Blaming the victim

[jedizero]

A person who would rape is probably a bad person anyway.
The last thing they need is to be provoked.
If you covored yourself in bacon, then got mauled by an animal, then alot of the blame does rest with you.

Now, you see, that has an excuse.

An animal is not cognitive. It functions on instincts. It does not have the knowledge of 'right and wrong', it merely sees food and says 'eat'. It sees a mate and says 'Procreate'.


A person? A person is not an animal.

They may act like animals, but they have minds, they are not instinct only. They do not see someone scantily dressed say 'procreate'. They do not see food and say 'eat'. They think, they feel, and they are cognitive.

It seems that a lot of the 'If you dress like a slut you deserve it' crowd is more the prudish 'Don't dress like how I disagree with or god will strike you down', and they seem to not want their 'examples' to be treated like actual people.

 

[spartan231490]

Trying to pin rape or sexual assault situations on the victim is fucking disgusting anyway you look at it. I don't care what you are wearing, it has no relevance to getting raped.

Trying to place the blame for any act you committed on someone else is stupid and idiotic at best, and in many cases outright evil.

 

[Azrael the Cat]

I just want to raise up a point real quick.


In the story about the girl from texas...

It says it wasnt the first time she was sexually assaulted, and that it had happend a few other times during the last year.


Now, Im not sure about anyone else, but if you get snapped by a mouse-trap the first time, chances are you wouldnt put your hand back in it again.


I mean, no offense, but I havent ever heard of anyone until reading that story, of ever being a victim of multiple sexual assaults... during a single year.


As for the blame "she dressed like a *slut*, it was her own fault!" is retarded in its own right. We are human beings god damnit, we have a brain and, for most of us, a conscience that tells us what is right form wrong, you cant blame someone who dresses a certain way for making you do anything.


I have to pull a quote from The Boondock Saints:


Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.

Being the victim of multiple sexual assaults in a short space of time (a month, a year) is extremely common in some areas. Sexual assaults, like many crimes, tend to be clustered in the same areas. If you own a house that is in an area with high break-ins, you'll get robbed repeatedly while someone who lives elsewhere has to be really unlucky to EVER get robbed. Live in an area that doesn't go out of their way to prevent violence against women, and there is a huge likelihood of repeated sexual assaults on the same victims. I work in criminal law, and it happens all the time.

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

once I heard that girls can't be responsible for their actions while drunk, but guys are held fully accountable for their actions, I stopped trying to understand the laws behind this crap.

OT: unfortunately people will always have their opinions, and in some cases who is at fault is quite fuzzy.

 

[jedizero]

And yes we are animals, and like animals we too are driven by sex, and some people can't help themselves.

Oh, alright. So if I were to go over there, right now, and kill you. I should get off scot free because we're animals?

 

[Canid117]

This again? Sure I can accept making lewd comments at someone dressing in a sexually provocative manner but rape and other forms of sexual assault are crossing a fucking line! (no pun intended)

 

[BillCobbett]

Edit: yes, there is a tl;dr. Check out the bottom please. if still interested, you can read rest

look, it seems we have a fundamental misunderstanding here. people have different definitions of rape.

RapeA--A psychologically disturbed person who gets off on power decides to live out his or her fantasy by sexually dominating another. Clearly wrong, victim has nothing to do with what triggers the power fantasy of the rapist

RapeB--Sexually based rape. A person (normally with reduced impulse control brought on by drugs/alcohol) has sex with another person who under normal circumstances would not be willing. A LOT more murky.

Think about some college girls going out on friday night. Some will want to pick up a guy for sex, and dress accordingly. Others want the attention of boys, but not want sex, and society tells them that to get attention they must dress like the first group. The tragic third group dresses up to go out because, well, thats how all her friends are going out!

They arrive at a party, and meet some people. The girls hoping for sex undoubtedly get their wish, but there are never enough girls like that to satisfy the rest of the drunken ogres there. Potential rapists, their inhibitions loosened and desires unleashed, mistakenly interpret all women dressed in a similar fashion as belonging to the first group, and proceed accordingly. Unconscious woman on a couch? Well, she's here and drinking and dressed like that isn't she? I think this is why some particularly ogre-ish specimens insist, as moviebob put it, that rape is just when a woman changes her mind. In the rapist's mind, she did want it because of some perceived signals, even though she might be giving others out that say the contrary. I liken it to a zealot's stubborn resistance to new ideas despite evidence--it is simply selectively ignored.

This case of the 11 year old girl is so controversial, I think, because it represents the intersection of both rapeA and rapeB, and its difficult to speak about an issue if the action in question is not adequately defined for both sides. I'm not sure if the perpetrators were under the influence of alcohol, but they were certainly under the influence of groupthink, which if anything is more dangerous.

Whose fault is it? Undoubtedly the vast majority of it lies on the attackers for deliberately ignoring or misunderstanding evidence that the girl wanted no part of any sexual activity. But I would argue that some small part of the blame also lies on the society that told her dressing like that is acceptable behavior, and the family that did nothing to counteract society's pressure. As well, what about these boys' families? It seems they were not educated either on the importance of critical thinking no matter what the situation. But I would not blame the child. She is, after all, a child, and cannot be held accountable.

tl;dr: 2 types of rape. A is rapist power fantasy. B is tragic, willful misunderstanding. (typically) Society tells women to dress a certain way, males respond to signals unintentionally given by the way they dress, and ignore negative reactions to their advances due to altered states. Specific case in question is controversial because it is a combination of the two types, and is difficult to productively argue about since both sides are using different connotations of "rape."

 

[JET1971]

I am not reading all that. anyway my opinion is there is no excuse for rape at all regardless of who raped who. blame falls fully on the rapist and the rapists deserves to have his or her genitals removed in an unsightly fashion and force fed to them. as for victims... if they dress and act like sluts or whores then I have very little sympathy for them. i am not saying they deserved the rape, im just saying they dressed and acted in a way to make the opposite sex more sexualy attracted(easy fuck) to them and got exactly that. you go to defcon and walk around giving hints to your passwords you would expect to have it hacked. we all know anyone could be a sexual deviant and acting and dressing slutty is the same as password hinting a defcon, thus little sympathy. but then again i have little sympathy for the stupid people that do stupid things like hacksaw a live power line trying to steal it for the recycle value.

but then again I have a unigue perspective on the subject as far as sympathy goes, when I was 19 i was hired to do some work for friends of the family and there spoiled slut underage (14) daughter had been all touchy feely and told me if i said anything she would say i raped her. i managed to get away from her and didnt touch her in anyway except remove her hand from my crotch and feigned illness to go home and then quit via phone the next day so i wouldnt have to deal with her again. luckily we were never alone and i got away from it without any escalation on her false acusations. 3 years later she was brutaly raped. yes a victim but from my experiance with her I had no sympathy for her. cocktease gets raped gets no sympathy from me.

2 years prior to that incident at work for her parents(when i was 17) my girlfriend got off work as a waitress and was raped by a customer/fellow student. she was nothing slutty at all, wasnt flirtatious and yet some sexual deviant decided he was hungry and she was the meal. I had plenty of sympathy for her because she never played slut/whore. and dressed conservativly. she want a good flirt either. fun, sweet, kind, lovable... yes. vistims like her get my sympathy.

as for the 11 year old texas girl... i have no idea as i was not there. blame goes to the rapists. does she get sympathy from me? yes. her parents deserve something though.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Unless its a false accusation then its certainly not the victim's fault that the crime happened. I think most people would support that view on rape.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think I may not have been be clear enough. Let me summarize the points I am trying to make:

That is an understatement .. because your first comment I replied to insinuated something different.

1. Not everyone is capable of being a rapist, but you cannot tell the difference between a rapist and a normal individual with 100% certainty.

No, they are predatory monsters. But it's a farcry to say that everybody is capable of rape as per your original statement.

2. Certain basic protective measures can be taken to reduce the risk of being raped without serious inconvenience.

And .....? I fail to see how this is an argument ... and it's still very much culturally specific. I don't lock my doors when I'm inside my house ... I fail to see how that even comes into the territory of the argument.

Are you trying to say only stupid people don't lock their doors at all times?

Because I've always been under the assumption and belief that it's stupid (and psychologically damaging) to always expect a rapist may knock down your door whilst you're making pancakes and coffee.

3. I believe it is wise to take preventative measure against rape.

I have previously linked 2 documents outlining some ways to reduce the risk of rape. I will again link them for your convenience. (If anyone knows of a federally approved rape prevention document, I would appreciate the link)

http://cityofdavis.org/police/investigations/rapeprev.cfm
http://www.kevincoffee.com/women_safety/rape_prevention_tips.htm

"It is a good idea to refrain from going to bars and clubs alone. However, should you choose to do so, have your own transportation available, and use it."

Right ... good advice.

Because nobody drinks at a club, and having no friends means zero people that can drive it home without possible suspension of licence.

Are you really telling me you expect all people to follow that advice? Really? What next, "Invest in a protective kevlar vest"?

Look ... yes .. steps can be taken to minimizing the threat of rape, but by no means does not deciding to lock yourself in your own home or deciding to go dancing suddenly make the rapist anything less than a rapist. Nor does it make the victim anything less than a victim. So I don't understand what are you arguing.

 

[cobra_ky]

Please explain to me how it can possibly be the victim's fault if they are drugged with rohypnol.

Alright, random scenario time:

Person A, let's call her Sally, is at a big party (meaning more people than she is readily familiar with). At this party, they are serving beer in those little red cups. Sally has to go somewhere. She sets her drink down on a table in the middle of the room and walks off. Person B, let's call him Ted, walks up and drops a roofy in the cup. Sally comes back and drinks it. Ted comes by and takes advantage.

Ted is clearly a complete fuckbag and deserves castration via weedwhacker. I think we all agree on that.

Sally on the other hand is an idiot. She's the victim yes, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.

Common sense dictates that one would either keep their cup with them or find a new cup. She did neither. Thus, she acted stupidly.

as long as we're making up random hypotheticals now, here's a far more realistic one.

Sally is at a small get-together with a few friends. She knows most of the people there pretty well, but she's only met a few people, including Ted, a few times before. Still, he's a friend of Sally's friend Jeff, and he seems like a nice enough guy. She's mostly hanging around with her friends anyway, so she doesn't think to ask someone to watch her cup while she goes to the bathroom. Her friends are comfortable and having a good time too, so none of them notice when Ted, who's been keeping an eye on Sally all night, passes by the counter where Sally left her drink and casually drops the roofie in.

THERE IS NO BLAME TO BE HAD ON THE VICTIM FOR BEING ATTACKED. THERE NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE.

In certain situations, however, there is fault to be had by the victim for acting stupidly. Exposing oneself to situations where bad things can happen is a dumb idea. The fact that they are in a situation where they can be taken advantage of is their fault. It is by no means every instance, stop trying to portray it as otherwise.

i don't see what the difference is between 'blame' and 'fault'.

People have a responsibility, nay an obligation, to act sensibly. If they cannot do so, it's no one else's fault that they've acted like an idiot. It's terrible for people to take advantage of said stupidity, and any attackers should rightly be punished to the fullest extent humanly possible, but that doesn't change the fact that the victim acted foolishly in the first place and could have avoided the scenario relatively easily.

there's nothing 'sensible' about living in fear of rape. people with your point-of-view seem to think that rape is just the way of the world, and women just need to learn how to hide from it as best they can. that's not a world that any sensible human being shouild be content to live in.

to put it another way, if they weren't any rapists, then there wouldn't anything "stupid" about the way these hypothetical victims were acting would there? It is the rapist's fault they acted "stupidly", because it is the rapist's presence which makes such actions "stupid" (in your view).

Long story short, anyone who can feasibly envision a rape scenario they perpetrate should be shot. Stupid people should also be shot.

So you're saying that stupid rape victims should be shot?

 

[Labyrinth]

A sexual predator is precisely that, a predator.
They do 'act' like animals (sometimes) and i can't imagine women 'baiting' them, exactly helps the situation.

And yes we are animals, and like animals we too are driven by sex, and some people can't help themselves.

So you're saying that people who commit rape have little responsibility for their actions because they have the mental and moral capacity of predators, and that victims deliberately go out with the intent to bait them? What?

Would you ask someone who'd been mugged on the street if they were wearing designer clothing or expensive accessories to bait the thieves?

The problem with victim blaming through dress is that it perpetuates the notion that people cannot be responsible for their sexual actions because they're so overpowered by lust. This is particularly directed at males. How screwed does our society need to be that it still places moral responsibility on victims regardless of how much power they have while removing it from perpetrators due to 'lack of capacity'?

Our culture like victim blaming and tactics for 'safety' which reinforce it because it's easier than to acknowledge that there is an endemic issue with the culture itself. Given that over 95% of reported rapes and sexual assaults are committed by men I would consider it reasonable to say that this is an issue with a particular part of male culture. Men are taught that sex is something that they must get from women, speaking heteronormatively. The proportion of men who then go to the conclusion of using force, or drugs, or coercion is small but significant enough for it to become endemic. Of course it's really difficult to reach these people once they've made that leap. Workshops are hugely time consuming and expensive, as are any efforts to change attitudes of perpetrators. So much easier to advise people to protect themselves rather than addressing the source of the problem.

Here's a little Modest Proposal [http://misia.livejournal.com/1055120.html] along the lines of victim blaming. Like the original, it's a satire, and a very pointed one.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

You're taking what I'm saying and twisting it.

THERE IS NO BLAME TO BE HAD ON THE VICTIM FOR BEING ATTACKED. THERE NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE.

In certain situations, however, there is fault to be had by the victim for acting stupidly. Exposing oneself to situations where bad things can happen is a dumb idea. The fact that they are in a situation where they can be taken advantage of is their fault. It is by no means every instance, stop trying to portray it as otherwise.

The second type is one more commonly found in colleges/frat houses and the like. This type is purely about the sex. It's usually assisted with some form of chemical, be it alcohol, rohypnol or whatever else you want to use. This instance is generally (and nowhere near always) one of shared blame. Obviously most of it lies with the attacker, and they are the one who should be punished severely. That said, the victim is at least partially responsible. These cases quite often involve circumstances where the victim could have stopped it, one of the best examples is simply not accepting drinks from someone you don't know, not leaving your cup unattended, or simply stop drinking before you black out. Is it right that these cases happen? Fuck no, but that doesn't absolve the victim of the fact that they could have stopped it, but didn't.

Your words, not mine.

Forgive me for assuming that the word 'blame' you used in one argument, and the word 'blame' inherent in the latest statement post are significantly different.

I are confused?

Not only this but your rhetoric has changed ...

I'll make it easy for you.

1: What, and was/is your definition of the word 'blame'?

2: What of your definition of the word 'blame in this post and the aforementioned one?

3: Do you really ... really think both perpetrator and victim should be 'blamed' (as per both your uses) for somebody putting a drug in their drink and not realising it?

4: Do you really expect that a person can keep tabs of their drink from being poured to direct consumption 100% of the time?

Edit: People should exercise caution, as do most people. But there's such a thing as caution and paranoia. Nor should it be fair for people to have to think of the million integers that could have gone into possibly being a victim of a rape when it comes down to matters of consent.

A person violates the matter of consent, they are 100% to blame. No questions need to be asked, no judgement needs to be deliberated on.

 

[BlueMage]

That the victims should exercise discretion and forethought goes without saying.

That does NOT, in any way, excuse a rapist's actions. And no, I don't care if it's fine in their culture.

 

[imperialwar]

A simple investigative frame of mind: there are no victims, only first hand witnesses.
Its a bit harsh i know but a very pragmatic view on things

 

[DrOswald]

I think I may not have been be clear enough. Let me summarize the points I am trying to make:

That is an understatement .. because your first comment I replied to insinuated something different.

1. Not everyone is capable of being a rapist, but you cannot tell the difference between a rapist and a normal individual with 100% certainty.

No, they are predatory monsters. But it's a farcry to say that everybody is capable of rape as per your original statement.

2. Certain basic protective measures can be taken to reduce the risk of being raped without serious inconvenience.

And .....? I fail to see how this is an argument ... and it's still very much culturally specific. I don't lock my doors when I'm inside my house ... I fail to see how that even comes into the territory of the argument.

Are you trying to say only stupid people don't lock their doors at all times?

Because I've always been under the assumption and belief that it's stupid (and psychologically damaging) to always expect a rapist may knock down your door whilst you're making pancakes and coffee.

3. I believe it is wise to take preventative measure against rape.

I have previously linked 2 documents outlining some ways to reduce the risk of rape. I will again link them for your convenience. (If anyone knows of a federally approved rape prevention document, I would appreciate the link)

http://cityofdavis.org/police/investigations/rapeprev.cfm
http://www.kevincoffee.com/women_safety/rape_prevention_tips.htm

"It is a good idea to refrain from going to bars and clubs alone. However, should you choose to do so, have your own transportation available, and use it."

Right ... good advice.

Because nobody drinks at a club, and having no friends means zero people that can drive it home without possible suspension of licence.

Are you really telling me you expect all people to follow that advice? Really? What next, "Invest in a protective kevlar vest"?

Look ... yes .. steps can be taken to minimizing the threat of rape, but by no means does not deciding to lock yourself in your own home or deciding to go dancing suddenly make the rapist anything less than a rapist. Nor does it make the victim anything less than a victim. So I don't understand what are you arguing.

I listed the 3 things I was trying to argue.

Those are the 3 things I am arguing.

Those are the things I was trying to say from the start.

I never meant anything different.

I stated exactly what I meant to say.

I never tried to insinuate anything.

It is possible you read it wrong, misinterpreted what I said, or assumed insinuation when I meant none.

How can I be any clearer? Here, as simple as I can possibly make it:

1. Some people are rapists. We don't know who they are.

2. Rape = Bad

3. Rapist = Bad person

4. Victim = Not to Blame

5. Rape Prevention = Good Idea

Can we agree on these 5 points?

 

[silvertoast]

(Oh boy a big 'ol can of worms)

I've seen a lot of replies about common sense and its use in helping making you not the victim. Common sense is all fine and good when you use it. But I ask that you use it here:

Comparing rape to someone being robbed is wrong. The two are completely different. By comparing the two, we are essentially comparing something that can be stolen, ie money, possessions, to a human. People ARE NOT possessions. A persons sexual safety IS NOT a possession that someone can steal.

By saying that a person should dress a certain way in order to not be raped, we are saying that a certain way of dressing is going to result in rape. Once we agree that a certain way of dressing leads to rape, then why are these clothes allowed to exist? Who is making and distributing them? Aren't they to blame for these crimes? Why aren't they outlawed to protect the people? I feel that these are the possible implications of thinking like this. The argument that rape protection is similar to theft protection is a load.

I say all this because I feel a lot of victim blaming is justified by saying you need to protect yourself. A person dressing a certain way is no justification for anything, neither is not protecting yourself. By saying rape and stealing are comparable, I feel this allows for this kind of justification. I could keep going, but I feel I must end here.

I hope some of you can agree with this.

 

[badgersprite]

Women in burqas get raped far more frequently than nudist women who wear nothing at all. This whole "provocative clothing" argument is stupid and people should feel stupid for using it. End of story.

Besides which, most people are sexually assaulted by a close friend or relative they already know. I highly doubt that what you're wearing at the time they have an opportunity to assault you in any way affects their decision do it, since it's something they probably already wanted to do and planned on doing for a long time. So, unless people expect girls to have psychic powers that tell them the nice guy they met in their class and talked to several times is a rapist and expect her to magically know that this seemingly trustworthy, friendly guy is going to drug her drink next time they go to a party, there's really no way victims are to blame.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

snip

I would add that caution, not paranoia. Safety without hindering expression or accruing into fear. Even then there's no blame to share, but still expected levels of self-discipline. Aslong as they are decent

You don't drive blindfolded, but you don't get out of you car at a T-intersection to make sure there is no traffic coming if you're reasonably sure there is no traffic for 200 metres on either end of the crossing.

It's not hard to nknow where the boundaries are, and all blame should always be felt by the perpetrator of a crime. I don't get why this is such a hard concept.

 

[Peteron]

There should be no excuses to why a man would go to such lengths to actually rape a woman. However, she could probably do herself a favor and cover herself up a little more, shes not asking for it, but she doesen't need to show every pervert as much as she can without it being considered legally naked.