Current Affairs, Gender, Health, News, Society

A “Horrific” Incident and an “Unfortunate Reminder”

675888-kings-cross-killer 
**Trigger warning – reference to acts of violence, rape, victim blaming**

On New Year’s Eve, an 18 year old male was “king hit” on the streets of Sydney in an apparently unprovoked attack. The story has led news bulletins for the last three days, has been the feature story on many news websites and a Google news search results in over 100 online articles relating to the incident.

On the same night, just over an hour’s drive south of Sydney, a 21 year old woman was grabbed from behind, dragged into nearby sand dunes, and raped.

I came across the story of the woman’s rape purely by chance. A Google news search results in just four almost-identical online articles about the incident.

It’s not necessarily the difference in media coverage between the two incidents that I find disturbing, (although, I do find it problematic) but the difference in the discourse in the articles. The two incidents share similarities – both were violent, unprovoked and horrific. Both will likely have life-changing effects. Neither victim was at fault.

When discussing the “king hit”, Police Prosecutor Sergeant Lisa McEvoy called the event “horrific”, noting that it was “completely unprovoked”. There have been numerous calls for tougher penalties and requests to change the term “king hit” to “coward punch”. The senseless act of violence has been called brutal, horrific, savage and an act of thuggery.

When discussing the rape, Acting Inspector Dan Richardson of the Wollongong Police said the assault was an “unfortunate reminder for people to avoid walking alone” and “for friends to keep an eye on each other”, suggesting that “it might have helped if a different route was taken”. Articles discussing the rape all mention that the victim was walking alone and had been out a New Year’s celebrations. There have been no calls for harsher penalties for rapists, no descriptions of the incident as brutal or horrific.

I can’t help but wonder why the rape of a woman is an “unfortunate reminder” , while the bashing of a man is “horrific”. Kings Cross, where the “king hit” incident took place is well known as a frequently violent spot, yet nobody would dare ask why the young man was there in the first place.

Why, when writing about a rape, is it necessary to repeatedly mention that the woman was walking in the early hours of the morning, as though such an act caused her rape?

It didn’t.

A rapist caused her rape.

As women, we are often reminded that we should take steps to ensure our safety. But when you tell me not to drink too much, not to walk alone, not to walk in dimly lit areas, what you are really telling me is to make sure he rapes some other girl. Because there will always be someone who has had more to drink, is more alone, or is walking in a darker area. And I want that girl to be safe as well.

When you call the rape of a person an “unfortunate reminder” you are using a horrific event that happened to a human being as a cautionary tale. A bullshit cautionary tale.

I can’t believe that this is even something that I have to be pissed off about. It’s two-thousand-and- fucking-fourteen.

Nobody’s rape is an “unfortunate reminder”.

Walking alone does not cause rape.

Rapists are the sole fucking cause of rape.

End. Of. Story.

 

This post originally appeared here and has been republished with full permission

Editor’s Note: This article was originally written and published  on January 3rd, prior to the tragic death of Daniel Christie. 

 

You may also like

should-have-been-a-boy

I Should Have Been A Boy (a post for International Women’s Day)

react-to-feel

You Don’t Have To React To Everything You Feel

power-of-asking 2

How To Unlock The Power of Asking

Being A Meme

What I Learnt From Being A Meme

Be-Kind

Why You Should Be Kind To Others

outrageous-article

Why I Won’t Click On That Outrageous Article

  • Rachel

    Totally and painfully agree. And by doing this the media is constantly giving permission for rapists to rape. Because it’s *never* presented as the fault of the rapist.

  • 26 Years & Counting

    I wonder if there are any organisations – advocates for victims – that can get the various media outlets to sign up for a change of vocabulary code – or something!

  • Helena

    very well said!

  • Tim

    I don’t think anyone would say that it was not absolutely terrible what happened to both victims.
    But isn’t your issue with that one Police Officers choice of words? I am sure there are plenty of news articles that use descriptive words that you would find more appropriate.

    I also don’t think Rape and Murder can be compared to each other.

    Walking alone doesn’t cause rape anymore than it causes murder, but it makes you an easier target.
    I would never let me girlfriend walk alone at night….. anywhere….. ever.

    They might keep saying don’t walk alone, or in dimly lit area’s because it might save one person… man or women. It doesn’t matter

    • iamevilcupcake

      The difference is most media articles will list a stack of things that the victim of a rape could have done to avoid the situation, whereas articles talking about king hits, focus on what we can do from a legal point of view to stop this from happening again.

  • Mustafa Kemal

    I find the writer’s contempt for the story about the tragic king hit to be quite offensive. Sorry, lady, you’re the sexist.

    • iamevilcupcake

      I think you’ve missed the point. The writer is in no way saying that the king hit story wasn’t horrific. She’s purely pointing out the difference in the media’s perception of the king hit incident and incidents of rape.

      Most of the time, any article in the media that deals with rape always ends up victim blaming. The victim shouldn’t do this, the victim shouldn’t wear that, the victim shouldn’t have been there. The focus is always on how the victim should have behaved differently and not on the rapists themselves.

      In the instance of the king hit, it’s poor victim, wasn’t provoked, then goes onto how tougher laws need to be brought in to stop this from happening again.

      I hope you can see the major difference. The fact is, what happened to the victim of a king hit, and the victim of a rape is a crime and BOTH should be treated as such.

      Next time you want to comment, please read the entire article.

      • objective

        Yes both incidents are as tragic, but unfortunately mainstream media focuses on things that are so called new problems. The frequency of the coward punch is becoming ever more prominent and has stirred much debate. I dont believe anyone who has commented on this this article has made light of rape, but merely viewed an opinion.

  • Storm Pegler

    yes. this.

    As a victim myself it’s always your fault. You chose to talk to that guy, you chose to drink, you chose to walk home alone, you chose to wear that outfit, you chose to lie there instead of fighting back and getting bashed, you didn’t scream.

    It’s not my fault. It’s not your fault. It’s the rapists fault. Every single time. Without fail. If it was the victim’s choice (fault) then it’s not rape.

    This happened in my town, and this story right here is the first I have heard of it. But I’ve heard plenty about the kids who got king hit in Sydney. I have lived in Kings Cross, it’s not a nice place to be. Wollongong is way nicer in comparison.

    Not matter where you are, you deserve to be able to wear what you want to (within the law), and you deserve to walk down the street or a darkened beach without fear of being king-hit or raped.

    • https://kikiandtea.com/ Tamsin Howse

      Amen!!

    • Roundabout

      I think you need to clearly distinguish between the political or moral claim “It is always the rapist’s fault” and the factual or criminological claim “Nothing you can do will reduce your risk of rape”. It’s always the car thief’s fault if your car is stolen, but that doesn’t mean that locking your car or parking in a well-lit, well-trafficked area makes no difference to your risk of being a victim.

  • lockyauld

    The writer has taken a single line out of context and hinged an entire article on it. She neglects to acknowledge the referenced journalist wrote that it was a ‘terrifying incident’ carried out by a ‘monster’ and carried this tone throughout the article. What is this subterfuge?

    Furthermore, publicising the dangers of walking alone and in dark areas is in no way sexist, it is informative and crucial in stopping sexual assaults because empirical evidence demonstrates these circumstances are opportune for rapists and the victims are at their most vulnerable. Do you wear a seatbelt when using a vehicle, or are you so distinguished from reality that you refuse to take this measure because crashes should not happen. Differentiate between idealism and realism.

    This is a gash opinion piece that degrades the genuine seriousness of these tragic events in attempt to accumulate online attention. Let me guess, you’re still in high school.

    • https://kikiandtea.com/ Tamsin Howse

      I would have run this piece had it been written by a high school student, a PhD student (which is what she is, as demonstrated by the bio at the bottom of the article) or a monkey. It is a valid, important point, a great article, and I back it 100%.
      Furthermore, personal attacks on writers will not be tolerated here and any further will be removed. It is not appropriate.
      Yes, this is an opinion piece, not a news article. This isn’t a news site. However the piece is using these two incidents as an example of a bigger attitude in society, one you have demonstrated yourself by saying all these things will prevent sexual assault. They won’t. Most assault is caused by people known to the victim.
      Harsher laws will prevent sexual assault, strong penalties will prevent sexual assault, a destigmatisation of assault victims, both women and men, to encourage more to come forward, will prevent sexual assault.
      Rapists cause rape.

      Tamsin, Editor in Chief

      • lockyauld

        It was never said that those actions would prevent sexual assault, but they inarguably reduce the risk (note the use of sexual assault as rape is an antiquated term based on carnal knowledge; great bit of research you’ve done there).

        There will always be sex offenders; harsher penalties will never change the natural rate of same, just as there are murderers peppered through states of America where capital punishment (the highest penalty known to man) is still the sanction imposed.

        Your reluctance to accept the reality that measures, such as staying in groups, walking in well lit areas etc. can prevent sexual assaults carries a problematic message to women.

        Learn to accept criticism and fully appreciate critical thinking before you post nonsense like this again.

        • iamevilcupcake

          Clearly you have come to read this article with some sort of agenda. That’s fine, it seems most people do that these days. The problem is when you do this you can often miss the point of an article.

          As I’ve mentioned twice below, this article is how mainstream media report on different crimes. On the one hand, you have an article on king hits, where the victim is mourned, and the crime is condemned and there is proactive talk about how society can stop this from happening.

          On the other hand, there are articles on rape where the victim is told all the things THEY did wrong, instead of the condemnation coming down on the rapist, and how society can help stop these rapes from happening.

          Clearly the way these crimes are reported are completely different.

          And honestly, there is no need to be rude! It is possible to get your point across without being rude.

        • http://diceofdoom.com RupertG

          There is a difference between accepting criticism and accepting an insult. Your ad hominem attack on the writer (and then on the editor of the site) undid most of your arguments. If you can’t play the ball, don’t play the man, it makes you look bitter, not intelligent. Unfortunately for yourself, you now look a bit like a fool.

          I’m including the link to the Ad Hominem Wiki page, as it appears you need to do some research of your own…

      • Mark

        Let me begin by saying that I essentially agree with the conclusion of this article. There are, to my mind, no circumstances whereby the victim’s behaviour can mitigate the offence.
        However, I also agree with the first comment here, that the tone of the respective news articles did not differ so greatly. I realise this is an opinion piece, but even in an opinion piece, its important to make sure there are no logical fallacies. Misrepresentation of the facts negatively impacts the authority of the message. And, the message is an important one.
        My opinion is that all absolute statements should be avoided. Specifically, stating categorically that harsher laws, stronger penalties and destigmatisation will prevent sexual assault is open to debate. It may seem clear to us in our houses that certain measures will lead to certain outcomes, but life is seldom black and white. This is obviously just my opinion.
        Along the lines of preventing sexual assault, I think it’s important to remember that while the only true cause of rape is rapists, there are behaviours that will at least help prevent individual occurrences. As lockyauld said, it is empirically irrefutable that circumstances that involve isolation, intoxication and darkness are opportune for rapists. This might be a “bandaid” solution, but if i had a daughter, I’d do my utmost to make sure she took these measures very much to heart. Wouldn’t you?

    • DJ

      It does not detract from the completely differnt response by police to the cowards punch and the response to the never ending violence against women.

    • Jeremy Garnett

      So calling a rapist ‘monster’ justifies the imbalance of reporting by the
      news media?

      Monster is no longer even a hurtful insult, with the monsters of modern day
      being cuddly and colourful and full of fun.

      I find it disgraceful that one king hit can result in the outrage of the
      nation and the changing of the law to fully punish future culprits, but a rape
      can be dismissed as irrelevant. Each causes long term harm to the community,
      and can result in the death of the victim, either through physical harm or mental
      instability.

      The realist viewer can only judge against their own sense of reality.Your
      realistic view of things would suggest walking alone at night is a bad idea and
      that I, as a large bodied male am less likely to be attacked. Yet I, having
      walked alone at night, know the flaws of that assumption and have a different
      sense of realism.

      Call me naive, if you will, for I believe that without idealism, there is no
      drive to improve the situation. My idealism suggests it should be safe for a
      single child, let alone a girl or a young woman to walk alone in the dark, as
      it is for me, a white, full bodied, man. That changing the laws to better
      punish rapists would prevent as many rapes as king hits. That the outrage generated
      by rape should cause drastic change to public opinion and legal structure.

      As for the subterfuge, it is a standard tool used by any media to spread a
      specific message: by historians to deny the holocaust; by comedians to gain a
      laugh, by politicians to justify their goals and by me to reply to your post.
      The subterfuge is in how I read your writing and challenge it with mine. It is
      in its pure essence: Opinion.

    • Offended

      So, not walking alone and avoiding dark areas keeps you safe from assault and rape does it?Crucial, no less? Your comments expose a naivety and a simplistic and idealistic view that, although too common in this country, bears no resemblance to reality. To my mind, this piece seeks to stir discussion and thought about changing societal perception and acceptance of violent crime (against both men and women), and the influence of media in that discussion. Your comments seek to hurt and denigrate, don’t offend us with your guesses.

  • Sage

    One thing in this article that I disagree with is the clear lack of research. The author says that, ” nobody would dare ask why the young man was there in the first place.” However, a massive part of the news coverage of the king hit assault in question was the controversy over Tony Abbott’s suggestion that, “If you are walking down the street at 2am in Kings Cross in Sydney and you get king hit, maybe you shouldn’t be there.”

    While I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of this article, that victims of sexual assault, especially young women, are not treated in the same manner as victims of other crimes, I would only ask that the author researches the media coverage more thoroughly before choosing to comment on it.

  • Tom

    It doesn’t matter if you’re male or female. Walking home alone, in the middle of the night, in poorly-lit and empty areas, is a bad idea.

    Yes, the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by people who know their victim, and usually within the home.

    But as the incident mentioned above proves, these horrific random acts of sexual violence still occur. And far too often.

    Very few of these random sexual assaults happen in busy areas in broad daylight. That much is obvious.

    As such, you are less likely to be assaulted if you walk home with friends, and take a well-lit path. Or catch a cab.

    It’s ridiculous to suggest common-sense warnings shouldn’t be made, purely because they’re deemed by some as politically incorrect.

    It’s not victim blaming. In no way does it excuse the low-life scum that commit these sorts of crimes, and how anyone draws such an absurd link is completely beyond me.

    • iamevilcupcake

      I agree with you to a point. Of course you are less likely to be assaulted if you walk home with friends or take a well-lit path. And of course warnings need to be made, the writer isn’t saying that. But the fact of the matter is when discussing these things, particularly in the media, the discussion is always, “well she shouldn’t have walked there, she shouldn’t have been alone, and she shouldn’t have worn that”. THAT is victim blaming. Just because someone needs to walk through the seedy part of town in the dark, does not give a rapist open slather to rape.

      The focus needs to be on the rapist and how to stop them from re-offending, not trying to make the victim feel worse than they already do because people like to keep reminding them after the fact, that they shouldn’t have been/behaved the way they did.

      Rapist cause rape. Not the victim. And the onus needs to stop being on women but on those who commit the crime.

    • ella

      you are right, to an extent. think of it (the idea of victim blaming) this way: you warn your daughter/friend/lover/mother not to drink too much, not to walk home alone, not to walk in poorly lit areas, because they put themselves at risk of being attacked. they are then left at a party without a lift home because their friend has to attend to a family emergency and can’t give them a lift home. they are left with no option but to walk home, late at night, by themselves. your daughter/friend/lover/mother is then brutally raped. how does she feel? since you told her not to walk home alone and she did, you are implicitly telling her it was her fault. she feels guilt, shame, she feels responsible for her own rape. sure, you can warn women of the dangers of the night. but why not address the root cause of the problem, as they are now doing legally in light of the media furore over the ‘coward punch’? why suggest women should take extra precautions that men do not have to take? why mention-in an article ABOUT the brutal attack- that the woman could have avoided it had she been more careful? where is the media saying that people who go to king’s cross deserve to be king hit? after all, it is a dangerous area, and this type of attack has happened before there. sure, Abbott might have made the comment. but the overwhelming response is to radically change policy, enforce tougher sentencing, and make a concerted effort to expose this type of attack in the media. this is not political correctness. this is looking at this issue with an open mind, with empathy, and realising that the compassion we have for the victims of the unprovoked king hit exposes our lack of empathy for women who experience unprovoked attacks constantly, and are made to feel guilty for having been raped.

    • Julie

      This is another opinion piece that I am posting as a guest to avoid personal queries as friends have shared this piece already:

      I must beg to differ on your opinion that very few of these are random sexual assaults that happen in broad daylight.

      Where I attended high school in the Carlingford area there was several groups of gang rapists who purposely hung around the exits to all the local high schools in the area, at least four or five within less than five to ten minutes drive of each other.

      They did not discriminate between male or female, it did not matter which exit you took from school, if you travelled in numbers, had mobile phones, took the busier roads, left at an earlier time or with mixed groups of males and females, the largest group they attacked was of six people both males and females. Every year or sometimes a couple of times a year we would be advised of another attack.

      As a victim of sexual assault myself, one that was not believed and told that it was all in my head – I do not appreciate the stigma that there are things you could have done to avoid it, this is victim blaming.
      Yes we may not have been murdered but it is something that we have to live with for the rest of our lives. With victim blaming it does constantly make you feel like you caused what happened to you, when the honest truth is these people will find a way to get what they want and it does not matter what precautions you take be you male or female.

  • http://attackongaming.com/ Gaming Admiral

    I quite liked this article. I think you’re right in what you said, but I might be able to offer an explanation as to why. This purely hypothetical by the way, but it makes sense.

    When an unprovoked bashing occurs, there’s a certain level of spectacle to it. It’s big, it’s flashy, it’s something that people will notice and have been noticing.

    However, a rape is more subtle. People typically don’t notice, people haven’t noticed and as a result, they can’t really picture it as something that happens.

    This could be why there is a difference in how these are treated. I mean, look at the examples the OP posted. Words like “King-hit” just add to the spectacle of a brawl. The raw aftermath alone adds even more to that, it’s a drama that people can see and relate to, which produces views, which translates into revenue.

    When dealing with rape, not many people really have the means to know how to deal with it, so they’ll comment with basic self-defence precautions, rather than a show of support or understanding, because they really don’t know how to support someone in that position. Not only that, rape makes people uncomfortable, and discomfort averts eyes.

    In my opinion, the best way to deal with rape is to make people comfortable with discussing and interacting to rape situations. I’m not suggesting for people to rape, nor am I advocating anything rapey. But discussions, and perhaps heavier material, needs to be made accessible for people to relate better to those in positions where rape can/is occurring. It’s hard to describe my thoughts here.

    Lastly, to the OP, I quite enjoyed how you stated that rapists rape, and didn’t default it to men like most places on the internet would. You seem like you have a good mind to you.

    Note: excuse the poor structure and possible grammatical errors, I’m half asleep writing this.

    • https://kikiandtea.com/ Tamsin Howse

      Very interesting point. I need to think about that further.

  • ML

    I was sexually assaulted many years ago after a friends 21st birthday party. I was drunk for the first time, a virgin (I had never even seen a penis before), and had passed out on a city park bench late at night. I woke to find someone with his hands down my pants, inside me, and he later tried to force his penis into my mouth. I was terrified and felt unable to call out for help, despite there being other people walking through the park at the time. After several hours I was able to escape. I never reported the assault to police because I thought I was to blame. Drunk, alone, out late at night… Pretty much the only box I didn’t tick was “wearing the wrong thing”, being dressed very conservatively.

    But failing to report this incident is something that I deeply regret to this day. What happened to me was wrong, and although I “put myself in a dangerous situation”, or however you want to view it, it doesn’t make what that man did to me any less wrong. I also have no doubt that the man who did this to me, has gone on to do the same to others.

    Media and police reactions to sexual assault MAY encourage women to take precautions to protect their own safety – I don’t know. But I DO know that these reactions discourage women who have been sexually assaulted from reporting the assaults. Ultimately, this is dangerous for all women, because an unreported assault means an unpunished crime and a criminal free to offend again.

    • Jessica Chapman

      Thank you for sharing that, it must have taken a great amount of courage. What happened to you was not your fault at all. I often get the feeling that the reason why so many people go down the road of victim blaming is because they want to believe that it can’t happen to them or to people they know and love. But all it achieves is stigmatising the victim with a false feeling of shame. There is no distinction of intelligence or worth between a victim and a non-victim, rape and sexual assault don’t only happen to one type of person. There is no precaution that can definitively protect people from sexual assault. It’s always the perpetrators fault.

  • ekb87

    Reducted – “There’s been a lot of talk lately about that kid who got bashed and died. Therefore, everyone is a sexist and doesn’t care about rape.”

    Um… seems legit. Not.

    The answer to why the two crimes got different levels of attention is glaringly obvious – one involves a DEATH, one doesn’t.

    And frankly, the writer’s glib glossing over of this fact is puerile and offensive – “The two incidents share similarities – both were violent, unprovoked and horrific. Both will likely have life-changing effects.”

    Yes, being killed does tend to change your life.

    Sorry, I find this article juvenile and petulant.

    • https://kikiandtea.com/ Tamsin Howse

      Thanks for your point of view. The reason this is not mentioned is the article was written and originally published prior to the death of Daniel Christie.

    • iamevilcupcake

      First of all, the writer at no point insinuated that sexism was behind the fact that the king hit is reported differently to the rape. Yes, one involves death, and the family has to deal with the grief and the fact that their loved one was murdered. In time, the grief will subside though, it WILL become easier. Having lost many loved ones myself, I get this.

      However, the victim of a rape has to deal with the consequences of someone else’s actions. They are likely to feel dirty. They are likely to blame themselves, even before other people open their mouths. Future relationships can be put into jeopardy because others can’t deal with the fact that this person was raped. They will feel fear, unworthiness, loathing.

      The fact of the matter is in both instances a crime was committed. The king hit eventually resulted in a death. For you to assume that the writer was saying the rape was worse is to quote yourself “juvenile and petulant”. If you had actually taken the time to just read the article instead of just reacting you would see this.

      The other fact is, at no point was the king hit reported in a way that would blame the victim. All focus was on the douche canoe who hit the poor guy. The rape was reported in a way that said that if the victim had done things differently, it wouldn’t have happened.

      Again, PLEASE read the whole article before replying and insulting the writer doesn’t help, in fact makes you look bad.

  • Melinda Christmas

    After reading the article and then the comments, I am surprised to see a lack of what I think is such an important and logical point. Death. Yes, both were violent, unprovoked and horrific. Why not debate about the punishment for each act of violence, not picking on which story was more popular. If a rapist escalates their attack and kills a victim (whatever their initial appalling intention) they become a murderer, and punished for that murder and rape. 18 year olds Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie died from a cowards punch. So to say ‘Both stories will likely have life-changing effects.’ is almost cold in its lack of thought. Those kids don’t have a life to change anymore. Rape and the seriousness of sexual assaults is a relevant and critical issue that needs to be addressed and the penalties always need to meet the violence. We need to talk about it and always keep our views on its horror public so offenders will be rightfully punished. I just believe that trying to hook the story onto another violent event and criticizing the way the stories were written in comparison to one another, lessons the point of why a rape of a women is an “unfortunate reminder”. And that is a horrible thing to think about when reading about something so serious. When the original article of the rape has a heading like, “Woman raped by monster” and “The terrifying incident” and most importantly ‘after being treated in hospital, describing her attacker”, I can see a writer understanding that unfortunately there are horrible, selfish people out their, and that in conclusion to their story this is an unfortunate reminder to the fact its not always safe to walk alone, but thankfully she can get help and support. And because of this I think its ok that we also see the bashing and death of a victim “horrific”, even if they were boys in a “frequently violent spot”.

    • I really don’t know

      I don’t want to sound callous, but there are those who consider death an escape from pain, it is the one’s who are left behind (alive) who suffer. I sometimes wonder why we consider causing death the ultimate crime, when causing a lifetime of pain and anguish would seem to me to be more cruel. I’m not saying anyone’s wrong, just playing devil’s advocate for the victim, rather than the anguished survivors (who exist in both cases). Is it better to remember a fallen angel as they once where, or to see the broken angel on a daily basis?

      • I really don’t know

        Particularly if the broken angel is in your mirror.

      • Melinda Christmas

        I do realise that this is a perspective to be aware of, but unlike death it is not final. And I only say that because with life you have choice. Not with any disrespect or disregard do I use the word ‘Choice’, it’s not a choice to ‘get over it or move on or even to be happy’. But to say that a ‘fallen angel’ will always be fallen… no one can or ever should say that, from the spirits. hearts & minds of so many victims of war, rape, concentration camps, abuse, drunk drivers, bashing’s … Have shown us that life and growth can be found after horror. This is why the idea that it might be ok that they are dead instead of ‘living with it’ is so wrong to me. Because in every way, I would never want to not give that person that choice, after so much already, to have the choice to find a light in life again.

  • audere

    It’s unjust. The double-standard sucks. But no matter how correct the writer is it doesn’t change the facts. Decades of fighting for change in this area are yet to succeed. Alas justice does not figure to those lacking in impulse control or set on opportunistic predatory conduct. Just because you or your friends would never do it doesn’t mean that others won’t. In fact some of the worst conduct I’ve witnessed (as an A&E nurse) has been perpetrated by the least suspect. All of us, not just females, must grow up and realise that we are not invincible. Like extreme-sports folk, we should risk-manage our lives. Such planning asks, “What is the risk of harm if I’m drunk amid drunks in a car, CBD or King’s Cross at 3 AM or dune-strolling solo after midnight on the most drunken night of the year?” Is that risk worth it. If so how will I minimise that risk?” As a risk-taker I was as stupid as any. In my ignorance I got into pickles. Only gut instinct and/or great pals saved my ass. Hopefully the article will steel folk to take up the fight so that all can walk the streets (and dunes) safely. Risk takers could learn a thing or two from Jeb Corliss. He’d know that the risk of hanging out with drunks exceeds this

  • Voice of Reason

    The problem with this article is that it’s message boils down to “Women who are raped don’t get media attention but men who are king hit do”. I disagree with this. Cherry picking incidents does not provide a fair representation. Quite recently the awful gang rapes in India have made headlines around the world and have shocked and outraged. Then there has been the Maryville teenager case in the US. All of these have grabbed the news headlines and caused outrage in the communities.

    I think if the author ran a poll and asked the question should there be tougher penalties for rape then the overwhelming majority would say yes.

    Certainly the “coward’s punch” is in the media spotlight but that is how the media works. They pick a topic, keep on it for a while, and then find something else. This month it is the “coward’s punch”, the next month it could be “tougher penalties for rape”. I don’t think there is any agenda to discredit rape.

    However, I do think it is immature to ignore common sense and instead have an idealistic view that walking by ones self at night in a secluded area is fine. As other posters have pointed out, just because something shouldn’t happen doesn’t mean you don’t take precautions.

    The article then goes on to say that there was no outcry that the king hit victim was walking in a dangerous area and is a case of double standards. One should always exercise caution but this is comparing apples to oranges. The king hit victim was hit around 10pm in a well lit area, with many people around and hit without any real motive behind it. Hundreds of thousands of people are in similar position each weekend. In contrast the rape victim was by herself, in a secluded area at 2.30am. It would be ignorant to think that this would not be attractive to a predator.

    Sadly, the article’s tone and content seems more focused on fuelling a gender war than actually providing something constructive.

    • Guest

      No, what the article is trying to say is that rape is typically downplayed, compared to other acts of violence, and that the media and other people tend to treat a rape like the victim was at least partly if not totally at fault for what happened, trying to come up with bullshit reasons how they caused their own rape (being in the wrong place at the wrong time, wearing the wrong clothes, etc), whereas a non-sexual act of violence is typically treated as being the offender’s fault. Which is basically what you’ve done. This is what is known as “rape apology”, which is another form of what is known as “blaming the victim”. Congratulations on being a rape apologist and trying to derail the focus of the actual article.

      BTW men CAN be raped too. Just saying. To say this is only about “fuelling a gender war” is to imply that only women can ever be raped, which is a lie and shows just how messed up your worldview is (because that means you’re saying “women are at least partly if not completely to blame for sexual violence against them”).

      In a nutshell, NO VICTIM IS EVER TO BLAME FOR ANY ACT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THEM, EVEN IF THE VIOLENCE IS SEXUAL IN NATURE. 100% of the blame for violence should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS go to the offender, rapists included, because they’re the ones making the CHOICE to perpetrate violence on someone else, so it ultimately ALL leads back to them. ALL of it. It doesn’t matter if the victim was stabbed, shot, poisoned, beaten, pushed off a cliff, or raped. It doesn’t matter if the victim was killed or survived the attack. The VICTIM IS NOT TO BLAME FOR WHAT THE PERP HAS DONE TO THEM, and it is REALLY messed up to imply otherwise.

      Please either get a clue, or change your name to “voice of victim blaming” so that people can be properly warned about you. Thank you.

  • Rob

    Why has it got to be a competition? Jesus Christ.

  • RPM

    No one is saying anything caused it, the term “unfortunate reminder” is literaly what it is, a reminder that there are some sick people in this world and a little awareness and avoidance of certain circumstances could save lives, definitely not an attack on anyones reason for walking anywhere at any particular time.
    Pathetic shock/rage on a page journalism interpretation here, nothing more.

  • Pingback: Is rape culture sometimes just common sense()