Blaming the victim

[Craorach]

I think the number of ways in which people can be considered a "Victim" these days by the law is causing somewhat of a backlash against genuine victims.

When a man, or woman, can go to a bar where people are flirting, wearing sexually provocative clothing, getting drunk and attempting to "pick up" members of their prefered gender... take someone they meet home, consentingly have sex and then find the next morning that the person can claim rape because they were drunk.. its starting to get abit silly.

To use an example other than rape, however.. recently a man was assaulted, beaten to the floor and repeatedly kicked in the head outside my place of work by a gang of youths. Dozens of people came to his aid, chasing off the kids, calling the police and ambulance, making sure he was safe and didn't get run over by cars since he was laying in the road.. surrounding businesses helped out, including my own, and provided security footage to the police and did everything we could to help out. When he got out of hospital, this indivudal turned up with a couple of drunken friends, harrassing and insulting staff of nearby businesses, accosting strangers in the street in an attempt to "find who did it and sort them out"... witnesses who saw the run up to the assault also state that he was in an altercation with the group by yelling abuse at them.

This is a prime case where, although what happened should not have happened.. the victim is an abusive obnoxious douche who not only harrassed the people who eventually assaulted him, but continues to drunkenly harass people who tried to help him, and rather than doing the right thing and allowing the authorities to deal with the situation attempts to take matters into his own hands. If he was a decent person he wouldn't have been bothered in the first place.

Now, this isn't true in alot of cases maybe.. I've been harrassed by people in the street on a number of occasions and I've never started any trouble. But many people, especially when drunk, go out of their way to cause or pursue trouble and get hurt because of it.

 

[Yokai]

Wearing provocative clothing might make a woman a more appealing target, that doesn't make the perpetrator any less of a scumbag. The provocative clothing doesn't completely eliminate his ability to reason.

Basically this. It's obviously completely wrong in all instances to sexually assault someone based on what they're wearing (or at all, duh), but considering how often that's used as an excuse, women should take the potential danger into account and maybe take a moment to think about what they wear.

 

[DrOswald]

Rape seldom has anything to do with what the victim is wearing. Anyway you are right there is no excuse for rape other than the fact that the person committing the act is deranged.

Would you rather rape a fat chick in sweat pants and a hoodie or an actual good looking chick?

Although it seems commonsense that more attractive females get raped more often, this is not true when looking at rape statistics. Rape victims are all ages, from pre-adolescent to senior citizen and as mentioned before, around half of rape cases happen to people under 18.

As sad as it is to have to say this, to the rapist under 18 might qualify as physically attractive. It is called pedophilia. Like I said, it's a dangerous world.

 

[Radelaide]

There was an Islamic Cleric in Australia who said something along the lines of "Women who dress like meat deserve to be raped."

I... You... What? Yes, because on the hottest day in an Australian summer, I wore short and a singlet so I deserve to be raped.

The last thing a rape victim needs to hear is, "Well, you had it coming."

About the link; one of the links you provided doesn't specify how they were blaming the 11-year-old. Out of curiousity, does anyone know what the people were saying?

Rape's a tricky one, I can't say as I fully understand the whats and whys but in some other non rape related cases yes, the victim really does cause the situation themselves. It's perfectly fair to blame the victim if it really is their fault.

Explain, because I really wanna hear you justify that reasoning.

In a situation of genuine rape (not women/men crying rape after a night of regret), you cannot blame the victim because s/he is not a fault. They cannot control the actions of the perpertrator who decides that they want to play Rapist. It's not a matter of, "Oh, she was dressed like this so she OBVIOUSLY deserved it."

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Has nothing to do with the comment, really. It's almost as if you never read my post. I was just pointing out that sexy clothes attract attention to a woman's body.

And ... rape has nothing to do with clothes ... so why even bring it up in the first place?

Was it just a comment? Aye ... there are various articles of clothing that quite rightly are form fitted for men and women. Doesn't change the fact that where women are expected to dress head to toe in bedsheets are the same places where rape is most likely to occur.

In fact there's good argument that a society's perseverance to free women from such social bonds decreases rape. because people learn to appreciate that expression and artistic licence from convention is one way a society improves itself.

So what point we're you trying to make? I am lost...

I never said that muggers and rapists are similarly motivated, or that rapists are always muggers or such. Only that anyone could be a potential rapist OR mugger. Be it a close friend, trusted mentor, or a complete stranger.

No ... they aren't. you're assuming everyone has the capacity to mug someone or be a rapist (or presumeably both)...

No ... they aren't.

Well, I don't suggest hiding in your house cowering in fear or never expressing yourself, and the victim should never be judged for such violence committed against them. I am simply against rape, and I want to help people prevent being victims of such a horrible crime. And I think it is possible to take basic steps to prevent becoming a victim without a significant negative effect to their life. It is simple really.

Such as? Dressing as a penguin? Or what? What 'simple steps' is there?

Everyone carrying guns? Because that wasn't true in my own living experience when they had (fairly) unrestrictive gun laws in Australia.

Everybody being taught kung fu in schools? well given that everybody would know kung fu, kinda makes it a moot pooint really ... because then you're merely training people sufficiently vile and violent enough to rape and that they then have to be far more violent and horrible to potential victims if every person can kick and punch like Bruce Lee.

If you don't want to get hit by a car, don't play in the highway. If you don't want to be mugged, don't flash $100 bills while in an area known for violent crime.

Right, because playing in the street is totally the same as wearing something sexy to go clubbing...

Even if clothes and cosmetics were part of the equation, sorry, rather tear down society then have dickheads tell me how to dress.

And if you don't want to get raped, don't make yourself excessively vulnerable to rapists. None of these precautions will prevent all such tragedies, but they can help reduce the risk.

How so? In what way am I vulnerable?

The only 'vulnerable nature of women' I'm sensing is allowing women to feel as if there is merit in people like you telling them how exactly to look and act, and I thought we got over this type of shit 60 years ago.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

As sad as it is to have to point this out, to the rapist under 18 might qualify as physically attractive. It is called pedophilia. Like I said, it's a dangerous world.

Actually it falls into two camps when under 18:

Paedophilia is sexual attraction to someone 13 and under, i.e. a child

Ephebophilia is the sexual attraction to someone aged about 14 - 17 (technically 19 but that's a legal adult in most countries)

The first one is a social (and sometimes literal) death sentence for the perpetrator; and not a single fuck will be given for them. It's a crime.

The second, especially when dealing with 15 and up is a legal minefield of epic proportions: I've met girls who were 15, but at a glance pass for 20. Picking up women in a bar is like a game of whack-a-mole sorting the legal from the jailbait.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

After reading some of these comments I think my brain pulled a muscle.

Blaming the victim? No, just no. I've never heard a rapist say it was about the sex, more like "I wanted to", "She was asking for it", or "She was there", "The day ended in 'y'", or whatever.

How the hell is it the victim's fault? It's- you know what? Never mind, I don't want to know. I'm gonna go do something productive and not argue over faulty logic.

 

[cobra_ky]

Basically this. It's obviously completely wrong in all instances to sexually assault someone based on what they're wearing (or at all, duh), but considering how often that's used as an excuse, women should take the potential danger into account and maybe take a moment to think about what they wear.

What we should do is stop accepting excuses for rape.

When a man, or woman, can go to a bar where people are flirting, wearing sexually provocative clothing, getting drunk and attempting to "pick up" members of their prefered gender... take someone they meet home, consentingly have sex and then find the next morning that the person can claim rape because they were drunk.. its starting to get abit silly.

Consent should not be a complicated concept. If someone says "stop", you stop. If they physically resist (and not as part of a prearranged scenario), you stop. If they are unconscious or otherwise incoherent to the point that you can't tell whether or not they consent, you stop. If they consent but lie about it after the fact, then you simply tell the truth.

 

[DoubleTime]

Because you find their clothing arousing or provocative, or they are very flirty due to over intoxication

I am sorry, but the 2 are NOT the same. In Iceland where I live almost everyone gets drunk during the weekends and a very considerable portion of the sex that occurs during that time of the week is drunk sex. If you were to tell an Icelander that sleeping with a woman because she walked up to you drunk and asked for sex is abuse, then you would be laughed out of the room.

Granted that this probably varies from one culture to the other, but as far as I (and as far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of Icelanders) am concerned, everything that happens after you are drunk is on YOU. The only exception I can think of at the top of my head is if the woman is so drunk that she is more asleep rather then awake in which case she can't really agree to have sex by her own will anymore then she could agree to anything else.

Seriously, the whole "its your fault for taking advantage of me" is just a shitty excuse for not wanting to take responsibility for anything that you do, something which appears to be a trend these days.

I'm not saying that drunken consensual sex you either do or don't remember is rape. That's just stupid decisions you regret later. In the U.S. heavily intoxicated individuals are sometimes seen as incapable of consent (like the mentally handicapped) but that's not the point. What I am referring to is when someone is drunk, slightly flirty (saying things like, "you're hot"), and then passing out and getting raped, or having someone rape them even when they say they don't want it because they are physically incapable of defending themselves they are so drunk.

Getting drunk, making a decision you regret =/= rape.
Getting drunk, having someone force themselves on you = rape.

 

[Craorach]

Consent should not be a complicated concept. If someone says "stop", you stop. If they physically resist (and not as part of a prearranged scenario), you stop. If they are unconscious or otherwise incoherent to the point that you can't tell whether or not they consent, you stop. If they consent but lie about it after the fact, then you simply tell the truth.

You're right, it should not be a complicated concept, for either side.

Stop is Stop, No is No.

Yes is Yes.

As it is now, it is possible for someone agree, and then to change their mind during.. or worse entirely after the fact... and have their "attacker" treated as if they went out and raped some random person in the street.

 

[UberNoodle]

A person doesn't lock his car == somebody elses right to steal it?

No.

A woman dresses provocatively == somebody elses right to rape her?

Hell no!

If a man can't keep his d**k in his pants, that's his problem not the woman's, unless he then rapes her, and in that case, he's a cruel, misogynistic bastard.

There is never a justification for rape. If a woman says 'no', then that's it. Nurse your ego, and become aquainted with Mrs Palmer and her five daughters - even the short and fat one.

 

[RelexCryo]

Of course dressing provocatively does not justify rape, the officer never said that. He said that dressing conservatively might prevent rape. It is obvious that rape is morally wrong and horrible to normal people, but rapists are not normal people. The perception that raping someone is justified by sexy clothing is an opinion held by rapists, who are horribly twisted individuals in the first place.

I am more concerned with people getting arrested for self defense. People were legally required- and still are in some areas- to run away when they get attacked instead of standing ground and defending themselves. People who stood their ground got arrested, and in some areas, still do. The problem with this is that your chances of survival are much lower if you run. Criminals generally choose to attack victims who cannot outrun them. On top of this, women are much slower than men. Drawing and aiming a gun at an attacker is much more likely to help you survive than running away.

 

[dementis]

I think a lot of people overestimate the decency of human beings on this forum.

 

[Craorach]

RelxaCryo, I'm curious where you get statistics for self defense being more effective than running.

I'm not saying that running is always a good idea, however in my experience people who are going to hurt someone else are almost always physically stronger.. in the case of muggings or street attacks them are also both prepared and accustomed to violence. While a weapon and the training and willingness to use it might help defense, in most cases it is going to end up being used against the person carrying it or stolen and used against someone else.

 

[alandavidson]

This idea that the victim is somehow to blame leads to dismissal of cases, non-reporting of crimes, and an overall idea that the people who commit these acts are untouchable.

1 in 4 women are victims of sexual assault.

1 in 6 men are victims of sexual assault.

None of them are to blame.

 

[Rayne870]

I am sorry, but the 2 are NOT the same. In Iceland where I live almost everyone gets drunk during the weekends and a very considerable portion of the sex that occurs during that time of the week is drunk sex. If you were to tell an Icelander that sleeping with a woman because she walked up to you drunk and asked for sex is abuse, then you would be laughed out of the room.

Granted that this probably varies from one culture to the other, but as far as I (and as far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of Icelanders) am concerned, everything that happens after you are drunk is on YOU. The only exception I can think of at the top of my head is if the woman is so drunk that she is more asleep rather then awake in which case she can't really agree to have sex by her own will anymore then she could agree to anything else.

Seriously, the whole "its your fault for taking advantage of me" is just a shitty excuse for not wanting to take responsibility for anything that you do, something which appears to be a trend these days.

That is a really different culture than mine, I'm half impressed and half appalled.

Off topic: i just thought of the only instance that someone should ever blame a victim. And that is someone whom has their account "hacked" on WoW. I mean seriously how hard is it to not fall for phishing emails and have an authenticator?

 

[cobra_ky]

Consent should not be a complicated concept. If someone says "stop", you stop. If they physically resist (and not as part of a prearranged scenario), you stop. If they are unconscious or otherwise incoherent to the point that you can't tell whether or not they consent, you stop. If they consent but lie about it after the fact, then you simply tell the truth.

You're right, it should not be a complicated concept, for either side.

Stop is Stop, No is No.

Yes is Yes.

As it is now, it is possible for someone agree, and then to change their mind during.. or worse entirely after the fact... and have their "attacker" treated as if they went out and raped some random person in the street.

yes, they can change their mind during. if you're having sex with someone, and they change their mind and ask you stop, you pull out and stop. sucks, i know, but it's the lesser of two evils.

after the fact though, you're right; revoking consent isn't fair.

 

[Craorach]

Actually that is fairly on topic.. as its probably the biggest case of "blaming the victim" we see online.

And like any "Blame the Victim" scenario its entirely dependant upon the indivudual.

Person who buys wow gold/powerleveling/accounts = buyer of stolen goods complaining when the seller steals it from them again.

Person who should "know better".. computer savey experienced MMO and internet user = someone taking a dumb shortcut and getting attacked.

"Casual" Gamer who pretty much knows nothing about the internet's darker side = older person who lets someone with ID into their home to "read the meter" and they turn out to be fake.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

There's always some psychos out there. some people blame an 11-year-old girl for getting gang rapped, some people roll their shit into little balls, and some people are Nazis. You can't take these people seriously. Just use the 'chicken fucker' argument. When someone brings up an exceptionally radical minority, merely respond with this statement:"Yeah? Well some people like to fuck chickens." Works every time.

 

[Shadowsole]

the victim is never to blame.

but dressing slutty will put you more at risk. the rapist is still 100% to blame but the reason the victim was chosen may have been affected by the clothing she (or he) wears.

the victim is at no fault for causing the rape, but may have affected their chances of being a rape victim.
unfortuanley dressing 'slutty' can be a risk. it shouldn't be but it is