can to each other on this issue. As far as I'm concerned, your counter-arguments have done nothing but distort my arguments, and nothing in your arguments has in any way caused me to doubt my own view of the ad. I see no reason to continue this particular back and forth unless/until some new information or material comes in. Shall we shelve it till then?
you accused me of the same thing you're doing. you watch an image of a sexual assault and you are focuing only on the sexual assault.

no where does the ad state that crimes are only committed by drunk people. no where does the ad state that crimes are committed only ON drunk people. yet you said it perpetuates the myth that Alcohol commites crimes.

The amount of young drunk woman being sexualy abused IS rising, and it is because of the booze.

No, it's because we allow our sons to think respectlessly of women (and homosexuals).

It's a good scare tatic, it made me sit up and take notice(speaking as a parent), it may just have some positive impact.

Scare tactics never have a positive impact. Fear is a bad advisor. Nothing good can come of it (and if it does, it's by accident).

Hair splitting duplicity cat tribe? people are arguing including Muryvets, whom you are defending, that the ad is perpetuating a myth that alcohol causes rape. The OP is arguing that the ad is a "blame the victim" campaign. and you say I'm hair splitting?

again cat tribe. do you think the ad is ONLY about sexual assault?

the image shows sexual assault, the narration is about all forms of assault and abuse. what do you think the ad is about cat tribe?

considering I quoted the AD while everyone else is focusing on the sexual assault mentioned in the article, I think you got that backwards Cat Tribe.

I would re read all my posts Cat Tribe. You are the one confused.

Okay, first I apologize that I didn't listen carefully enough to the ad the first time. That statistic was in the ad.

Second, I thought I made clear I don't agree completely with the OP. I'm not particularly fond of the ad, but I think the OP reads a bit too much into it.

Nonetheless, contrary to what you have said, the ad very clearly depicts SEXUAL assault and you aren't doing yourself any favors in acting otherwise.

Finally, the ad has a context. That context includes myths about rape that are widely held (and even argued in this thread). Ignoring how the ad may play in that context is to be willfully blind.

EDIT: I've read all your posts in this thread, JuNii. You don't really want me to dissect them.

EDIT2: Does anyone have any information about that "67 per cent of teenagers were assaulted or abused while under the influence of alcohol" statistic? I'm not finding any support for it and I'm not sure it means what some of you are assuming.

Hair splitting duplicity cat tribe? people are arguing including Muryvets, whom you are defending, that the ad is perpetuating a myth that alcohol causes rape. The OP is arguing that the ad is a "blame the victim" campaign. and you say I'm hair splitting?
This argument means nothing. We say it does X. It actually does do X. It also does Y and Z. How does the presence of Y and Z make it inappropriate to criticize X?

again cat tribe. do you think the ad is ONLY about sexual assault?

the image shows sexual assault, the narration is about all forms of assault and abuse. what do you think the ad is about cat tribe?
Prove this. Prove that what you say was the actual intent of those who made the ad.

Until you show me the evidence that tells you that the ad is actually referring to non-sexual forms of abuse/assault, then you are the one speculating and making assumptions about the ad, your quotes from it notwithstanding. Maybe I'm mistaken, but the quote you pulled that I saw only said "abuse", and on that basis YOU have claimed that they were talking about non-sexual crimes, but they did not actually identify other kinds of assault/abuse. This is why I say that you are the one arguing based on things that are not in the ad, even as you criticize people for focusing on something that is in the ad.

Okay, so what should the ad be then?

"Drink all you want, you won't get raped"?

No, it's because we allow our sons to think respectlessly of women (and homosexuals).
Ok, so make an ad about that. While your busy changing the way the world raises their kids, this ad is going to have a more immediate impact. Hell, it isn't even about rape. It's trying to scare parents into not buying their kids alcohol.

Scare tactics never have a positive impact. Fear is a bad advisor. Nothing good can come of it (and if it does, it's by accident).
Sure they do. If I were a parent and saw this, and I'm scared that my daughter is going to get raped, would I not be less likely to buy her a ton of beer?

People are getting too caught up in the way the ad scares parents; they forgetting that the ad isn't aimed at rape or sexual assault, but alcohol.

For those defending the linkage of alcohol use and being victimized for rape, does this only apply to underage drinkers or should all women always avoid alcohol because they might be raped?

Nonetheless, contrary to what you have said, the ad very clearly depicts SEXUAL assault and you aren't doing yourself any favors in acting otherwise.

Finally, the ad has a context. That context includes myths about rape that are widely held (and even argued in this thread). Ignoring how the ad may play in that context is to be willfully blind.

actually Cat Tribe. for the most part we are in agreement. I asked if you thought the ad was only about sexual assault (as some claimed it was.) I was purposely focusing on the ONLY because alot of people here are only focusing on Rape.

while the ad shows sexual assault, it's because the television ad has to show something (for the most part, the images were so dark I couldn't make out what the night time scenes were I admitted this so It's not that I am ignoring what was SHOWN.) if it showed a drunken brawl, do you honestly believe that people will NOT be posting "Well, I've been drunk many times and never got into a fight... so the ad is a lie." If it showed people destroying property, do you honestly think people will NOT post "Well, I've never destroyed property when drunk... so the ad is a lie."

which is why I take both narration and visual with equal weight. the ad is warning parents about giving their underaged children alcohol Rape (both as a perpetuator and victim) is just one possible outcome. Them coming home unhurt is another possible outcome but alot of other things are also possible. How is an ad supposed to show that and how?

but I am curious. what other myths about rape do you feel the ad perpetuates?

For those defending the linkage of alcohol use and being victimized for rape, does this only apply to underage drinkers or should all women always avoid alcohol because they might be raped?

The announcement is clearly aimed at parents of potential underaged drinkers. To assume it's aimed at some sort of Prohibition imposed upon all Australian women is reading between the lines and then some.

you accused me of the same thing you're doing. you watch an image of a sexual assault and you are focuing only on the sexual assault.

no where does the ad state that crimes are only committed by drunk people. no where does the ad state that crimes are committed only ON drunk people. yet you said it perpetuates the myth that Alcohol commites crimes.
Give me a break. The ad show sexual assault, but I'm supposed to think about some other kind of violence? Really? You know what I AM thinking? I'm thinking your argument is BS.

It's also becoming redundant. Like I said earlier, as soon as you can show me any actual evidence that the makers of the ad meant for me to think of something other than what they showed me, then we can continue this argument. But if all you've got is YOUR ASSUMPTION that their words are not related to their pictures, then you have nothing with which to persuade me.

The announcement is clearly aimed at parents of potential underaged drinkers. To assume it's aimed at some sort of Prohibition imposed upon all Australian women is reading between the lines and then some.

I thought I rather clearly wasn't limiting myself to the advertisement, but rather was referring to arguments made in this thread. If I have to go back and quote them, I will.

But thanks for recognizing that the "use of alcohol increases risk of rape" argument borders on the ridiculous as well as being offensive.

EDIT:


The amount of young drunk woman being sexualy abused IS rising, and it is because of the booze.

They're saying binge drinking makes you vulnerable/a target/etc.

Drinking to excess makes you vulnerable. That's the implication.


Its not about blame, its about showing the risks of binge drinking. Just because you aren't to blame doesn't mean that its not an unforeseeable consequence that you should take steps to try and avoid.

Eh, I disagree. Drunken women get targeted as vulnerable.


It's merely to say that giving alcohol to young girls increases the risk of sexual abuse, and thus they conclude it to be one of the reasons it's a bad idea to give alcohol to your young daughters.

Just from the first page of this thread.

Now, are these posters advising all women to avoid alcohol all the time? Or are they perpetuating some myths?

Okay, so what should the ad be then?

"Drink all you want, you won't get raped"?
^^ False dichotomy aimed at ridiculing the ad's critics.

For those defending the linkage of alcohol use and being victimized for rape, does this only apply to underage drinkers or should all women always avoid alcohol because they might be raped?

There are two things we're arguing about here, whether the ad is true and whether it gives good advice.

I don't think anyone can argue it doesn't give good advice (don't give beer to your children) which means the only problem is whether the ad is true.

So does giving your children beer make them more vulnerable to rape? Probably. There's no good reason to think otherwise.

Is that a good reason to not give your children beer? Possibly, but it doesn't matter anyway because there are other good reasons not to give your children beer.

This argument means nothing. We say it does X. It actually does do X. It also does Y and Z. How does the presence of Y and Z make it inappropriate to criticize X?
When one states the ad is bad because of X supports myth W in your opionion. and when someone brings up Y or Z the response is "you're splitting hairs X is obviously supporting Myth W."

Prove this. Prove that what you say was the actual intent of those who made the ad. as soon as you prove that the ad perpetuates the myth that acohol causes you to be raped.

Until you show me the evidence that tells you that the ad is actually referring to non-sexual forms of abuse/assault, then you are the one speculating and making assumptions about the ad, your quotes from it notwithstanding. Maybe I'm mistaken, but the quote you pulled that I saw only said "abuse", and on that basis YOU have claimed that they were talking about non-sexual crimes, but they did not actually identify other kinds of assault/abuse. This is why I say that you are the one arguing based on things that are not in the ad, even as you criticize people for focusing on something that is in the ad.
so are you again saying that the only abuse that can occur is sexual in nature? why didn't the narriator say "Rape" or "Sexually" infront of Abuse and Assaulted? after all, they would if the ad only focused on Rape and Sexual Assault/Sexual Abuse.

the proof is located in what you've been ignoring till now. the narration. yes, Abuse INCLUDES rape and Sexual assault. I never said it didn't but the ad is not ONLY about Rape and that Acohol causes it.

I saw an ad about a woman lying about being in a spa because of her Glade candle while in the bathroom. are you saying that the candle only works in the bathroom? she doesn't state it only works in the bathroom but she never states otherwise either.

A battery commercial shows a woman litterally turning her back for a second and her son wanders away to buy a balloon. is that saying that all missing children wander away to buy balloons and are not kidnapped or worse? The ad doesn't say otherwise, and it shows a happy ending...

Just from the first page of this thread.

Now, are these posters advising all women to avoid alcohol all the time? Or are they perpetuating some myths?

For the benefit of the doubt let's assume they're all referring to underaged females still living with their parents- the primary target demographics of the visceral campaign. If anyone seriously believed all women- much less young women on their own were made more vulnerable then they're terrifying themselves over remote probabilities. They'd be better off worrying about lightning strikes, terrorist attacks or Godzilla having PMS.

but I am curious. what other myths about rape do you feel the ad perpetuates?

A victim's behavior contributes to rape.

Rape occurs outside and/or at night.

Rape happens to young attractive women.

Rape happens to women who are behaving badly.

Rape is an impulsive, spontaneous act.

Rapists are strangers in dark alleys.

And variations of the above.

I'm not saying the ad literally says any of the above, only that it reinforces these myths.

Give me a break. The ad show sexual assault, but I'm supposed to think about some other kind of violence? Really? You know what I AM thinking? I'm thinking your argument is BS. just as long as you are no longer thinking that the ad promotes that 'Alcohol causes one to be raped' myth then go ahead.

There are two things we're arguing about here, whether the ad is true and whether it gives good advice.

I don't think anyone can argue it doesn't give good advice (don't give beer to your children) which means the only problem is whether the ad is true.

So does giving your children beer make them more vulnerable to rape? Probably. There's no good reason to think otherwise.

Is that a good reason to not give your children beer? Possibly, but it doesn't matter anyway because there are other good reasons not to give your children beer.

Actually, I don't think anyone is arguing that the ad is "wrong" in the sense that it is untrue or gives bad advice. No one is arguing that people should give children beer.

Instead, some are arguing the ad is wrong because it reinforces rape myths.

Again, I'm somewhat conflicted as I think too much as been read into the ad by some, but others are ignoring the context in which the ad exists.

A victim's behavior contributes to rape.

Rape occurs outside and/or at night.

Rape happens to young attractive women.

Rape happens to women who are behaving badly.

Rape is an impulsive, spontaneous act.

Rapists are strangers in dark alleys.

And variations of the above.

I'm not saying the ad literally says any of the above, only that it reinforces these myths.

Faith and belief can be easily reinforced by someone who wants them reinforced. All it takes is altering one's perspective to accept something as proof of what they currently believe in. Look at the Palin report and the resulting spin as an example of that.

People who want to believe that drinking and partying behavior leads to women getting raped will accept the announcement as reinforcement. People who think that's a bunch of bullshit will have their beliefs reinforced by the same announcement as well.

just as long as you are no longer thinking that the ad promotes that 'Alcohol causes one to be raped' myth then go ahead.

Are you really going to deny that the ad implies the young woman's drinking gets her sexually assaulted?

Again, this is not to say the ad has no redeeming value, just that you aren't being any more reasonable than those you are denouncing.

When one states the ad is bad because of X supports myth W in your opionion. and when someone brings up Y or Z the response is "you're splitting hairs X is obviously supporting Myth W."
Well, there's your problem right there, because that is not what I said. I said you were splitting hairs over the definition of the word "abuse."

as soon as you prove that the ad perpetuates the myth that acohol causes you to be raped.
So, you refuse to prove ABC until I prove 3000? Seriously, JuNii, you clearly have no counter to the argument I actually made.

1) I have already explained in detail how I think the ad perpetuates the myth I say it does. I even posted statistics in support of my argument. If I'm not going to specially repackage and repost all that arguing just for Jocabia, what makes you think I'll do it just for you?

2) You have already taken away your own ability to argue that the ad does not do what I say it does because you yourself have agreed that the content I object to is actually in the ad. Thus, whether you agree with my interpretation or not, you have already acknowledged the existence of the evidence I use to support my interpretation. So you can't claim it's not there, and you can't claim that I'm talking about something that's not there.

3) YOU, however, are basing your entire argument on something you claim exists but is not in the ad itself. So I'm asking you to prove that your argument has any supporting evidence at all. So far, you have been unable to.


so are you again saying that the only abuse that can occur is sexual in nature? why didn't the narriator say "Rape" or "Sexually" infront of Abuse and Assaulted? after all, they would if the ad only focused on Rape and Sexual Assault/Sexual Abuse.
^^ Strawman. I NEVER said what you just accused me of saying "again." Are you left with nothing but misrepresentations now?

the proof is located in what you've been ignoring till now. the narration. yes, Abuse INCLUDES rape and Sexual assault. I never said it didn't but the ad is not ONLY about Rape and that Acohol causes it.
You have already been given the arguments as to why this assertion is bull. You are doing nothing but repeating yourself at this point. You are not advancing your argument -- just spinning your wheels.

I saw an ad about a woman lying about being in a spa because of her Glade candle while in the bathroom. are you saying that the candle only works in the bathroom? she doesn't state it only works in the bathroom but she never states otherwise either.

A battery commercial shows a woman litterally turning her back for a second and her son wanders away to buy a balloon. is that saying that all missing children wander away to buy balloons and are not kidnapped or worse? The ad doesn't say otherwise, and it shows a happy ending...
More strawman BS.

You made your argument. It was weak and failed to either persuade or beat down your opponents. You have been unable to strengthen it. You have been asked more than once for more material. You have failed to produce it, and you have not made any apparent effort to find any. I think I'm done with you.

just as long as you are no longer thinking that the ad promotes that 'Alcohol causes one to be raped' myth then go ahead.
Actually, I think I can hold both thoughts -- that the ad perpetuates the myth that women's drinking is what leads to rape AND that your argument is BS -- and I think I can be right about both, too.

Faith and belief can be easily reinforced by someone who wants them reinforced. All it takes is altering one's perspective to accept something as proof of what they currently believe in. Look at the Palin report and the resulting spin as an example of that.

People who want to believe that drinking and partying behavior leads to women getting raped will accept the announcement as reinforcement. People who think that's a bunch of bullshit will have their beliefs reinforced by the same announcement as well.
Do you see no benefit in NOT reinforcing myths about sex crime?

Do you see no benefit in NOT reinforcing myths about sex crime?

You're howling as if the announcement dramatically spiked sexual assaults against young women. Reinforcement of belief is like a consumer demand: There is no place people will look for it if one source is cut off.

You're howling as if the announcement dramatically spiked sexual assaults against young women. Reinforcement of belief is like a consumer demand: There is no place people will look for it if one source is cut off.
And another remark meant to make a critic of the ad seem ridiculous while at the same time trying to prop up a strawman on me.

I am typing, not "howling."

I am criticizing certain content in the ad, not "howling."

I never said anything that even remotely relates to or sounds like accusing the ad of causing sexual assaults, so that's just plain old bull on your part.

And finally, your last remark is a shallow and unsupportable shrugging off of the matter, rather than an argument addressing it. I am no longer suprised at that. It has become clear to me that there are no counter-arguments to my criticism of the ad, since none of the arguments directed to me have actually addressed what I have been saying.

And another remark meant to make a critic of the ad seem ridiculous while at the same time trying to prop up a strawman on me.

I am typing, not "howling."

I am criticizing certain content in the ad, not "howling."

I never said anything that even remotely relates to or sounds like accusing the ad of causing sexual assaults, so that's just plain old bull on your part.

And finally, your last remark is a shallow and unsupportable shrugging off of the matter, rather than an argument addressing it. I am no longer suprised at that. It has become clear to me that there are no counter-arguments to my criticism of the ad, since none of the arguments directed to me have actually addressed what I have been saying.

You want a well-intentioned service announcement thrown out on a technicality. How is constantly throwing a fit about a statistical inaccuracy and solely focusing on that aspect of the announcement rather than trying to take into account the intended target audience as well as the context of the calculated message can be construed in an online argument as anything other than howling?

If the message was about warning parents about sexual assault then yes, it would be a bad campaign. But that portion is a calculated emotional appeal designed to scare parents who might buy alcohol for their children to reconsider that idea. Scare Straight education programs work on the same basic principles of terrifying the target audience against a certain course of socially dispproved action by implying that criminal life and incarceration might be the result. If you want this service announcement repealed on the basis of a technicality, then you ought to also be in favor of repealing Scare Straight programs because they also work on similar principles.

You want a well-intentioned service announcement thrown out on a technicality. How is constantly throwing a fit about a statistical inaccuracy and solely focusing on that aspect of the announcement rather than trying to take into account the intended target audience as well as the context of the calculated message can be construed in an online argument as anything other than howling?

If the message was about warning parents about sexual assault then yes, it would be a bad campaign. But that portion is a calculated emotional appeal designed to scare parents who might buy alcohol for their children to reconsider that idea. Scare Straight education programs work on the same basic principles of terrifying the target audience against a certain course of socially dispproved action by implying that criminal life and incarceration might be the result. If you want this service announcement repealed on the basis of a technicality, then you ought to also be in favor of repealing Scare Straight programs because they also work on similar principles.

Oh, come now. The "Scared Straight" argument is a giant strawman.

But, if all that matters is the ad's intent to scare parents and the accuracy of the information imparted is irrelevant, why not show Godzilla eating the girl when she opens the first beer?

Or why doesn't it show a young man being assaulted after drinking alcohol given to him by his parents?

Regardless, no one objects to the ad's intent to try to persuade parents not to give alcohol to their children. Those that have objected have objected to the way in which the ad seeks to scare parents, because it reinforces rape myths.

Reinforcement of belief is like a consumer demand: There is no place people will look for it if one source is cut off.

WTF are you trying to say?

You want a well-intentioned service announcement thrown out on a technicality. How is constantly throwing a fit about a statistical inaccuracy and solely focusing on that aspect of the announcement rather than trying to take into account the intended target audience as well as the context of the calculated message can be construed in an online argument as anything other than howling?
Continuously insulting and belittling your opponent while misrepresenting her argument (kindly quote where I said anything about having the ad "thrown out") does not lend credibility to your position.

If the message was about warning parents about sexual assault then yes, it would be a bad campaign. But that portion is a calculated emotional appeal designed to scare parents who might buy alcohol for their children to reconsider that idea. Scare Straight education programs work on the same basic principles of terrifying the target audience against a certain course of socially dispproved action by implying that criminal life and incarceration might be the result. If you want this service announcement repealed on the basis of a technicality, then you ought to also be in favor of repealing Scare Straight programs because they also work on similar principles.
You're just repeating the same argument that I have already posted objections/counters to. Why don't you try addressing some of those objections/counters instead of just lobbing the same ball at me as if you think someday I'm not going to lob it back in the same way I've been doing? You could start by answering the question I asked you:

Do you see no benefit in NOT reinforcing myths about sex crime?

WTF are you trying to say?

If one source says something certain people don't like, they'll turn to another that says something more to their favor. That's how the Bush Administration operated pretty much. Sack people who didn't say or did what they wanted and replace them with people who did.

If one source says something certain people don't like, they'll turn to another that says something more to their favor. That's how the Bush Administration operated pretty much. Sack people who didn't say or did what they wanted and replace them with people who did.

So it doesn't matter if a government ad campaign reinforces rape myths, because some people may believe in those myths regardless?

Pretty weak point.

Continuously insulting and belittling your opponent while misrepresenting her argument (kindly quote where I said anything about having the ad "thrown out") does not lend credibility to your position.

If I've actually insulted and belittled you, why haven't you turned me in to a mod for action? Otherwise you're being overdramatic about this.

And since your argument is centered on the announcement being fatally flawed due to propogating a myth, it inherently includes the proposal that the announcement be discontinued and replaced by something else entirely- the emphasis on drunk driving fatalities- which incidentally also focuses on a myth that all Australian teens drive after drinking. How is that not calling for it to be thrown out?

You're just repeating the same argument that I have already posted objections/counters to. Why don't you try addressing some of those objections/counters instead of just lobbing the same ball at me as if you think someday I'm not going to lob it back in the same way I've been doing? You could start by answering the question I asked you:

Do you see no benefit in NOT reinforcing myths about sex crime?

Unless there's hard copy proof that it will actually increase the incidence of sexual assault in Australia, then no. Abstinence-only education has plenty of hard copy evidence that it actually increases teen pregnancies so trying to de-emphasizing it is a prudent course of action. So far I have yet to hear of rape and sexual assault spiking in Australia following this announcement.

So it doesn't matter if a government ad campaign reinforces rape myths, because some people may believe in those myths regardless?

Pretty weak point.

Since the campaign reinforces rape myths, it should be abolished. Is that what you're proposing?

Oh, come now. The "Scared Straight" argument is a giant strawman.

But, if all that matters is the ad's intent to scare parents and the accuracy of the information imparted is irrelevant, why not show Godzilla eating the girl when she opens the first beer?

Who's pitching up the strawman now?

What's more believable to a parent in terms of bad things happening to their child? Godzilla eating them, or them being subjected to sexual violence?

:rolleyes:

Or why doesn't it show a young man being assaulted after drinking alcohol given to him by his parents?

If this was a lingering fear in the target demographics then this would have been likely included as well.

Regardless, no one objects to the ad's intent to try to persuade parents not to give alcohol to their children. Those that have objected have objected to the way in which the ad seeks to scare parents, because it reinforces rape myths.

The biggest argument in this argument is the emphasis between factual accuracy and the deliberate psychological manipulation of viewer emotion to deliver a desired result.

From how political campaigns tend to turn out I've learned that calculated messages delivered at a personal level at the expense of accuracy that strikes visceral and emotional chords with an audience tend to have more staying power than factual statistics.

Look at how the Mushroom Cloud killed off Barry Goldwater's presidential bid as one historical example.

This will not be true with all cases, but the notion of having your child raped will hit most parents a lot more immediate than the notion of having that same child killed in a drunk driving accident. They are both traumatic and I'm not downplaying the seriousness of either, but sexual violence will stir more alarm and outrage in Western culture than physical violence alone as can be reflected in sex offender laws and prison culture.

For those defending the linkage of alcohol use and being victimized for rape, does this only apply to underage drinkers or should all women always avoid alcohol because they might be raped?

I'll answer. It's friggin' stupid. It's a stupid ad. There is no question it's a stupid ad. Trying to convince people that they should live in terror of being victimized is stupid. Expecting you can impart upon people what it takes to operate reasonably safely in a 30-second spot is stupid. That's my take.

That said if I start complaining every time an ad is stupid, I'd never finish.

However, my only beef with the thread itself is that the ad makes no such argument as the one the OP is complaining about.

If I've actually insulted and belittled you, why haven't you turned me in to a mod for action? Otherwise you're being overdramatic about this.
I'm being overdramatic because I DON'T run crying to the mods just because you resorted to a weak ad hominem in trying to defend your even weaker argument?

You're funny. :D


And since your argument is centered on the announcement being fatally flawed due to propogating a myth, it inherently includes the proposal that the announcement be discontinued and replaced by something else entirely- the emphasis on drunk driving fatalities- which incidentally also focuses on a myth that all Australian teens drive after drinking. How is that not calling for it to be thrown out?
Even funnier. :D :D

And no, one does not automatically follow the other. You are still claiming that I made an argument that I never made.

Unless there's hard copy proof that it will actually increase the incidence of sexual assault in Australia, then no. Abstinence-only education has plenty of hard copy evidence that it actually increases teen pregnancies so trying to de-emphasizing it is a prudent course of action. So far I have yet to hear of rape and sexual assault spiking in Australia following this announcement.
So you DO support lying to the public? Why?

And are you, by extension, saying that you do not believe it would have been better if the ad had been made in such a way as to not spread this particular myth, but rather to have given accurate information about the risks of excessive drinking? Why?

Also, incidentally, are you agreeing with me that the ad does in fact perpetuate the particular myth about rape/sexual assault that I have been saying it does?

And are you, by extension, saying that you do not believe it would have been better if the ad had been made in such a way as to not spread this particular myth, but rather to have given accurate information about the risks of excessive drinking? Why?

They could have used a factually accurate announcement yes, but like in my reply to TCT I have the impression it would have been less vivid and lingering in the Australian public's mind than this piece which was calculated to focus on an almost primal fear that parents have for their female offsprings subject to sexual violence.

Also, incidentally, are you agreeing with me that the ad does in fact perpetuate the particular myth about rape/sexual assault that I have been saying it does?

Until I get statistical proof, I'm not going to say this ad promotes rape. The same way I won't say it decreases rape until there's statistical proof. Please don't lead the witness.

Who's pitching up the strawman now?

What's more believable to a parent in terms of bad things happening to their child? Godzilla eating them, or them being subjected to sexual violence?

:rolleyes:

I am not presuming to answer for TCT, but one point of information:

I believe what he did is called a reductio ad absurdum. It is a tactic that shows up the flaws in a line of argument/reasoning by applying it until it becomes absurd.

It is not a strawman. A strawman involves a person setting up an argument that no one else is actually making and then attacking that, rather than attacking the arguments that are actually being made by his/her opponents.

They could have used a factually accurate announcement yes, but like in my reply to TCT I have the impression it would have been less vivid and lingering in the Australian public's mind than this piece which was calculated to focus on an almost primal fear that parents have for their female offsprings subject to sexual violence.
Your impressions do not impress me. They are one of the reasons I consider your argument to be weak.

Until I get statistical proof, I'm not going to say this ad promotes rape. The same way I won't say it decreases rape until there's statistical proof. Please don't lead the witness.
Still dancing around that burning strawman of yours?

1) That is not what I asked you.

2) I never said the ad promotes rape. I said it perpetuates a myth about rape. Try addressing the arguments that have been presented to you rather than the ones you just imagine.

3) What about the other questions?

I am not presuming to answer for TCT, but one point of information:

I believe what he did is called a reductio ad absurdum. It is a tactic that shows up the flaws in a line of argument/reasoning by applying it until it becomes absurd.

It is not a strawman. A strawman involves a person setting up an argument that no one else is actually making and then attacking that, rather than attacking the arguments that are actually being made by his/her opponents.

Yes, but a Reductio Ad Absurdum can lead to Straw Men arguments in some cases.

Yes, but a Reductio Ad Absurdum can lead to Straw Men arguments in some cases.
But not in this case.

I'm going to bed. Later.

Your impressions do not impress me. They are one of the reasons I consider your argument to be weak.

Still dancing around that burning strawman of yours?

1) That is not what I asked you.

2) I never said the ad promotes rape. I said it perpetuates a myth about rape. Try addressing the arguments that have been presented to you rather than the ones you just imagine.

3) What about the other questions?

My opinions don't matter to you or anyone else, and it certainly won't matter to the Australian government. Normally I would support the supression of myth, but this announcement is a gray area. I understand that it's based on a myth, but if it works as intended and terrifies parents from buying their children alcohol then it is a comparatively small price to pay. And I believe that it will likely work given how it strikes at the near-primal fear of children threatened with sexual violence that most parents have.

The argument over this announcement is vaguely a real-life Ozymandias Dilemma, where the truth behind something and the intended effect of the forementioned something are at odds with each other. We know there's a myth behind this ad, but is it really too great a cost if it scares the parents from buying their kids a twelve-pack?

My opinions don't matter to you or anyone else, and it certainly won't matter to the Australian government. Normally I would support the supression of myth, but this announcement is a gray area. I understand that it's based on a myth, but if it works as intended and terrifies parents from buying their children alcohol then it is a comparatively small price to pay. And I believe that it will likely work given how it strikes at the near-primal fear of children threatened with sexual violence that most parents have.

The argument over this announcement is vaguely a real-life Ozymandias Dilemma, where the truth behind something and the intended effect of the forementioned something are at odds with each other. We know there's a myth behind this ad, but is it really too great a cost if it scares the parents from buying their kids a twelve-pack?

Hmm...that seems like a slippery slope. The "small price" you refer to is using misinformation (or "myth") and fear (particularly parental fears) to promote what is hoped will be a good result.

That methodology might have a larger price to render, on all involved.

A victim's behavior contributes to rape.


How could that be a myth? If you're less defensive, less aware of what's happening and far more suggestible, then it's a lot easier for a sexual predator to have his way with you. I've seen it loads of times with my own eyes, I've seen loads of people get into awkward sexual situations whilst drunk that they would never dream of doing normally.


Rape occurs outside and/or at night.


I think you have a very strange definition of myth. Just because something is rare, does not make it a myth. It is rare for rape to be committed outside (relative to overall rape statistics that is), that does not mean it's a myth .


Rape happens to young attractive women.

Rape happens to women who are behaving badly.

Rape is an impulsive, spontaneous act.

Rapists are strangers in dark alleys.


Same as above.

I really never expected this thread to go on this long. And I should really not post things when I have a visceral and gut reaction to them.

Yes, in the OP, I was ranting and a little melodramatic as has been pointed out.

But I do have a real problem with the perpetuation of rape myths in the advertisement.

Do I think (as might have been implied in the OP) that it will turn boys into rapists - no. Do I have a problem with the way it plays into the community mentality - yes. Do I think it focusses on an unlikely possibility at the expense of more important and dangerous situations - yes. Do I think that the advert, designed for Schoolie's Week should have focussed on male binge-drinking and the accompanying problems, which are actually prevalent during this celebration, rather than a situation which is extremely unlikely and feeds into a community mentality which sees exceptionally low conviction rates for the crime depicted because many people in the community believe that a woman is partially to blame for her own rape - YES.

I apologise if I have not made this clear in previous posts.

How could that be a myth? If you're less defensive, less aware of what's happening and far more suggestible, then it's a lot easier for a sexual predator to have his way with you. I've seen it loads of times with my own eyes, I've seen loads of people get into awkward sexual situations whilst drunk that they would never dream of doing normally.



I think you have a very strange definition of myth. Just because something is rare, does not make it a myth. It is rare for rape to be committed outside (relative to overall rape statistics that is), that does not mean it's a myth .



Same as above.
Yet again, you completely ignore FACTS that are laid before you in answer to specific arguments, just so you can keep repeating your preferred line.

Here's a blast from the past, all the way from Page 2 of this thread, originally addressed TO YOU:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14087047&postcount=25

Some content from that post, which you ignored:

http://www.rainn.org/statistics
The sources this site uses are listed at the bottom of the individual subject pages.

Victim profile numbers:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information...ssault-victims

Since we're worried about underage girls getting raped:
93% of juvenile sexual assault victims know their attacker.

34.2% of attackers were family members.
58.7% were acquaintances.
Only 7% of the perpetrators were strangers to the victim.
I'd be interested to know the number of rapes of juveniles and children committed by members of the victims' households involved binge drinking.

Rapist profile numbers:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information...ault-offenders
Almost 2/3 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim.
73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger.
38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance.
28% are an intimate.
7% are a relative.
And as for going out partying being the dangerous activity:
More than 50% of all rape/sexual assault incidents were reported by victims to have occured within 1 mile of their home or at their home.

4 in 10 take place at the victim's home.
2 in 10 take place at the home of a friend, neighbor, or relative.
1 in 12 take place in a parking garage.
Going out is apparently not as dangerous as going home.

And as to the involvment of booze:
In 1 in 3 sexual assaults, the perpetrator was intoxicated — 30% with alcohol, 4% with drugs.
Maybe the people who criticized the ad for concentrating on the girl getting drunk rather than the guys who raped her, have a point.

How could that be a myth? If you're less defensive, less aware of what's happening and far more suggestible, then it's a lot easier for a sexual predator to have his way with you. I've seen it loads of times with my own eyes, I've seen loads of people get into awkward sexual situations whilst drunk that they would never dream of doing normally.

I think you have a very strange definition of myth. Just because something is rare, does not make it a myth. It is rare for rape to be committed outside (relative to overall rape statistics that is), that does not mean it's a myth .

Same as above.

!. As to my definition of "myth," here is the definition of myth(n) from the Oxford English Dictionary (emphasis added):

1. a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

b. As a mass noun: such stories collectively or as a genre.
In later use coloured by sense 2a.

2. a. A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.

b. A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious). Cf. LEGEND n. 8.

c. A popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates or idealizes the truth.


2. Your confusion of "awkward sexual situations" and rape speaks for itself.

Yet again, you completely ignore FACTS that are laid before you in answer to specific arguments, just so you can keep repeating your preferred line.


I've already explained, twice now, that those statistics prove absolutely fuck all, and are pretty much irrelevant as well. Those statistics only show that certain activities are rare, relative to other activities, not that they do not happen at all.

Are you really going to deny that the ad implies the young woman's drinking gets her sexually assaulted? yes. because Alcohol does not cause rape or sexual assaults.

Again, this is not to say the ad has no redeeming value, just that you aren't being any more reasonable than those you are denouncing. really? focusing on the pictures and not all the components of the ad is just as responsible as focusing on one factor (The visual) of the ad (both visual and narration)?

Didn't you once call focusing on one factor of the evidence 'cherry picking'?

!. As to my definition of "myth," here is the definition of myth(n) from the Oxford English Dictionary (emphasis added):

1. a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

b. As a mass noun: such stories collectively or as a genre.
In later use coloured by sense 2a.

2. a. A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.

b. A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious). Cf. LEGEND n. 8.

c. A popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates or idealizes the truth.



Just to be clear, when you say that these:

Rape happens to young attractive women.

Rape happens to women who are behaving badly.

Rapists are strangers in dark alleys.

Rape is an impulsive, spontaneous act.

are myths. Do you actually mean that they do not happen at all, or that they are rare?


2. Your confusion of "awkward sexual situations" and rape speaks for itself.

I could easily see how these awkward sexual situations would turn into full on sexual abuse if more alcohol was involved, in fact some of these situations bordered on sexual abuse themselves. I'm not (as anyone with reading comprehension could tell) literally saying that awkward sexual situations and rape are the same thing.

I've already explained, twice now, that those statistics prove absolutely fuck all, and are pretty much irrelevant as well.
You "explained" no such thing. You merely claimed it, but claiming that information is "irrelevant" just because it does not support what you are trying to argue does not carry your point for you.

Those statistics only show that certain activities are rare, relative to other activities, not that they do not happen at all.
Wrong again. They show that certain activities are COMMON, just not the activities you wish.

Just to be clear, when you say that these:

Rape happens to young attractive women.

Rape happens to women who are behaving badly.

Rapists are strangers in dark alleys.

Rape is an impulsive, spontaneous act.

are myths. Do you actually mean that they do not happen at all, or that they are rare?

I mean that contrary to the popularly held belief that such things are typical of rape, they are actually very rare and not at all descriptive of rape as it really happens. I also mean, as to some of the statements, such as "rape is impulsive" and "rape happens to women who are behaving badly" that the statements are generally false. Clear enough for you?


I could easily see how these awkward sexual situations would turn into full on sexual abuse if more alcohol was involved, in fact some of these situations bordered on sexual abuse themselves. I'm not (as anyone with reading comprehension could tell) literally saying that awkward sexual situations and rape are the same thing.

I know what you literally said, and it perpetuates a false stereotype of how rape happens. Rape isn't something that happens when two people get a little carried away by alcohol. It is a crime of violence, usually premeditated violence.

You "explained" no such thing. You merely claimed it, but claiming that information is "irrelevant" just because it does not support what you are trying to argue does not carry your point for you.


It does not support anything, it's just a load of inconsequential statistics. If I was arguing that one type of rape is more common than another type of rape, then it would actually be relevant to something, I am not, thus they are irrelevant.


Wrong again. They show that certain activities are COMMON, just not the activities you wish.

Yes they show they are common relative to other activities, but no actual numbers are presented, only percentages and ratios. Just because other types of death are hundreds of times more common than deaths from car accidents, does not mean we should ignore the threat of dangerous driving.

Are you really going to deny that the ad implies the young woman's drinking gets her sexually assaulted?
yes. because Alcohol does not cause rape or sexual assaults.

Thank you for illustrating my point about your unreasonableness.

We have nothing more to discuss. :(

I mean that contrary to the popularly held belief that such things are typical of rape, they are actually very rare and not at all descriptive of rape as it really happens. I also mean, as to some of the statements, such as "rape is impulsive" and "rape happens to women who are behaving badly" that the statements are generally false. Clear enough for you?


To be honest, the only important message the advert is trying to get out is that intoxication results in increased risk of rape. Can you show that rape is extremely rare when the victim is intoxicated, and I don't mean relative to other types of rape, I mean literally? As for the other 'myths', they don't really matter because if you're going to have an advert about drink, then it's going to be at a party, it's going to be at night and the rape is going to be somewhere private so others can't see. It's unreasonable to expect an advert to depict an alcohol related rape in the middle of the party where everyone can see, in the middle of the day, with a very ugly woman etc... Also, we don't know if the rapists are strangers, they may be acquaintances of hers.


I know what you literally said, and it perpetuates a false stereotype of how rape happens. Rape isn't something that happens when two people get a little carried away by alcohol.

Are you saying this never happens, or are you saying it rarely happens?

It does not support anything, it's just a load of inconsequential statistics. If I was arguing that one type of rape is more common than another type of rape, then it would actually be relevant to something, I am not, thus they are irrelevant.



Yes they show they are common relative to other activities, but no actual numbers are presented, only percentages and ratios. Just because other types of death are hundreds of times more common than deaths from car accidents, does not mean we should ignore the threat of dangerous driving.
Your willful blindness is very tiresome. I will explain this to you only once more:

1) If the argument is that women getting drunk puts them at greater risk of getting raped, the statistics show that this is FALSE. In fact, it is SEX OFFENDERS getting drunk that puts women at greater risk of getting raped.

2) If the argument is that binge drinking at parties puts women at greater risk of getting raped, the statistics showthat this is FALSE. In fact, MORE rapes are committed against women when they are alone in or near their own homes.

3) If the argument is that partying and drinking around strangers puts women at greater risk of getting raped, the statistics show that this is FALSE. In fact, the majority of women are raped by someone known to them.

4) If the argument is that underage drinking will increase the risk of young girls getting raped by young boys, the statistics show this is FALSE. In fact, the majority of young girls are raped or sexually assaulted by someone in their own families and/or households or someone at school.

So, considering that the ad suggests that letting your underage daughter get drunk at a party (and breaking the law to do it) increases her risk of getting sexually assaulted, the ad is referring to something that is FALSE, according to these statistics.

Now that I have manually connected these dots for you, in front of your very eyes, any further attempts on your part to claim that these statistics are not relevant to this discussion will be answered by a link back to this post.

*snip*

I'm done beating my head against this particular wall.

Your willful blindness is very tiresome. I will explain this to you only once more:

1) If the argument is that women getting drunk puts them at greater risk of getting raped, the statistics show that this is FALSE. In fact, it is SEX OFFENDERS getting drunk that puts women at greater risk of getting raped.

2) If the argument is that binge drinking at parties puts women at greater risk of getting raped, the statistics showthat this is FALSE. In fact, MORE rapes are committed against women when they are alone in or near their own homes.

3) If the argument is that partying and drinking around strangers puts women at greater risk of getting raped, the statistics show that this is FALSE. In fact, the majority of women are raped by someone known to them.

4) If the argument is that underage drinking will increase the risk of young girls getting raped by young boys, the statistics show this is FALSE. In fact, the majority of young girls are raped or sexually assaulted by someone in their own families and/or households or someone at school.

So, considering that the ad suggests that letting your underage daughter get drunk at a party (and breaking the law to do it) increases her risk of getting sexually assaulted, the ad is referring to something that is FALSE, according to these statistics.

Now that I have manually connected these dots for you, in front of your very eyes, any further attempts on your part to claim that these statistics are not relevant to this discussion will be answered by a link back to this post.

You fundamentally do not understand how statistics works, I really cannot be bothered to explain very basic principles to you of logic and statistics, because I know that if I dissect each point one by one it will turn into a massive, repetitive and circular quote stack debate which will probably last for days, knowing you.

I'm done beating my head against this particular wall.
It does get to be a drag after a while, doesn't it?

Are you really going to deny that the ad implies the young woman's drinking gets her sexually assaulted? yes. because Alcohol does not cause rape or sexual assaults.Thank you for illustrating my point about your unreasonableness.

We have nothing more to discuss. :(
apparently we don't. considering you keep focusing on one part of the whole. remember this the next time you accuse others of cherry picking evidence or arguing semantics.

You fundamentally do not understand how statistics works, I really cannot be bothered to explain very basic principles to you of logic and statistics, because I know that if I dissect each point one by one it will turn into a massive, repetitive and circular quote stack debate which will probably last for days, knowing you.
And as usual, when confronted head-on with a supported argument and when you can no longer pretend it does not exist, rather than even try to address it intelligently, you cut and run, while tossing a little peevish-sounding blame at your opponent.

You fail, H. Again.

apparently we don't. considering you keep focusing on one part of the whole. remember this the next time you accuse others of cherry picking evidence or arguing semantics.
I don't remember you addressing a question I asked you at least twice (maybe you did, and I missed it in the flurry; or maybe I asked someone else; there's been so much back-and-forth in this thread):

If a person presents an argument containing points X, Y, and Z, and you take exception to point X, why is it not okay to criticize point X, regardless of points Y and Z?

I'm done beating my head against this particular wall.

Really? The things I said were incredibly simple. I asked for a statistic showing exactly how rare rape from intoxication is, not as a ratio, but as an actual figure. I also explained that it's unreasonable for an advert to depict rape in broad daylight and where people are intoxicated in the middle of the day, where it's done in front of everyone etc... So there is no reason to whine about them depicting it at night and in an alleyway and that the person is in the advert is attractive. As for it being impulsive or spontaneous, I don't see how the advert is showing that at all. As for 'behaving badly', that's just being intoxicated, so that's reliant on whether you can show that being intoxicated itself does not increase risk of rape.

And as usual, when confronted head-on with a supported argument and when you can no longer pretend it does not exist, rather than even try to address it intelligently, you cut and run, while tossing a little peevish-sounding blame at your opponent.

You fail, H. Again.

Utter and complete bullshit. Every other argument I've had with you, has resulted in you copping out and saying "look, this is how I see, I now leave it to others to judge" or "I've already argued against this earlier, I refuse to argue it again!!!!" or some other kind of cop out. Except every time that happens, I don't make lame and immature +1 'haha you fail' posts like this in response to them.

In fact in this very thread there is an example of you 'copping out'. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14091942&postcount=103)

*sigh* I should drop this, but ....

To be honest, the only important message the advert is trying to get out is that intoxication results in increased risk of rape.

You and JuNii might want to have your own argument about what the message of the ad is, because you seem to disagree on this.

It's unreasonable to expect an advert to depict an alcohol related rape in the middle of the party where everyone can see, in the middle of the day, with a very ugly woman etc...

I also explained that it's unreasonable for an advert to depict rape in broad daylight and where people are intoxicated in the middle of the day, where it's done in front of everyone etc... So there is no reason to whine about them depicting it at night and in an alleyway and that the person is in the advert is attractive.

It's "unreasonable" to show rape as it actually happens precisely because that doesn't fit common myths? Think about that for a moment.

Utter and complete bullshit. Every other argument I've had with you, has resulted in you copping out and saying "look, this is how I see, I now leave it to others to judge" or "I've already argued against this earlier, I refuse to argue it again!!!!" or some other kind of cop out. Except every time that happens, I don't make lame and immature +1 'haha you fail' posts like this in response to them.
Refusing to argue at all, refusing to present a clear argument, refusing to address arguments presented to you are cop-outs.

Refusing to spam up the thread by constantly reposting the same statements over and over again for a period of days or weeks is NOT a cop-out. It is a courtesy to the forum.

But I have no intention of letting this devolve into another round of complaining about posters rather than arguing the topic, so any further posts that are about me will be answered by a link back to my last on-topic post to you.

apparently we don't. considering you keep focusing on one part of the whole. remember this the next time you accuse others of cherry picking evidence or arguing semantics.

It was a straight-forward yes or no question and you answered it. I find your answer unreasonable on it's face.

No cherry-picking or semantics involved.

FWIW, when I criticize you for being unreasonable it is precisely because I usually find you being reasonable and am disappointed to find you acting otherwise.

It's "unreasonable" to show rape as it actually happens precisely because that doesn't fit common myths? Think about that for a moment.

Party's where people are drunk very rarely happen in the middle of the day, so if it wanted to show someone getting raped while intoxicated at a party, it's not a cause for concern that they're showing it happen in a typical party environment.

Refusing to argue at all, refusing to present a clear argument, refusing to address arguments presented to you are cop-outs.


My arguments I've made previous to your 4 point post already addresses all of those points, and shows them all to be invalid.

Party's where people are drunk very rarely happen in the middle of the day, so if it wanted to show someone getting raped while intoxicated at a party, it's not a cause for concern that they're showing it happen in a typical party environment.

In other words, it would be inconsistent with the "message" of the ad to contradict rape myths. Glad we agree. :wink:

In other words, it would be inconsistent with the "message" of the ad to contradict rape myths. Glad we agree. :wink:

All I'm saying is that the only idea we should be addressing is that intoxication increases the risk of rape, those other scenarios are merely corollary to intoxication.

My arguments I've made previous to your 4 point post already addresses all of those points, and shows them all to be invalid.
Hey, look at you, doing exactly what you criticized me for doing! :D

Well, it's fine by me. You have, indeed, made your arguments. You say they proved my argument to be invalid, and I say they did no such thing, but rather it happened the other way around, and I have proven your arguments to be invalid.

Now... dare I say it? :shifty eyes:... shall we let OTHER READERS JUDGE from what's in the thread already?

Or would that be a cop-out, according to your standards?

All I'm saying is that the only idea we should be addressing is that intoxication increases the risk of rape, those other scenarios are merely corollary to intoxication.

First, I only brought up other rape myths because JuNii expressly challenged me to do so.

Second, I note you've never answered my question about whether it is simply underage women that should avoid alcohol or all women.

Alcohol makes people stupid - or unconcious if consumed to excess. Kids are more suceptible to such reactions, especially when binge drinking. Even without date rape drugs, alcohol reduces inhibitions. All told, this does place underage girls at risk. This does not excuse the actions of the rapist, but why place yourself in an unnecessarily dangerous situation? There are people who think of girls as nothing more than a disposable sex toy, and these people are likely to look for opportunities to take advantage of others.

Analogy: Racism is wrong, and people are supposed to have the right to travel freely. It's still not smart for a black man to wander into a KKK rally. Rape is wrong, and men need to restrain their base instincts. Still, it's a bad idea for a girl to get drunk in the company of drunken guys. Reality sadly has a habit of trumping ideals.

Hey, look at you, doing exactly what you criticized me for doing! :D


My point is not to ask you to re-read my posts. My point is that since you apparently don't understand my posts, you must misunderstand core statistical principles, and I cannot be bothered to explain in depth what I mean, since I know it will result in massive multi quote circular debate that will go on for days.

I don't remember you addressing a question I asked you at least twice (maybe you did, and I missed it in the flurry; or maybe I asked someone else; there's been so much back-and-forth in this thread):

If a person presents an argument containing points X, Y, and Z, and you take exception to point X, why is it not okay to criticize point X, regardless of points Y and Z?I did reply, but I did miss your reply to my reply. apologies.

Well, there's your problem right there, because that is not what I said. I said you were splitting hairs over the definition of the word "abuse." then I suggest you stop hopping into other people's conversation. I was conversing with the OP abotu the ad "blaming the victim" when you hopped in ranting that the ad perpetuated the myth that alcohol causes rape.

So, you refuse to prove ABC until I prove 3000? Seriously, JuNii, you clearly have no counter to the argument I actually made. burden of proof is on you. you claimed when you popped into my conversation that the ad perpetuates the myth about acohol causing rape. even tho the ad only shows ONE case of sexual assult taking place you are arguing the ad is representative of ALL sexual assualt cases by saying it's perpetuating a myth.

1) I have already explained in detail how I think the ad perpetuates the myth I say it does. I even posted statistics in support of my argument. If I'm not going to specially repackage and repost all that arguing just for Jocabia, what makes you think I'll do it just for you? er, no the statistics you've posted only show that what the ad shows is unlikely to occure how it's shown, not that it's a myth.

the fact that you keep pointing to your stats that show that about 7% of juvinile sex assaults are caused by friends doesn't mean it DOESN'T HAPPEN.

Just because OVER 50% of rapes occure within 1 mile of the victim's home doesn't mean it doesn't happen father than a mile. Realize 50.1% is over 50%.

2) You have already taken away your own ability to argue that the ad does not do what I say it does because you yourself have agreed that the content I object to is actually in the ad. Thus, whether you agree with my interpretation or not, you have already acknowledged the existence of the evidence I use to support my interpretation. So you can't claim it's not there, and you can't claim that I'm talking about something that's not there. sorry Muravyets. but while the ad has these nice shiney and flashing pictures, the ad also includes words. so if you listen very carefully when you watch the ad again... realize that those are not words to any background music or noise.

3) YOU, however, are basing your entire argument on something you claim exists but is not in the ad itself. So I'm asking you to prove that your argument has any supporting evidence at all. So far, you have been unable to. watch the ad again but this time with the sound. "67% of teens are assaulted and abused." That IS in the ad. 67% of all teens in australia are sexually abused and sexually assaulted? guess they should've shown a young boy being sexually assaulted then. :rolleyes:

^^ Strawman. I NEVER said what you just accused me of saying "again." Are you left with nothing but misrepresentations now? oh... you didn't?

Oh, come on. "Abused" means some form of sexual assault. It is a common modern usage. Don't start splitting semantical hairs with me, pretending to have confusion over what the words in the ad mean.

It doesn't have to SHOW a sexual assault. It only has to imply it and use language like "abused." Please, let's try to be real.

I suggested that you were arguing in favor of spreading a myth because you seem to be arguing in favor of excusing what I see as gross errors in the content of the ad. If you are not arguing that the ad is ok, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

You have already been given the arguments as to why this assertion is bull. You are doing nothing but repeating yourself at this point. You are not advancing your argument -- just spinning your wheels. so are you agreeing with me that the ad in total is actually talking about more than sexual assault and rape?

More strawman BS. oh, I see. it's ok to take part of the ad as the whole message for things like abuse, assault and drinking but not ok for other things. considering alot of medical ads don't SHOW the side affects, I guess that means to you there aren't any since it's only spoekn words.

You made your argument. It was weak and failed to either persuade or beat down your opponents. You have been unable to strengthen it. You have been asked more than once for more material. You have failed to produce it, and you have not made any apparent effort to find any. I think I'm done with you.
and I with you since you failed to prove your argument to your opponents. see I can make the same winning arguments as you. ;)

First, I only brought up other rape myths because JuNii expressly challenged me to do so.


Ok, can we get back on the main issue then. Just to be completely clear here, do you think that being intoxicated does not increase the risk of sexual abuse at all?


Second, I note you've never answered my question about whether it is simply underage women that should avoid alcohol or all women.

I don't think you asked me that question, I think that was addressed to Junii. But my answer is this, older women tend to be more responsible drinkers and better at handling drinks as well, plus the advert is addressing parents so it's only relevant to under-age drinkers since older women do not need their parents to buy them drinks.

First, I only brought up other rape myths because JuNii expressly challenged me to do so.
yes I did. I was just wondering what other myths could be seen as being promoted by that ad. i was in no way asking TCT to prove it was being promoted nor to prove the myths themselves.

Sorry TCT... I should've seen that others would attack those.

Alcohol makes people stupid - or unconcious if consumed to excess. Kids are more suceptible to such reactions, especially when binge drinking. Even without date rape drugs, alcohol reduces inhibitions. All told, this does place underage girls at risk. This does not excuse the actions of the rapist, but why place yourself in an unnecessarily dangerous situation? There are people who think of girls as nothing more than a disposable sex toy, and these people are likely to look for opportunities to take advantage of others.

Analogy: Racism is wrong, and people are supposed to have the right to travel freely. It's still not smart for a black man to wander into a KKK rally. Rape is wrong, and men need to restrain their base instincts. Still, it's a bad idea for a girl to get drunk in the company of drunken guys. Reality sadly has a habit of trumping ideals.

Ok, can we get back on the main issue then. Just to be completely clear here, do you think that being intoxicated does not increase the risk of sexual abuse at all?

I don't think you asked me that question, I think that was addressed to Junii. But my answer is this, older women tend to be more responsible drinkers and better at handling drinks as well, plus the advert is addressing parents so it's only relevant to under-age drinkers since older women do not need their parents to buy them drinks.

No one is arguing that underage women should drink alcohol or that it is a good idea for parents to buy alcohol for underage women.

In fact, I thought I was clear I am rather ambivalent about this particular ad: it has both merits and downsides.

But the "increased risk" argument is inherently sexist bullshit. I have an "increased risk" of being killed in a car accident if I leave my home, but I doubt any of you would argue that means I should be a shut-in.

The "ad is addressing parents" argument deliberately ignores the underlying implications of the argument that "alcohol = increased risk to women."

FWIW, when I criticize you for being unreasonable it is precisely because I usually find you being reasonable and am disappointed to find you acting otherwise.
I just find it irritating that an ad that is TRYING to say don't give your teens acohol is not being critised for the message about underage drinking, but because they (the ad's producers) opted to show a sexual assault people here on these forums ignore the drinking mesasge and argue that the ad's producers are saying alcohol causes rape.

as you yourself shown, the ad can support ALOT of myths because the ad is NOT about rape, but underaged drinking,

While Australia is #3 for rape per capita, I still believe that the message is NOT about rape but about parents being responsible and not give their underaged chilren alcohol to drink. a message lost on alot of people here. :(

My point is not to ask you to re-read my posts. My point is that since you apparently don't understand my posts, you must misunderstand core statistical principles, and I cannot be bothered to explain in depth what I mean, since I know it will result in massive multi quote circular debate that will go on for days.
You're still off-topic.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14096190&postcount=183

"67% of teens are assaulted and abused." That IS in the ad. 67% of all teens in australia are sexually abused and sexually assaulted?

I'm still hoping someone can source this claim and/or explain it's genesis. (To clarify, just referring me to the ad or the OP article is NOT what I'm seeking.)

But the "increased risk" argument is inherently sexist bullshit. I have an "increased risk" of being killed in a car accident if I leave my home, but I doubt any of you would argue that means I should be a shut-in.
yes, but lets look at those risks of being killed in a car accident when you leave home.

yes, you can still be killed by a car while you're in your home.

the risk increases when you step out of your home.

the risk increases further when you walk on the sidewalk or next to a road.

and let's not forget the risk jumping up when you have to cross the road.

the risk increases even more when you are walking drunk.

that risk increases exponentially when you get into a car drunk and start driving, taking on a phone while driving, having sex while driving (yes, that happens), TEXTING while driving (yes that also happens) and lets not forget READING A BOOK while driving.

now does a risk increase means that it will happen? no.
however does that mean you can keep increasing the risk untill it does? that's for each person to ask themselves.

some people don't leave their homes because of the percieved risks... others want to take the risks so they pile on the factors.

But the "increased risk" argument is inherently sexist bullshit. I have an "increased risk" of being killed in a car accident if I leave my home, but I doubt any of you would argue that means I should be a shut-in.


That's assuming that the actual increased risk is that insignificant. I don't believe it is, or research organisations such as athealth would not even say there is an increased risk. Intuitively it seems to be the case, you're far more suggestible, vulnerable and unaware when drunk. Statistics showing you that other types of rape are far more likely does not mean that there is no risk with intoxication. I am far more likely to die of cancer than in a car crash, that doesn't mean that the risk of dying in a car crash is non-existent. According this source (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LzhJ15PwhyHsqm3MyNB0fnFk7cYT3l9B2lhLssv2qd7XnJVvL9Bt!734144609?docId=50 02099077), 55% of victims of rape are intoxicated.

Also, why is it sexist? It's not putting the moral blame on the girls for being raped.

I'm still hoping someone can source this claim and/or explain it's genesis. (To clarify, just referring me to the ad or the OP article is NOT what I'm seeking.)

it is a high number unless they are taking any and all forms of assault and abuse into account. that probably includes gang violence and that upsurge of the 'punch happy' craze... if it did hit australia... hence my belief that the ad is not focusing only on sexual abuse and sexual assault. even if the number was exaggerated by being doubled, that still 1/3rd of the teen population.

That's assuming that the actual increased risk is that insignificant. I don't believe it is, or research organisations such as athealth would not even say there is an increased risk. Intuitively it seems to be the case, you're far more suggestible, vulnerable and unaware when drunk. Statistics showing you that other types of rape are far more likely does not mean that there is no risk with intoxication. I am far more likely to die of cancer than in a car crash, that doesn't mean that the risk of dying in a car crash is non-existent. According this source (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LzhJ15PwhyHsqm3MyNB0fnFk7cYT3l9B2lhLssv2qd7XnJVvL9Bt!734144609?docId=50 02099077), 55% of victims of rape are intoxicated.

Also, why is it sexist? It's not putting the moral blame on the girls for being raped.

You slightly misstate what your source says (rounding up and generalizing from specific studies about rape among college women), but that is a minor point.

I am surprised to see you defending a correlation of about 50% as being indicative of causation.

Moreover, who says the risk of being killed in a car accident is "insignificant"? Using the same "risk" analysis you do, the risk of leaving my home must be very significant because an overwhelming percentage of car accidents happen outside one's home.

EDIT: As for the sexism, I've not seen you advocating that men should not drink -- even though it arguably increases the risk of them being either a perpetrator or victim of rape.

it is a high number unless they are taking any and all forms of assault and abuse into account. that probably includes gang violence and that upsurge of the 'punch happy' craze... if it did hit australia... hence my belief that the ad is not focusing only on sexual abuse and sexual assault. even if the number was exaggerated by being doubled, that still 1/3rd of the teen population.

One of the things I am wondering is whether the statistic is really that 67% of teens in Australia have been assaulted and that 100% of those were drinking or whether it is really that 67% of those teens that have been assaulted were drinking. The information we have is vague on this distinction.

One of the things I am wondering is whether the statistic is really that 67% of teens in Australia have been assaulted and that 100% of those were drinking or whether it is really that 67% of those teens that have been assaulted were drinking. The information we have is vague on this distinction.

considering the ad did not mention that giving alcohol to minors is illegal...

according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age)...
Liquor laws vary by state. It is illegal to buy, drink or possess alcohol if under 18 on licensed premises, but states allow drinking or possessing alcohol on private premises for people under the age of 18 (under the supervision of an adult[s]).
In New South Wales there is no law against minors possessing or drinking alcohol on private premises, but there are laws against supplying or selling alcohol to a minor, as well as against minors "carrying away" alcohol from a licensed club.
Minors may be on licensed premises accompanied by a parent or guardian (but not purchase alcohol) and parents can not provide alcohol with a meal on licensed premises.
In Victoria, if a minor is caught with alcohol it will be confiscated and guardians notified of the offense, and a fine may occur. It is also illegal to provide minors with alcohol, and one can be fined by it if caught in the act. It is illegal to buy alcohol if already drunk, and to supply alcohol to such a person.

so it appears it's not against the law for parents to give minors acohol outside of Victoria. it could be possible that it does reflect incidents with acohol but because it's not stated alcohol related assault/abuse... I won't make that assumption.

You slightly misstate what your source says (rounding up and generalizing from specific studies about rape among college women), but that is a minor point.


Well I doubt it will change that much with under-age girls.


I am surprised to see you defending a correlation of about 50% as being indicative of causation.


I think that 55% is too high to be merely co-incidence. This, coupled with it being seemingly true intuitively, makes it seem like the assumption is valid to me.


Moreover, who says the risk of being killed in a car accident is "insignificant"?

I'm not saying it's insignificant, I'm saying it's very significant, thus it being only a very small proportion of deaths relatively does not make it itself an insignificant threat.


Using the same "risk" analysis you do, the risk of leaving my home must be very significant because an overwhelming percentage of car accidents happen outside one's home.


Yes but that's actually true, the risk of death is greatly increased when leaving your home, it's just stupid to say to not leave your home as you have to. Binge drinking on the other hand serves no useful purpose.


EDIT: As for the sexism, I've not seen you advocating that men should not drink -- even though it arguably increases the risk of them being either a perpetrator or victim of rape.

As I said, it's a bit silly to expect an advert to say "don't buy your son drinks or there is a chance he may rape someone". Also, I believe being a male victim of rape is far more unlikely.

considering the ad did not mention that giving alcohol to minors is illegal...

according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age)...


so it appears it's not against the law for parents to give minors acohol outside of Victoria. it could be possible that it does reflect incidents with acohol but because it's not stated alcohol related assault/abuse... I won't make that assumption.

Interesting, but not responsive to my question.

The Girls that drink heavily deserve what they get. if they are raped, they deserve it. point close

I did reply, but I did miss your reply to my reply. apologies.
If you get a chance, and you happen to know which post your reply was in, could you post a link or the post number for me?

then I suggest you stop hopping into other people's conversation. I was conversing with the OP abotu the ad "blaming the victim" when you hopped in ranting that the ad perpetuated the myth that alcohol causes rape.
Cute. If you want to have a private conversation with the OP, you can always TG them. And I like the way you decide to characterize my posts as "ranting." Is that because I won't back down from my argument? Well, neither will you, apparently, so I guess that makes this one big ranting party, eh?

burden of proof is on you. you claimed when you popped into my conversation that the ad perpetuates the myth about acohol causing rape. even tho the ad only shows ONE case of sexual assult taking place you are arguing the ad is representative of ALL sexual assualt cases by saying it's perpetuating a myth.
That is NOT what I said, and you know it.

er, no the statistics you've posted only show that what the ad shows is unlikely to occure how it's shown, not that it's a myth.

the fact that you keep pointing to your stats that show that about 7% of juvinile sex assaults are caused by friends doesn't mean it DOESN'T HAPPEN.

Just because OVER 50% of rapes occure within 1 mile of the victim's home doesn't mean it doesn't happen father than a mile. Realize 50.1% is over 50%.
So your argument is that, if a scenario occurs once in a blue moon, then it's okay to exploit it as a knee-jerk-response image of what happens if you let your daughter drink? And you think that's NOT perpetuating a myth? I'm sorry, but that approach is so intellectually dishonest, that I cannot respect it.

sorry Muravyets. but while the ad has these nice shiney and flashing pictures, the ad also includes words. so if you listen very carefully when you watch the ad again... realize that those are not words to any background music or noise.

watch the ad again but this time with the sound. "67% of teens are assaulted and abused." That IS in the ad. 67% of all teens in australia are sexually abused and sexually assaulted? guess they should've shown a young boy being sexually assaulted then. :rolleyes:
For the last time, I have explained to you that your games with the meanings of the words in the ad do not amount to a valid argument. I am not going to waste time on this favorite piece of bull of yours again.

oh... you didn't?
That's right, I didn't. Thanks for quoting me to prove it, too.

so are you agreeing with me that the ad in total is actually talking about more than sexual assault and rape?
This would be a good place for you to point me towards your answer to my question: If someone makes an argument containing points X, Y, and Z, and you take exception to X, why isn't it okay to criticize point X, regardless of points Y and Z?

oh, I see. it's ok to take part of the ad as the whole message for things like abuse, assault and drinking but not ok for other things. considering alot of medical ads don't SHOW the side affects, I guess that means to you there aren't any since it's only spoekn words.
Another bullshit argument. I did NOT "take part of the ad as the whole message." I challenge you to quote me to show otherwise.

I have always been specifically criticizing that one aspect of it. You have failed to show that that one part of the ad does NOT perpetuate a myth about rape. I say it does, and I have shown how with the statistics that you and others seem so eager to brush off. My argument has always been that, becuase of that one part of it, the ad perpetuates a myth about rape. I have NEVER said that that has anything to do with its anti-underage drinking message. I have been arguing all along that the myth-perpetuation is side damage.

This is just another instance of you misrepresenting my argument.

and I with you since you failed to prove your argument to your opponents. see I can make the same winning arguments as you. ;)
If you're done with me, then I hope you'll stop posting long detailed attacks against me, especially as you accomplish so little with them.

But the "increased risk" argument is inherently sexist bullshit. I have an "increased risk" of being killed in a car accident if I leave my home, but I doubt any of you would argue that means I should be a shut-in.

Yes, this is precisely why I don't agree with arguments that encourage you to fear normal behavior because it increases risk X. At the same time, most of us would encourage people to take reasonable precautions against certain risks. I think most of us would simply disagree with where to draw the line.

My problem with the general "fear" arguments is that they often suggest solutions based on fear because it's appears to be easy. Using your example, I could encourage you to wear your seatbelt, take a driving course, follow the speed limit, stop playing with the radio while you drive, etc. But, but, but it's so much easier if you just never drive.

NOTE: We'll pretend that you were talking about driving and not just being involved in one.

yes. because Alcohol does not cause rape or sexual assaults.

Then why choose this particular visual, if indeed alcohol does not cause rape or sexual assaults.

really? focusing on the pictures and not all the components of the ad is just as responsible as focusing on one factor (The visual) of the ad (both visual and narration)?

Didn't you once call focusing on one factor of the evidence 'cherry picking'?

My issue with this advert is that it chooses a visual with a shocking and rare situation that perpetuates a mentality prevalent in the Australian community to make a point. The possibility of rape is not one of the myriad dangers that is likely to occur at Schoolie's Week, it is not one that the police complain about, and yet the visual accompaniment to this advert chooses this visual. Why? Because it plays directly into the community mindset that a female who drinks is somehow responsible for what happens to her. This advert will not stop male binge-drinking, which is actually the major problem during the event that this advert is aimed at. So why choose this particular visual?

Then why choose this particular visual, if indeed alcohol does not cause rape or sexual assaults. because a sexual assault has a definative victim and perpetrator that cannot be 'rationalized away'.

in a drunk driving incident, parents can reason "the fault is the driver. since my child knows not to drive drunk, he won't be driving, so I don't have to worry about how much (s)he drinks."

in a drunken brawl, the parent can reason "my child won't start any fights and if one is started (s)he will defend themselves so I don't have to worry about my child drinking."

add to the fact that the commercial is at most, a minute long. so it has to grip the viewer's attention and hold it. so a 'shocking' incident has to be inferred.

My issue with this advert is that it chooses a visual with a shocking and rare situation that perpetuates a mentality prevalent in the Australian community to make a point. The possibility of rape is not one of the myriad dangers that is likely to occur at Schoolie's Week, it is not one that the police complain about, and yet the visual accompaniment to this advert chooses this visual. Why? Because it plays directly into the community mindset that a female who drinks is somehow responsible for what happens to her. This advert will not stop male binge-drinking, which is actually the major problem during the event that this advert is aimed at. So why choose this particular visual?
again you're focusing on the visual effects.

the fact is that Australia is #3 for the amount of Rape per Capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita) so it is a problem there.

add to that the ad does NOT show binge drinking.

add to that also it seems that underage drinking is NOT illegal in most parts of Australia.

so they chose a shocking scene to help drive home some of the dangers of alcohol consumption.

yet because they chose a sexual assult on a young woman, you are saying they are putting the responsiblity on the woman.

the same could be said if they showed an automobile accident. the responsibility is on those in the car.

the same could be said if they showed a drunken brawl between two boys. the responsibility is on boys.

the same thing could be said if they showed a drunken gang fight, gangs are the problem.

They chose a sexual assault for the shock value. not to say 'don't let girls drink' nor 'Drunk girls get raped'.

If you get a chance, and you happen to know which post your reply was in, could you post a link or the post number for me?
this question right?
[QUOTE]This argument means nothing. We say it does X. It actually does do X. It also does Y and Z. How does the presence of Y and Z make it inappropriate to criticize X?
the reply is post 141. Your reply to that is post 148

That is NOT what I said, and you know it. funny, the posts I quoted said otherwise.

So your argument is that, if a scenario occurs once in a blue moon, then it's okay to exploit it as a knee-jerk-response image of what happens if you let your daughter drink? And you think that's NOT perpetuating a myth? I'm sorry, but that approach is so intellectually dishonest, that I cannot respect it. well, it's just as honest as the approach of "what a commercial shows is the rule and not one example."

For the last time, I have explained to you that your games with the meanings of the words in the ad do not amount to a valid argument. I am not going to waste time on this favorite piece of bull of yours again. yet you argue the meaning of the pictures is what the ad is really about.

That's right, I didn't. Thanks for quoting me to prove it, too.and now who's arguing symantics. :rolleyes:

This would be a good place for you to point me towards your answer to my question: If someone makes an argument containing points X, Y, and Z, and you take exception to X, why isn't it okay to criticize point X, regardless of points Y and Z? because you connected point X to point W. ignoring Y and Z which shows that X is not about W.

Another bullshit argument. I did NOT "take part of the ad as the whole message." I challenge you to quote me to show otherwise. everytime you said they showed a sexual assault so they mean sexual assault when they said assault.

I have always been specifically criticizing that one aspect of it. You have failed to show that that one part of the ad does NOT perpetuate a myth about rape. I say it does, and I have shown how with the statistics that you and others seem so eager to brush off. My argument has always been that, becuase of that one part of it, the ad perpetuates a myth about rape. I have NEVER said that that has anything to do with its anti-underage drinking message. I have been arguing all along that the myth-perpetuation is side damage. whoa. first you show statistics that only state what was shown was not common. you focus on ONE myth about rape while TCT offered other myths being supported. and both are because they show ONE instance of sexual assualt that isn't even said it's baised on actual events and you say they (the ad) say it's the norm? again, you're statistics don't prove that the factors in the ad do NOT occure. it's not the norm, but it doesn't say it does NOT happen.

This is just another instance of you misrepresenting my argument. alright, then lets start all over. do you agree with this? no referring to past post, we start from square one on the next post.

If you're done with me, then I hope you'll stop posting long detailed attacks against me, especially as you accomplish so little with them. I'm not the one saying "I'm done with you". you are and yet, you keep replying to me. if you're done, then you're done. unless this is another example of you saying one thing that means something else. hmm... I wonder how many different definitions of "I'm, done with you" there are?:rolleyes:

However the offer to "wipe the slate clean between us and start the conversation over" is still valid.

So the whole idea of the ad has nothing to do with blaming the girl for her own sexual assault by daring to indulge in a drink? I'm sure that's what everyone will get out of this.
Because men and women never get sexually assaulted when they get shitfaced.

Because men and women never kill or maim themselves or others when they get behind the wheel drunk.

Because people don't do incredibly stupid things they later regret when drunk.

Because adults should not be responsible legally, nor reminded of what might happen if they supply their kids with alcohol.

Right?

Because men and women never get sexually assaulted when they get shitfaced.

Because men and women never kill or maim themselves or others when they get behind the wheel drunk.

Because people don't do incredibly stupid things they later regret when drunk.

Because adults should not be responsible legally, nor reminded of what might happen if they supply their kids with alcohol.

Right?

My issue is that the reason they are bringing this advertisement out is due to Schoolie's Week - where there are far more prevalent problems, including the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of private property damage that occurs to locals' homes and is left for them to fix, the assaults and fights between young males (the worst part of Schoolie's) and the violence and harassment given to the public and police officers.

Why emphasise something that is so extreme, when there are many other serious issues. Why choose a visual that plays directly into community attitudes excusing or mitigating rape? And why choose a female, rather than a male, who according to statistics, is far more likely to be raped in the situation presented in the video?

My issue is that the reason they are bringing this advertisement out is due to Schoolie's Week - where there are far more prevalent problems, including the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of private property damage that occurs to locals' homes and is left for them to fix, the assaults and fights between young males (the worst part of Schoolie's) and the violence and harassment given to the public and police officers.

Why emphasise something that is so extreme, when there are many other serious issues. Why choose a visual that plays directly into community attitudes excusing or mitigating rape? And why choose a female, rather than a male, who according to statistics, is far more likely to be raped in the situation presented in the video?
what is Schoolie's week?

Why emphasise something that is so extreme, when there are many other serious issues. Why choose a visual that plays directly into community attitudes excusing or mitigating rape?
I imagine they went for the most shocking image they can think of.


And why choose a female, rather than a male, who according to statistics, is far more likely to be raped in the situation presented in the video?
Really? What statistics?

My issue is that the reason they are bringing this advertisement out is due to Schoolie's Week - where there are far more prevalent problems, including the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of private property damage that occurs to locals' homes and is left for them to fix, the assaults and fights between young males (the worst part of Schoolie's) and the violence and harassment given to the public and police officers.

Why emphasise something that is so extreme, when there are many other serious issues. Why choose a visual that plays directly into community attitudes excusing or mitigating rape? And why choose a female, rather than a male, who according to statistics, is far more likely to be raped in the situation presented in the video?
It's not excusing rape. It's saying rape happens when young ladies and young gents are not clear headed enough to stay out of dangerous situations/get out of dangerous situations.

If you'd like to insist that it's excusing rape, no one can stop you -- but it is a pretty silly thing to insist.

because a sexual assault has a definative victim and perpetrator that cannot be 'rationalized away'.

Oh really? So the statistics in the survey I posted showing that many members of the Australian public, do in fact, rationalise away the crime itself mean nothing?

in a drunk driving incident, parents can reason "the fault is the driver. since my child knows not to drive drunk, he won't be driving, so I don't have to worry about how much (s)he drinks."

We are talking about the statistics presented in the advert and the way they chose to convey their message about the dangers of Schoolie's Week and supplying their children alcohol.

in a drunken brawl, the parent can reason "my child won't start any fights and if one is started (s)he will defend themselves so I don't have to worry about my child drinking."

And yet, the biggest problems from Schoolie's Week come from male-on-male violence. Why are they choosing to focus on female drinking? And I know more than one parent who rationalises the same thing about their daughter being raped - she knows how to protect herself, she won't go off with strangers. Which of course does nothing to reduce her chances of being raped as we all know.

add to the fact that the commercial is at most, a minute long. so it has to grip the viewer's attention and hold it. so a 'shocking' incident has to be inferred.

So why not a shocking incident about male-on-male violence, or teens damaging property in a drunken spree?


again you're focusing on the visual effects.

Yes, because that's what the makers position us to focus on.

the fact is that Australia is #3 for the amount of Rape per Capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita) so it is a problem there.

So the answer is that girls shouldn't drink alcohol? Now you're buying into the same myth as the advert.

add to that the ad does NOT show binge drinking.

In Australia, binge-drinking is believed to be for women more than 4 standard drinks in a single drinking session, regardless of length.

add to that also it seems that underage drinking is NOT illegal in most parts of Australia.

In Queensland it is. It is also illegal to supply liquor to minors.

so they chose a shocking scene to help drive home some of the dangers of alcohol consumption.

And as has been pointed out in this thread, this is so far removed from one of the dangers it makes the point irrelevant. Women are more likely to be raped in their own home by a family member or acquaintance. Yet they choose to show one of the rarest forms of rape in a way that suggests that it is a likely occurrence.

yet because they chose a sexual assult on a young woman, you are saying they are putting the responsiblity on the woman.

No I say that they are exploiting that mindset which is quite prevalent over here.

the same could be said if they showed an automobile accident. the responsibility is on those in the car.

the same could be said if they showed a drunken brawl between two boys. the responsibility is on boys.

the same thing could be said if they showed a drunken gang fight, gangs are the problem.

All of which are far, far more likely to happen, especially at the event in question. Yet they chose a sexual assault, which is extremely unlikely to occur.

They chose a sexual assault for the shock value. not to say 'don't let girls drink' nor 'Drunk girls get raped'.

Oh really? So the message to parents isn't; Supply your daughter alcohol and she'll be at greater risk of getting raped? That to me is pretty piss poor advertising if this is not the reaction that they wanted from parents.

It's not excusing rape. It's saying rape happens when young ladies and young gents are not clear headed enough to stay out of dangerous situations/get out of dangerous situations.

If you'd like to insist that it's excusing rape, no one can stop you -- but it is a pretty silly thing to insist.

I'll repeat myself again: The advert does not excuse rape. It plays into a community mindset that excuses or mitigates rape based on the behaviour of the victim. The advert exploits this mentality, which I have already demonstrated does exist, through it's use of imagery and circumstance. And I find this offensive.

Oh really? So the statistics in the survey I posted showing that many members of the Australian public, do in fact, rationalise away the crime itself mean nothing?how are they rationalizing the crime away?

We are talking about the statistics presented in the advert and the way they chose to convey their message about the dangers of Schoolie's Week and supplying their children alcohol. sorry, but what is schoolie week?

And yet, the biggest problems from Schoolie's Week come from male-on-male violence. Why are they choosing to focus on female drinking? And I know more than one parent who rationalises the same thing about their daughter being raped - she knows how to protect herself, she won't go off with strangers. Which of course does nothing to reduce her chances of being raped as we all know.
so if the biggest problem is male on male violence, how can you say the ad is intended for this schoolie week?

So why not a shocking incident about male-on-male violence, or teens damaging property in a drunken spree? why not? didn't I suggest writing to the Government asking for more ads showing other aspects of the dangers of drinking?

Yes, because that's what the makers position us to focus on. then why have the narration?

So the answer is that girls shouldn't drink alcohol? Now you're buying into the same myth as the advert. please show me where I said that? did you check the link? I assume not since that is per captia, not forcusing on teens nor drinking.

In Australia, binge-drinking is believed to be for women more than 4 standard drinks in a single drinking session, regardless of length. and how many drinks did they show her having? I saw one. but that is a new aspect of Australian viewpoints I didn't know about.

In Queensland it is. It is also illegal to supply liquor to minors. then two places.

And as has been pointed out in this thread, this is so far removed from one of the dangers it makes the point irrelevant. Women are more likely to be raped in their own home by a family member or acquaintance. Yet they choose to show one of the rarest forms of rape in a way that suggests that it is a likely occurrence. so thus it should be ignored because it has a rare chance of occuring?

No I say that they are exploiting that mindset which is quite prevalent over here. yet you have several people also arguing otherwise.


All of which are far, far more likely to happen, especially at the event in question. Yet they chose a sexual assault, which is extremely unlikely to occur. I hope you meant to say a Sexual assault in a manner that is extremely unlikey to occur and not that sexual assault is unlikely to occur. because if you did mean that sexual assault is extremely unlikey to occur... then you are sorely mistaken.

Oh really? So the message to parents isn't; Supply your daughter alcohol and she'll be at greater risk of getting raped? That to me is pretty piss poor advertising if this is not the reaction that they wanted from parents. the message to parents is "don't give your child acohol."

had they shown a male on male brawl, would you say the message would then be "Supply your son alcohol and he'll be at greater risk of getting in a fight?"

or if they showed a drunk driving accident "Supply your child alcohol and they'll be at greater risk of getting in an accident?"

can you show that they are not making any more spots focusing on the other dangers of acohol consumption?

how are they rationalizing the crime away?

Go read the links I posted earlier.

sorry, but what is schoolie week?

The week after the finish of year 12, a majority of school leavers from the east coast of Australia converge on QLD's Gold Coast for a week of drunken partying.


so if the biggest problem is male on male violence, how can you say the ad is intended for this schoolie week?

It warns parents of the possible consequences if they supply liquor to minors and has been run to coincide with Schoolies.

why not? didn't I suggest writing to the Government asking for more ads showing other aspects of the dangers of drinking?

If you did I missed it I'm sorry.

I hope you meant to say a Sexual assault in a manner that is extremely unlikey to occur and not that sexual assault is unlikely to occur. because if you did mean that sexual assault is extremely unlikey to occur... then you are sorely mistaken.

Yes that is what I meant, apologies if I was unclear.

had they shown a male on male brawl, would you say the message would then be "Supply your son alcohol and he'll be at greater risk of getting in a fight?"

Which is actually a far bigger problem in Australia than sexual assault of drunk girls.

[QUOTE=Muravyets;14096586]If you get a chance, and you happen to know which post your reply was in, could you post a link or the post number for me?
this question right?

the reply is post 141. Your reply to that is post 148
Thank you.

funny, the posts I quoted said otherwise.
You and I are, evidently, speaking entirely different languages that just happen to use the same words, but with different meanings because you are reading my words with the exact opposite meaning of what I see when I read them.

well, it's just as honest as the approach of "what a commercial shows is the rule and not one example."
Again, that's not what I said. You are trying to turn my specific statements into broad ones. What I actually said was that I was not going to judge THIS AD according to things THIS AD did not say.

yet you argue the meaning of the pictures is what the ad is really about.
Again, that is not what I have been arguing. I have been arguing that the words and pictures must be taken TOGETHER. "Abuse" PLUS an image of sexual assault carries the message that the ad is talking about one particular kind of abuse. YOU want me to ignore the picture and focus only on the word. Your approach is just as dishonest as what you accuse me of.

and now who's arguing symantics. :rolleyes:
You are.

because you connected point X to point W. ignoring Y and Z which shows that X is not about W.
I never mentioned a W.

everytime you said they showed a sexual assault so they mean sexual assault when they said assault.
Yes, that's right. It's called taking the whole message in its context.

whoa. first you show statistics that only state what was shown was not common.
My statistics did NOT show that something was not common. They showed that other things ARE common.

you focus on ONE myth about rape while TCT offered other myths being supported. and both are because they show ONE instance of sexual assualt that isn't even said it's baised on actual events and you say they (the ad) say it's the norm?
A) This sentence makes no sense. Would you care to rewrite it?

B) Please remember that TCT and I are not a team. I am not responsible for what he posts.

again, you're statistics don't prove that the factors in the ad do NOT occure. it's not the norm, but it doesn't say it does NOT happen.
I never said it does not occur. I DID say it is not the norm (which you admit), and BECAUSE OF THAT it is not appropriate to use it IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS AD, because THE WAY THE AD IS USING IT perpetuates a myth about rape. THAT MYTH IS: that this occurrence, which you acknowledge is rare, is actually common and is LIKELY to befall young women who get drunk at parties. (Solid caps are used to draw attention to important details.)

EDIT: For further clarification, referring to the statistics I posted, it is FAR MORE LIKELY that a young woman will be sexually assaulted or raped while she is not partying, not drinking, not drunk, not among strangers. Yet it is very common for people to talk generally about rape by saying things like "well, if a woman goes out partying and getting drunk, that sort of thing happens," as if it is the most common scenario in which sex crime occurs. That is because they are buying into a myth that does actually, essentially, partially blame the victim for the letting the crime happen because they went out and got drunk. The myth is damaging if it is used in any way that suggests that action A facilitates crime B, when in actual fact crime B relies MORE on entirely different actions. In this case, the myth suggests that if a woman gets drunk, that facilitates rape. But that is just not true, because in statistics about rape overall, it becomes clear that rape is far more dependent on other circumstances such as if a woman sleeps with an accessible window open in her house, or if a woman spends time with someone she trusts but who actually is planning to attack her, or if a man inclined to commit rape gets drunk or high and then has access to a woman (regardless of whether she is drunk or sober).

So if a parent thinks they are protecting their daughter specifically from rape by not letting her drink, they are being misled because their daughter's risk of being attacked sexually remains just as high as before, because the risk of rape is NOT significantly dependent upon the sobriety of the victim.

alright, then lets start all over. do you agree with this? no referring to past post, we start from square one on the next post.

I'm not the one saying "I'm done with you". you are and yet, you keep replying to me. if you're done, then you're done. unless this is another example of you saying one thing that means something else. hmm... I wonder how many different definitions of "I'm, done with you" there are?:rolleyes:
No, it means that I have a hard time just cutting off people who I normally think of as reasonable debaters. But I am very frustrated with your continued either refusal to address or inability to see the points I am trying to make.

However the offer to "wipe the slate clean between us and start the conversation over" is still valid.
If you wish to start fresh, go right ahead. I admit I am pessimistic, based on the complete disconnect between you and me on what my statements mean.

what is Schoolie's week?

The week after exams have finished for those in Year 12, those on the East Coast usually head up to the Gold Coast, those in SA usually head to Victor Habour as for the sand gropers I'm not to sure.

When one states the ad is bad because of X supports myth W in your opionion. and when someone brings up Y or Z the response is "you're splitting hairs X is obviously supporting Myth W."


Well, there's your problem right there, because that is not what I said. I said you were splitting hairs over the definition of the word "abuse."


So my answer to your answer stands. I do not believe you actually addressed what I was saying. You are apparently conflating two unrelated comments I made.

One was that I said you were splitting hairs by quibbling over what you thought the word "abuse" meant.

The other, completely separate point was that I said that I was criticizing the ad's specific use of a reference to sexual assault, not its intention to warn parents against letting their kids drink.

Those two points have nothing to do with each other because one is about the ad's content, and the other is about the ad's techniques.

Finally, my question is a third independent point. With the question I am challenging a point you made in which you criticized me for attacking the sexual assault reference in the ad on the grounds that the ad also refers to other things besides sexual assault. That has nothing to do with either of the other two points.

So, you see, you really have not answered my question, nor have you accurately addressed my original argument.

In Australia, binge-drinking is believed to be for women more than 4 standard drinks in a single drinking session, regardless of length.

Another ridiculous notion. I think it is 4 Std drinks a day.

In Queensland it is. It is also illegal to supply liquor to minors.

Is it really? Do they just turn a blind eye during schoolies week?

Now I know in NSW it isn't legal at all anymore (another knee jerk reaction).

But in SA it is legal for parents to supply underage kids with alcohol and for them to drink it provided the parents and property owners give permission. It is also legal to give underage kids unopened alcohol on public property i.e if you allowed your son to carry a bottle of wine out of the bottleo.

Of course each state has different laws

Another ridiculous notion. I think it is 4 Std drinks a day.

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/_files/draft_australian_alcohol_guidelines.pdf

http://www.reachout.com.au/default.asp?ti=2113


Is it really? Do they just turn a blind eye during schoolies week? pretty much. They do make a few hundred charges a year for possession and a few arrests. Generally the police just pour the alcohol out or ignore the obvious drinking.

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/_files/draft_australian_alcohol_guidelines.pdf

http://www.reachout.com.au/default.asp?ti=2113

Yeah i thought it was per day. But then if I have say four gasses of wine during a BBQ that lasts for 6 hours then I am binge drinking though one might consider it a drinking session.

pretty much. They do make a few hundred charges a year for possession and a few arrests. Generally the police just pour the alcohol out or ignore the obvious drinking.

Yeah k, so they can;t even have alcohol on them?

I know each state is different but in SA if you have alcohol on you and someone over the age of 18 is present they can't take it off you, and if they aren't present then they will take it off you but you can retrieve it from the cop shop if someone over the age of 18 is with you.

Yeah i thought it was per day. But then if I have say four gasses of wine during a BBQ that lasts for 6 hours then I am binge drinking though one might consider it a drinking session.



Yeah k, so they can;t even have alcohol on them?

I know each state is different but in SA if you have alcohol on you and someone over the age of 18 is present they can't take it off you, and if they aren't present then they will take it off you but you can retrieve it from the cop shop if someone over the age of 18 is with you.

That is correct.

what is Schoolie's week?

I imagine it's the Australian equivalent of Spring Break.

Do you realize how silly this argument has become? Is it possible to make a statement about a possible danger without somehow incurring the wrath of someone? Is any representation of a woman in advertising immediately assumed to be sexist in nature? It would appear that statistically there is a significantly increased risk of rape when a girl is drunk, and the rapist is usually someone the girl knows. If she is binge drinking with friends, both factors are in place. Telling parents to not let their kids binge drink is like telling parents to not let their kids play in the middle of the street. Nothing wrong with playing, but don't play where you're most likely to get run over.

Do you realize how silly this argument has become? Is it possible to make a statement about a possible danger without somehow incurring the wrath of someone?
No.

Is any representation of a woman in advertising immediately assumed to be sexist in nature?
No.

It would appear that statistically there is a significantly increased risk of rape when a girl is drunk, and the rapist is usually someone the girl knows. If she is binge drinking with friends, both factors are in place. Telling parents to not let their kids binge drink is like telling parents to not let their kids play in the middle of the street. Nothing wrong with playing, but don't play where you're most likely to get run over.
And here we are back at square one, just as if all this talk had never occurred.

*gives up and just resolves never to allow anyone I have opposed in this thread ever to be in any position to give advice about anything to any child of mine*