http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=436592&in_page_id=1770

Quote :

"Drug rape myth exposed as study reveals binge drinking is to blame Women who claim to be victims of 'date-rape' drugs such as Rohypnol have in fact been rendered helpless by binge-drinking, says a study by doctors. They found no evidence that any woman seeking help from emergency doctors because their drinks were allegedly spiked had actually been given these drugs. Around one in five tested positive for recreational drugs while two-thirds had been drinking heavily. The findings further erode the theory that there is widespread use of Rohypnol and GHB, another drug said to be favoured by predatory rapists. Last month a personal safety campaigner claimed that Rohypnol had never been used to assist a sexual assault in the UK. Doctors carrying out the latest study at the Wrexham Maelor Hospital said it was far more likely women were claiming their drinks had been spiked as an "excuse" for binge-drinking. The 12-month study was based on 75 patients - mostly women - treated in casualty who told doctors their drinks had been tampered with in pubs or clubs. But tests for drugs such as Rohypnol, GHB and ketamine found nothing, says the study published in the Emergency Medicine Journal. It showed 65 per cent of women had 160mg of alcohol in their blood - twice the 80mg drink/drive limit - and a quarter were three times over the limit. Although all the patients denied taking drugs such as cocaine and amphetamine, one fifth tested positive. Researcher Dr Hywel Hughes, an associate specialist in A&E said: "This study confirmed our suspicion that most of the patients with suspected drink-spiking would test negative for drugs. No ketamine, GHB or Rohypnol was found in the samples which suggest they are not commonly used to spike drinks. "There has been a lot of media coverage in recent years, mainly focusing on just a few substances including Rohypnol and GHB, which has led to the perception that drinkspiking is a widespread practice. But most patients allegedly having a spiked drink tested negative for drugs misuse. "Claiming their drink has been spiked may be used as an excuse by patients who have become incapacitated after the voluntary consumption of excess alcohol." Dr Hughes said some women might have felt ashamed at ending up in casualty. "There seems to be greater awareness about the dangers of binge-drinking, which is where the emphasis should stay," he added. Last month Julie Bentley, chief executive of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, said many women fall victim to sexual assaults after being plied with alcohol. Commenting on claims that Rohypnol had played a part in sex attacks, she said: "As far as I am aware, there has never been a case of Rohypnol in this country found." In the light of the latest research, Dr Peter Saul, a GP in Wrexham, said: "There had always been a suspicion that people would say that their drinks had been spiked when perhaps they had misjudged how much alcohol they were taking. "If you go home and your parents are there, and you are vomiting on the path, and you come in in a terrible state, you get sympathy if you say, 'My drink was spiked'. "You don't get sympathy if you say, 'We spent too long in the bar'." He added: "The message has to be: be careful - not just about having your drink spiked - but how much alcohol you have." "

2/17/2007 11:41:59 AM

i didn't read this thread but i totally agree with the title

2/17/2007 11:43:05 AM

can we get some pics?

2/17/2007 11:54:11 AM

ooh, god, don't drink too much because then it's ok for guys to rape you- it just makes you a drunk slut!!!

this mentality makes me fucking sick. and any similar pattern of thought.

2/17/2007 12:37:31 PM

know what makes me sick? stupid drunk sluts who shirk their own responsibilities to not put themselves in dangerous situations

2/17/2007 12:42:03 PM

Yes it is a problem if they do get raped because they are drunk

However this article is saying that the girls are using the "spiked drink" as an excuse when they drink themselves under the table.

2/17/2007 12:45:32 PM

http://www.tmz.com/photos/miss-nevada/116782/

2/17/2007 12:54:38 PM

listen to your dad lol

2/17/2007 12:55:18 PM

if people drink and then consent to sex, they cannot claim they were raped the next day.

the laws need to be changed.

personal responsibility...? fuck that!

so yeah, chicks who get drunk, consent to sex, and the next day cry rape, ARE SLUTS.

2/17/2007 1:06:31 PM

know what makes me sick? stupid drunk sluts who shirk their own responsibilities to not put themselves in dangerous situations

2/17/2007 1:07:36 PM

if a drunk guy has sex with a drunk girl he is raping her, but when a drunk girl has sex with a drunk guy she is a victim

2/17/2007 1:17:59 PM

can a guy consent to sex while drunk, then next day cry rape, like chicks sluts can?

2/17/2007 1:22:51 PM

yes

2/17/2007 1:32:50 PM

drunk shaming ftw

2/17/2007 1:43:12 PM

when I sleep, my man be out!!1

2/17/2007 2:17:02 PM

^^^ not in NC, at least. hell, if the Central Prison Death Row Jiu-Jitsu team escapes, holds you down, and gives you some group butt sex, it's still not rape in NC, simply because you're a dude.

2/17/2007 2:26:46 PM

Females will always be believed to have been taken advantage of.

2/17/2007 2:31:21 PM

it is a horrible double standard, but as goes the world for white males

we are always to blame!

2/17/2007 2:32:42 PM

For starters, this data was gathered in the UK. Anyway, one thing it took me a while to figure out is how alcohol and my period react.

I'm personally more likely to binge-drink right before and during my period because of emotional drinking, and I'm more sensitive to alcohol right before and during my period as are most women. That shit can really catch you off-guard.

Anyway, I suspect there are plenty of honest women who feel that their drinks were genuinely spiked when really there was just a new set of drinking circumstances they'd never encountered before. Five drinks normally gets them really drunk and giggly, but BAM, all of the sudden, five drinks makes them black out. And if they've never blacked out before, it can be pretty scary.

^Poor white male...

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 2:59 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2007 2:57:04 PM

can someone define 'high risk behavior' for me again?

2/17/2007 3:32:01 PM

i agree with this thread

2/17/2007 3:41:23 PM

Slightly off topic, but why is it that when rape cases go to trial the plaintiff's name is withheld from the press and they drag the accused all through the mud? I really think we should consider keeping both names out of the press until there is an outcome to the trial. If the guy is guilty, let the fucking world know it. If he is found innocent, keep the info locked up and keep his name clean.


Thankfully I have never been in a situation where a girl cried rape from something that I thought was consensual, but I can just imagine how bad it would be.

2/17/2007 3:53:42 PM

^We publish the names of pretty much everyone involved in legal shit. Public information, you know. Newspapers used to publish the names of alleged rape victims, but the alleged victims were often ostracized and ridiculed by the community. This ridicule discouraged rape victims from coming forward. So now most print sources do not publish the names of the alleged victims.

As far as not printing the names of the accused, there isn't really a compelling reason for it, like there is for not printing the names of the alleged victims. I mean, I guess we could stop publishing the names of all people who are charged with crimes. But sometimes printing the names and getting info out there can help an investigation...

2/17/2007 4:57:04 PM

actually, there is a reason not to publish the names of those accused of sexual crimes. you can't deny that those accused of such things are now given 10x the amount of ridicule and ostracization that the victims used to receive.

once they've been convicted, then by all means, carry on, but until then, one only needs to remember the day-care scandals of the 80s-90s to see what I'm saying

2/17/2007 5:16:38 PM

Quote :

"if a drunk guy has sex with a drunk girl he is raping her, but when a drunk girl has sex with a drunk guy she is a victim"

2/17/2007 5:25:05 PM

welcome to tautological city

2/17/2007 5:25:56 PM

^^^Of course the accused are ostracized and ridiculed. But that ridicule doesn't pose a significant threat to ultimate justice.

See, it's not just the ridicule of the alleged victims that prompted print sources to stop printing the names. They stopped printing names because that potential ridicule discourages people from coming forward, which does pose a significant threat to ultimate justice.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 5:31 PM. Reason : Get it?]

2/17/2007 5:29:10 PM

If a girl gets drunk and drives a car, she is responsible for her actions.

If a girl gets drunk and fucks a guy, how is that different?

2/17/2007 5:35:00 PM

that's assuming the guy has absolutely zero mind of his own

2/17/2007 5:36:33 PM

^^^ Your concern seems pretty one-sided.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 5:58 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2007 5:56:30 PM

No, it's not one-sided.

We almost always release the names of people involved in legal proceedings. Freedom of information is important to our society. We've made the exception for alleged rape victims in an effort to avoid hindering justice. By the way, there is no law about of-age victims--it's the media's decision whether or not they release the name of an alleged victim, but it is generally considered highly irresponsible to release that information.

Anyway, releasing the names of the accused rarely hinders justice so the media really have no compelling reason not to release the names. Yes, it brings ridicule on the accused, but a lot of things they print invite ridicule. If that ridicule hinders justice (as it does with alleged victims), then they would have to make a decision about printing the names of the accused.

If anything, printing the names and pictures of accused criminals is seen as a positive thing. Other victims come forward. People who recognize accused criminals on the run from the law can send in tips to the police. People who have information against an accused criminal can share what they know. And so on and so forth...

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 6:11 PM. Reason : Get it?]

2/17/2007 6:07:36 PM

BridgetSPK obviously is ok with the fact that one of the Duke Lacrosse player's dads was forced to resign from a very prestigious job because his company "couldn't handle the bad publicity." So much for that being an okay thing, right?

2/17/2007 6:14:13 PM

^^ Innocent until proven guilty is a pretty major tenet of our justice system. You don't consider potentially false malignment to be an injustice, especially recognizing the special fascination many have for sex crimes?

Yes, I understand that it's the media which witholds names....and the seemingly arbitrary release/withold decision never ceases to amaze me.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 6:21 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2007 6:21:12 PM

^^That totally sucks, dude. But the pathos isn't gonna work here.

It's a hard line the media are trying to walk, and someone losing his job really isn't that compelling, considering the graveness of their duty to inform.

^Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, you're correct. Do you want all the names of all people involved in legal proceedings to be kept private until trials end? Or just the names of rapists? How would police do investigations if they can't share the names and pictures of suspects?

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 6:25 PM. Reason : ?]

2/17/2007 6:22:10 PM

our legal system favors females in almost all aspects of the law.

From parental rights to rape... It's an injustice and its something that needs to be changed.

2/17/2007 6:28:17 PM

^^As you said, it's difficult to investigate something if you can't tell anyone the names of those involved. To that end, I'd rather everyone's name be released.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 6:31 PM. Reason : ...and be reported.]

2/17/2007 6:30:56 PM

^But by releasing the alleged victims' names, you'd be subjecting them to potential ridicule and ultimately discouraging other victims from coming forward. This is bad for justice, order...society.

(I'm glad you came out and admitted that you want the alleged victims' names released. Most people are going the other way and asking that the accuseds' names not be released. At least you're being honest about the fact that you just want a chance to prejudge the alleged victims too.)

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 6:41 PM. Reason : sss]

2/17/2007 6:38:24 PM

Sorry, I'm making too many edits. I'll stop.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 6:41 PM. Reason : LOL]

2/17/2007 6:40:39 PM

Look it is simple.

For sexual crimes, either both names should be released, or none.

Releasing the [male] accused's name is not fair.

Are you a male-hater?

Let's say you were accused of sexual assault on a male or another female, or maybe on a child.

But you are innocent.

How would you like your name and picture plastered all over the country? Would you like it people removing their kids from your vicinity and looking at you as if you were a sexual predator?

BE FAIR.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 6:43 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2007 6:42:24 PM

Quote :

"^But by releasing the alleged victims'perpetrators' names, you'd be subjecting them to potential ridicule and therefore discouraging other victims from coming forward. This is bad for ultimate justice, society, and order."

If it's bad for one, it's bad for the other.

What makes you believe that rape victims will be ridiculed anymore than the accused?

2/17/2007 6:46:08 PM

^

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: See, it's not just the ridicule of the alleged victims that prompted print sources to stop printing the names. They stopped printing names because that potential ridicule discourages people from coming forward, which does pose a significant threat to ultimate justice."

AM

I

BE

ING

CLEAR

E

NOUGH

FOR

YOU?

2/17/2007 6:55:40 PM

Quote :

"Look it is simple. For sexual crimes, either both names should be released, or none. Releasing the [male] accused's name is not fair. Are you a male-hater? Let's say you were accused of sexual assault on a male or another female, or maybe on a child. But you are innocent. How would you like your name and picture plastered all over the country? Would you like it people removing their kids from your vicinity and looking at you as if you were a sexual predator? BE FAIR."

AM

I

BE

ING

CLEAR

E

NOUGH

FOR

YOU?

2/17/2007 6:57:08 PM

I understand not wanting to release the name of the accuser, but what exactly is the problem with not releasing the name of the accused until he is proven guilty??

2/17/2007 7:02:38 PM

YES, IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU DON'T GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT THE ACCUSED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE ACTUALLY FOUND LEGALLY GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW. I ALSO UNDERSTAND

THAT

YOU

KNOW

WHERE

THE

CAPS

LOCK

AND

ENTER

KEYS

ARE.

Quote :

"What makes you believe that rape victims will be ridiculed anymore than the accused?"

2/17/2007 7:03:30 PM

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: YES, IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU DON'T GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT THE ACCUSED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE ACTUALLY FOUND LEGALLY GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW."

1) I didn't say that.
2) You don't care about the accused anyway. You just want the accusers' names released so we can all judge them too.
3) I do care about the accused. However, I cannot support hindering investigations and curbing our right to information in order to keep their names private. Ridicule alone is just not a compelling enough reason to protect their identities when you consider what we would be sacrificing for their protection.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: What makes you believe that rape victims will be ridiculed anymore than the accused?"

Years and years of evidence.

Are you seriously suggesting that there hasn't be a pattern of accusers being ridiculed, ostracized, blamed, etc...?

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 7:35 PM. Reason : ?]

2/17/2007 7:34:46 PM

It is official

YOU HATE MEN

2/17/2007 7:37:53 PM

hos be triflin yo

2/17/2007 7:44:12 PM

Quote :

"2) You don't care about the accused anyway. You just want the accusers' names released so we can all judge them too."

You never fail to think the worst of others, do you?

Quote :

"3) I do care about the accused. However, I cannot support hindering investigations and curbing our right to information in order to keep their names private. Ridicule alone is just not a compelling enough reason to protect their identities when you consider what we would be sacrificing for their protection."

You realize that you're 'sacrificing' the rights (for lack of a better term) of an actual person (the accused and those associated with them: famliy, friends, etc) for the rights (again, for lack of a better term) of someone who may or may not actually exist?

Quote :

"Are you seriously suggesting that there hasn't be a pattern of accusers being ridiculed, ostracized, blamed, etc...?"

I was asking whether they were ridiculed more than those accused.

2/17/2007 7:45:01 PM

aLmost at the bottom

2/17/2007 7:49:44 PM

SET EM UP

2/17/2007 7:50:14 PM