Blaming the victim

[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.

 

[DrOswald]

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.

Totally agree. Like I said, Basic safety can be observed without significant inconvenience. For example, I don't broadcast when my wife will be home and I will not. This does not mean I am suspicious of everyone who ever asks me about my family.

It's not hard to know 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.

Exactly. It is a very simple concept that I completely agree with.

 

[somonels]

I never understood why the cop's statement was so outrageous... oh wait, common sense is outrageous in the usa. We dress in a certain way, how we want to be perceived, and thus treated. She willfully made herself a more appealing target, the case would have been a whole lot worse if the cop had thanked her for baiting out a rapist.

Rape, sexual assault and harassment all work one way, men as villains. We could call up this to our defence, but our pride among fellow men would be pretty much destroyed. Peer pressure among men is unbelievably high in certain areas. Not only for respect, but also for reproductive purposes.

 

[EGtodd09]

Think about it this way people, the facts are that if you dress like a slut, you're more likely to get raped than if you don't, and so in SOME ways it is PARTIALLY the victim's fault if they get raped while being dressed like a slut and drunk as all hell. PARTIALLY.

 

[Kortney]

Wearing provocative clothing might make a woman a more appealing target, that doesn't make the perpetrator any less of a scumbag.

That's just it:

While I agree that the Toronto officers choice of words and candor were inappropriate, I think what he said wasn't exactly wrong. Of course, you are never, EVER to blame the victim for the crime that was committed against them, but let me throw this scenario to you:

A guy is walking through a rough neighbourhood waving a wad of cash around, and he gets mugged.
Now, obviously the one who mugged the guy is in the wrong 100%. That was illegal, and he should be punished.
And the guy should have the right to wave around money as much as he wants without fear of being attacked and robbed. But it's a naive and dangerous game to play. Ideally, I should be able to leave my doors unlocked, my keys in my car, and my money on my counter. But it's asking for trouble if I do any of those things.

Again, not my fault if someone robs me. I have the right to leave my door unlocked, my money out, and my keys in my car. But, at the risk of sounding redundant, it's dangerously naive to do any of those things.

This. I think we are being a bit too harsh. The choice of words was terrible, but you can provoke a crime without being the one to "blame" or the reason it happened. At the end of the day, the criminal was the person who was in the wrong - but they can certainly be provoked by a way a woman acts or dresses. Just like a mugger is provoked by the way a man dresses or
displays his wealth.

I think Dave Chappelle hit the nail on the head. Just because a woman dresses like a whore, does not mean she is a whore - but it's confusing. If I dress like a police officer it doesn't mean I am one (and vice versa), but people assume I am and will treat me as such.

It's sad, but it's true.

 

[MrStab]

Yeah saying it like that is wrong but going around tempting things is not wise. No its not the victims fault they got raped but if they were walking around in a bad neighborhood in a bikini top and shot skirt she must have known bad things might happen. Like the guy above me said; not the victims fault 100% but its not like they didn't provoke something through ignorance or otherwise.

No her wearing skimpy clothing won't be the sole cause of rape no it doesn't justify it, but if someone in small easily removed clothing walks around in the type of area this happens(or anywhere for that matter) is going to get prioritized over someone in a suit or other modest clothing.

They can walk around in whatever they like wherever they like; but as Baby Tea pointed out it is incredibly naive to expect nothing to happen. But this is a case of what you have a right to do; and what you can do responsibly. be responsible for what you do, where you go, and respect the knowledge of your surroundings and you might be safer. Yes they would have raped a girl regardless of what she wore but its likely more tempting if the girl is in slutty clothing because that reveals more and guess what? ITS EASIER TO REMOVE IN A STRUGGLE! Doesn't make the perpetrator any less wrong, doesn't justify it, but it is irresponsible to go tempting trouble. Not blaming the victim simply saying the idiot needs to wake up.

You have a right to do as you please & tempt rapists, thieves, and muggers but is it responsible to do so? no; in no way is it responsible for anyone to go putting themselves in needless danger like that. And this is not an argument for blaming the victim this is an argument for slapping the victim upside the head, shouting "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU DOING??!?!?" and chewing them out for a solid hour and a half. Yeah the cop was wrong but the victim in that kind of predicament should not get away without being scolded for being a moron.


EDIT!

No that doesn't mean the victim doesn't need counseling. Simply means that if they do something stupid they need to be told of it, and if they don't understand it needs drilled into their stupid little head until they do. In no way shape or form does forcing the victim to acknowledge their stupidity blaming them for what happened; and if we shouldn't explain why because allowing people to live in ignorance of a stupid deed they are repeating is BAD!

This guy.

 

[Agayek]

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.

My definition of the word blame:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blame?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
4.
an act of attributing fault; censure; reproof: The judge said he found nothing to justify blame in the accident.
5.
responsibility for anything deserving of censure: We must all share the blame for this deplorable condition.

It's probably poor choice of words causing the confusion here, in all honesty, but I can't think of a better one. The victim should not be held accountable for any crime they happen to be the victim of. Period.

They should be held accountable for doing something stupid. Does that mean throwing them in jail when they get raped? Fuck no. Does that mean I'm not terribly sympathetic when a guy gets mugged after flashing a Rollex in a bad part of town? Yes.

If you put yourself in a situation where you are a tempting, vulnerable target, there's no sympathy to be had when someone takes advantage of your vulnerability.

You seem to think responsibility is a binary either it's the attacker's fault or the victim's fault that they were attacked. I'm saying that in some situations the victim was being an idiot and doesn't deserve sympathy for being a victim. If you walk through a dark alley with a bunch of thugs, odds are good you're going to get robbed. That's just common sense.

And no, I don't expect everyone to keep direct track of everything going around them at all times. I expect them to exercise a moderate level of common sense and logic to not put themselves at risk. If they fail to do so, there's literally no reason to feel sympathetic for them. They could have easily avoided it by making better choices.

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

The difference is what they are being faulted for. They are not being held accountable for being attacked. That's completely ridiculous and something both of you have been reading into my words for some asinine reason. They are being blamed for making bad decisions that put themselves at risk. It's not that hard to protect yourself, all it requires is some common sense and a modicum of self control.

For the final time: the victim is not at fault for being attacked. When the victim does something stupid and gets attacked because of it, they are at fault for being stupid. That's literally all I have been saying, there is no hidden meaning or implication here. When people are dumb, they are at fault for being dumb, regardless of (or perhaps especially because) of the consequences. It's not their fault they were attacked, but they certainly could have made better choices, most of which probably would have negated the situation entirely, and the responsibility for those choices lay solely on the victim.

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).

Who said anything about living in fear? And this isn't only about rape, this is about being the victim of any crime. It's simply a matter of applying common sense to real life. When someone is presented with a choice, and they make a bad one (for example, drinking to the point of passing out when around people they don't have any reason to trust), their vulnerability is entirely their own fault.

Anyone who takes advantage of it should be beaten to death with their spine, but that doesn't change the fact that the victim did something stupid to make themselves a potential target. It's not their fault they got attacked, it is their fault that they disregarded all pretense of common sense or rationality.

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

Actually no. I'm saying stupid people in general should be shot, rape victims or not. Stupidity in this case simply referring to the application of common sense to the real world.

PS - Now that I've belabored the point about a billion times too many, it's time to go one more:

STUPID DECISIONS ARE THE FAULT OF THE MAKER OF SAID DECISIONS. Regardless of the consequences, said decisions are the responsibility of the chooser. If I were to stick my hand in a running lawn mower, it's my own stupid fault I no longer have a hand. Similarly, if I were to walk into a dark alley and get mugged, it's my fault that I'm in a dark alley with no way to call for help or be seen. It's not my fault I got mugged, but it is my fault I got mugged in a dark alley.

 

[MrStab]

Also to those that are getting mad and saying that people here shouldn't be blaming the victim NO ONE HAS OUTWARDLY SAID "IT WAS HER FAULT SHE DESERVED TO GET RAPED" SO STOP FUCKING ARGUING THAT POINT BECAUSE IT ISN'T RELEVANT. All anyone has said is that if she dressed in a more conservative manner there is a possibility that she wouldn't of been the one that got raped which i agree with that doesn't mean i think she deserved to be raped and that it was okay i just think she's a fucking idiot and could of wore different clothing to perhaps prevent this happening from her. Why can't we just make rape a crime that has the universal punishment of capital punishment so these threads are no longer necessary? (clearly a rhetorical question).

 

[Derek Westlund]

im not gong to read the forum because rape gives me murderous thoughts and i had to knock myself out to prevent stupid mistakes perpetrated by myself to others

rape =

if male: rapist castrated by food processor, slowly while other criminals and peers of victim watch (choice for peers, by force for criminals)

if female: rapist castrated by drills while others watch (same as above)

no negotiating, no anything, you rape you lose all rights to reproduce ever, that part is non-negotiable
the method, however, should NOT be left up to the guy with an irrational -insert adjective here- towards rape (namely me)

other crimes are not as black and white to me and therefore can be argued more

in the even of a theft the victim can be more responsible than the criminal (i can't think of any examples but im tired and my mind doesn't work as well while im tired)
examples of likely mutual guilt (in my opinion):
assault
theft
harassment
adultery
identity theft
car accident involving more than one car (for obvious reasons; "That lamppost hit me. No I haven't been drinking why do you ask?")
disturbing the peace
defamation of character
murder (to paraphrase a great movie; it's not what's right or wrong it's what you can prove in court)

there's probably more that i'm missing but oh well.

point is that the majority of crimes aren't as black and white as "guy A attacked guy b therefore guy A should be punished" even if the courts treat them as such

apologies if anyone gets offended by anything i say but fdagsdgdsagsad <---confusion due to lack of sleep

 

[chowderface]

not really, at all. It's more saying maybe if you'd done something different this could have been avoided. no where did they say that what happened was right, just why it happened.

Wrong again. See, the thing is, if it were just that, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because that statement is completely innocuous, because it's correct, but so broad as to be useless because everything that ever happens, good or bad, could be avoided if you'd done something different.

The theme with the statements that are actually the subject of the discussion is "they brought it on themselves." They're admonishing the victim for provoking the attack. Or, to make the implications plain, they're saying the victim deserved it, meaning on a level that's far closer to the surface than they'd admit if pressed, they think it's a good thing that the perpetrator came along and put the victim in their place.

That's the rub, really. If you're going to say something, in public, for the world to hear, you'd better be damn sure that the words that come out of your mouth are either exactly the words you mean, or too ambiguous for people to pick up on what you're really thinking, because not everyone is as dumb as you and plenty of people can use a thing called "critical thinking" to ascertain the implications of what you said and you get no promises that anyone will agree with those.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

snip

I disagree ... if only for the existence of human empathy, that would allow anybody to justify particular fears.

I also disagree on the account that, as I said;

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 know 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.

And one should always be sympathetic to victims (of crime) <.< But that's a personal hangup as I'm a giant carebear type of person.

 

[Agayek]

I disagree ... if only for the existence of human empathy, that would allow anybody to justify particular fears.

I also disagree on the account that, as I said;

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 know 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.

And one should always be sympathetic to victims (of crime) <.< But that's a personal hangup as I'm a giant carebear type of person.

That's (mostly) what I've been trying to get at. Reasonable precautions should be taken in near every situation, and if you can't be bothered to do so then it's your fault you're in a bad situation in the first place.

As for being sympathetic, the way I see it, the ones who deserve sympathy are the people who did everything they could but nothing worked out for them anyway. People who consciously make bad decisions aren't worth the effort to sympathize with.

 

[A Free Man]

Oh how very 'black and white'.

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.

Sure, yeah, prancing around in front of a bear wearing a bacon onesie is not going to be the smartest idea, no, but the key point is that bears are animals, and we are not.

No, you know what? Let's roll with this.

So "bad people" are now just a type of animal. They can't be held responsible for their actions, and their victims should all have known better than to provoke the dangerous animal. But there's really no difference between a "good person" and a "bad person" aside from their actions. So we can't really hold the victims responsible for their actions either, because they're just animals as well, doing the things THEY'RE inclined to do anyway. So rape, murder, all that, it's no one's fault, really, it's just a bunch of animals doing what animals do. Congratulations! You've just reduced all crime to a form of natural selection. Aren't you proud of yourself?

Yes, very...
No.

I don't think you quite understood me, that was a hypothetical situation, designed to provide a message, out of context.

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.

I just want to quickly point out the idiocy of that hypothetical situation. Assuming that what you said really did happen do you know what would happen next? Park rangers would probably get called in and proceed to hunt for trap and most likely kill the bear. So are you saying that although the person should be blamed we should also kill the sexual predator who did it regardless of whether it was a choice or instinctual? That just doesn't make any logical sense to me. And oh god did you really just say "some people can't help themselves" are you really so moronic that you are going to just pass off major crimes as "oh well they didn't really have a choice". The difference between us and animals is that we have the higher intellect that allows us to make moral choices. Essentially what you are saying even if you don't realise it is that no one should ever be blamed for a crime they comit because they "are driven" and "can't help themselves". All I can say is I really hope you never get on jury duty or on that note anywhere within a 5 kilometer radius of a courtroom.