If you drank yourself into unconsciousness and took a nap outside in your dangerous neighborhood at night, yeah, I'd say you had some culpability for whatever happened to you.

Doesn't absolve whoever touches you of whatever crime they might commit. Crime is crime. It's just that you would be an idiot. "Too dumb to live" isn't a legal distinction; it's a Darwinian one.

What if you drenched yourself in meat juice and broke into the tiger pen? Took a nap on the railroad tracks?

I too live in a neighborhood that's not entirely safe at night. Twice on walks I've been shot at. I'm aware that I choose to take risks when I walk here. Some day I may be shot and killed on a walk, or like the young couple a few months ago, kidnapped, raped, locked in a car trunk, driven to an ATM machine, then dumped in the Nonconnah creek. If that happens to me, the people who commit the crime will be kidnappers, rapists, robbers, and murderers, and I will be a person who knowingly took the risk of walking at night in an iffy neighborhood.

Everyone takes some amount of risk. I took a risk today when I ate bagged salad. Maybe it had e. coli in it. Then I drove to the store; I could have been killed by another driver. I judged these to be reasonable risks, worth taking. I judge walking at night to be quite dangerous, but nevertheless a risk worth taking (I really like walking at night.) My mother thinks that it's not a reasonable risk, so I don't talk about my nocturnal walks with her. I try to reduce the risk by walking with my husband (although that didn't save the couple who were murdered, it does reduce the risk since most criminals don't want to try to control two people), carrying a very visible large stick, and being aware of my surroundings.

Passing out in the company of several seriously intoxicated men I don't know? Not an acceptable risk. I think very few women get enough pleasure out of getting blotto at large parties to make it worth the risk of being raped. They lie to themselves about the level of risk, and those who help them lie to themselves by pretending their behavior is safe aren't doing them any favors.

I can't repeat this often enough, since people on both sides aren't getting it: at no point does stupid behavior on the part of the victim make criminals innocent. If I leave my wallet with a thousand dollars in small bills lying on a park bench, it's still my wallet and stealing from it is still stealing. But also, at no point does criminal behavior make stupid behavior smart. The wallet-leaver is still stupid, regardless of whether or not the thief is a thief. A passed-out drunken woman at a party who gets raped, was stupid. She doesn't suddenly become immune to being accused of stupidity just because someone raped her. The fact remains, incontrovertible, ugly as it may be, that if she had not chosen to drink and pass out, she would not have been raped. It's all very well to punish the rapist; wouldn't it be better to try to prevent the rape in the first place?

If you have a choice about it, stay conscious. Consciousness is useful in all kinds of situations. Life is much simpler for people who don't act like idiots.

These aren't human laws; these are universal laws. Human laws have no power to change the universal law that those who choose to act like idiots frequently get hurt as a result.

Places of worship are for people who believe in God. Let him stay home while you go with your brother. You need not spend the entire holiday in religious activities - in fact it would be rude. Part of marrying someone who doesn't belong to your religion is compromise. Spend part of the day doing whatever things he would like to do.

That he doesn't want to wear the kippah and it's required is a sign that he does not belong there. The place is not for him. It's reserved for men who believe in showing respect in a synagogue by covering their heads. The holiday is not for him either; it's for people who believe in the meaning behind it. To your atheist husband your high holy days are only special because they are special to you.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for him to refuse to cover his head; however, it's unreasonable for him to expect to attend with his head uncovered. I won't enter a church or mosque where women are required to cover their heads. This, to me, is a good sign that I don't belong there. I can choose not to participate, but it's not up to me to make them change their beliefs.

I'm not sure what your home church is like, but at my church, it's understood that people often refuse Communion for various reasons, including being spiritually troubled, and having a cold which you don't want to share with others. (Remember the bit where it says not to take Communion when you're in the middle of an unresolved fight with someone?)

In any case, it's considered extremely rude to pay attention to whether or not others receive Communion on any given day.

I'm not sure whether knowing this will help you cease feeling like you have a neon sign on your head (and you know your church members better than I do, maybe they really are spending the entire service thinking about you) but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Can you explain what this has to do with the Broadsheet post?