You sound like you were drinking quite heavily in Paris when you wrote your last comments. You refrained from making any points, and from saying anything even remotely relevant to the thread. A good opportunity to be silent, lost on a whim. What a pity...

The cultural difference: should victims be paid compensations? And how much? People can arguably differ on this. I, for one, think it's OK to compensate. I would like to see how they came to the conclusion that £11,000 was the right amount to pay -- not because I'm against compensations, but because I'd like to understand how they're calculated.

Second question: can the blameworthiness of the victim be taken into account for the calculations? Drinking? (And I agree: drinking does make it easier for you to become a victim.) Flaunting your money in a crime-full area? Going to a place where the risk of being attacked is reportedly very high? I suppose this amounts to the question: can your personal stupidity be taken into account when calculating your compensations? I think it can; but I'm afraid of exaggerations. There's lots of ways in which someone could be blamed for being 'stupid', and some would be not really fair. (A tourist who didn't know an area that looked OK was dangerous could have found out about it by reading leaflets from the police, or probably a Traveler's Guide book or something like that; but that's different from someone who went into an area s/he already knew to be very dangerous.)

Third question: was it OK to reduce the victim's compensation because she was drunk? That's a tough one. I disagree with Ms Clark-Flory that being drunk is equivalent to 'being a woman, being blond, etc.' as grounds for reducing compensation: drinking is a voluntary act, being a woman isn't; drinking facilitates the task of the attacker and shouldn't be done in dangerous situations. But then again, many rapists were men that the woman in question actually knew or trusted; getting drunk with them shouldn't, in principle, have been dangerous, not like going into a dangerous area of town. Because of this, I think other factors could perhaps be considered, but not drinking.

I'm curious: would any of you like to suggest and/or discuss factors that you'd consider as relevant for deciding about cuts in compensations for victims of rape? I'd say drinking isn't one.

Good points. Though I must say, at least in Brazil, the victim of theft is often blamed by his/her stupidity. Forgetting to lock a sliding glass door (in fact, having one without a protective metal grill) might get you accused of being 'stupid' or 'asking for it'; ditto with flauting your rolex watch on a bad neighborhood (I had a much less expensive watch stolen once, and one of my cousins actually got mad: 'Downtown? At 7:30 pm? (i.e. almost two hours after sunset) And you didn't put it in your bag, or in your pocket? Were you crazy?' etc.)

It is true, though, that women might be seen as 'attracting rape' by the simple fact of showing themselves and being pretty or sexy. (I would say, though, that 'having a drink' and 'getting drunk' are different things; to get drunk in a bar is not a very intelligent thing for anybody to do.) A woman's appearance, her clothes or make-up, should never be grounds for decreasing compensation. Wanting to look pretty is miles away from courting rape.

There seems to be something wrong with the video: I can't play it, no matter where I click.

Indeed, you fail to notice that the discussion was not about the sales of Cosmopolitan, but about its contents. What a pity. If you had noticed what the discussion was about, you might even have made a relevant comment.

The war in Iraq was a great stupidity; the problems in Georgia may be only the first bad consequences. Ah, America! Will Putin now be able to claim that Saakashvili is just like Saddam Hussein?

I suppose if husbands and wifes were more sincere to each other about their wants and needs, and if husbands and wives took these wants and needs seriously... I suppose Edwards could have felt he needed more sex, and the need went on accumulating for a while; in a perfect world, he could simply discuss it with Elizabeth, so that they would find a solution as to how he could have the sex he needed despite her condition. But in our society, because of still prevailing rules, I think for him to ask her about this would be, by itself, humiliating for her. She would be reminded of her 'inability' to satisfy him because of her condition; and she is not at all guilty of that. She might take it as a reproach, a condemnation, and an unfair one at that. So he might find bringing the topic up a real problem.

In a perfect world, people would simply communicate about their needs, and find solutions together. Open marriages, 'screwing around' with permission from spouse, enforced celibacy, whatever works for each specific couple. And I would certainly favor that. But in our Western world, there are still so many rules (made by men, women, or both, or coming from culture, tradition, religion...) that it's difficult to navigate yourself in communication well. I wished it weren't like this -- I wished people could simply have sane, rational conversations about their needs and solve them without implying any bad things about anyone. But apparently it isn't exactly like that. And may people end up making promises that they later regret.