Poll: Am I to blame
- Thread starter knight steel
- Start date
Guys, whether the OP is telling the truth or not is irrelevant. Just discuss the hypothetical scenario as the OP has presented it, that's the purpose of the thread. Naturally the attacker is to blame.
OP, the next time you fabricate a hypothetical like this you might not want to do it immediately after posting "let's see more rape in games plz" sentiments in two consecutive threads. It'll seem less glaringly coincidental, and the lie will be a lot more convincing. If that's not enough, there are ways you can tweak your language to make it sound less editorial and less like you're guiding people towards a desired response.
OP, the next time you fabricate a hypothetical like this you might not want to do it immediately after posting "let's see more rape in games plz" sentiments in two consecutive threads. It'll seem less glaringly coincidental, and the lie will be a lot more convincing. If that's not enough, there are ways you can tweak your language to make it sound less editorial and less like you're guiding people towards a desired response.
I'm not entirely sure how much (or if) you're screwing with me so... Bleuargh! Have words.Reeve said:
Usually sexual violence is more a crime of power than lust (I remember a case on the local news a couple of years ago of an 86 year old woman being raped), but it's different with drunks. Drunks are much more likely to be led into really stupid things by their cock.
That might be right but that doesn't justify you claiming that the girls wearing revealing clothing was "stupid of them" in your earlier post.TheRightToArmBears said:
Victim blaming, much?
I understand why you're doing it. You want the world to seem Just so that you feel safer. If it was their fault for wearing revealing clothing then YOU don't have to worry about getting attacked when YOU go out because...hey, you wouldn't be as stupid as them, would you? >.<
That reasoning that you're employing: It's called 'fallacious.' Look it up.
I'm sorry, but they are idiots. I'm a tall, heavy built guy and even I wouldn't just wander around looking for a taxi while I'm hammered - especially when I could wait 15 minutes and get a lift home.
What you did wasn't "victim blaming", it was using common freaking sense.
What you did wasn't "victim blaming", it was using common freaking sense.
I choose Other.
Here's my thoughts.
They are to blame.
They are the ones who choose to leave rather than wait. I can understand that they didn't want to stay out much later, but that doesn't mean they couldn't call a taxi from where they were and have it pick them up. I'd assume that one of them has a cell phone, or that there would be a phone available at the bar. There was no reason to walk. Though, if you were only planning to wait another 15 minutes, they had no reason to insist on leaving. By the time they got a taxi, you would be ready to leave.
You attempted to warn them, and rather than listen, or politely disregard your advice they called you a victim blamer and yelled at you. This may be unpopular, but sometimes the victim has to take responsibility for their actions. Especially when those actions needlessly place them in danger. They are adults. They are responsible for their own actions. Drunk or not, they made the choice. And getting drunk was also their choice.
The attacker(s) are to blame.
They attacked these people. They didn't have to. Without their needless actions, this would have never happened. So obviously they are more to blame than anyone. I don't think I need to explain this position further.
You have no fault.
You did the best you could given the situation. You can't control all three people at the bar. You're not their keeper. And you did warn them beforehand.
Your brother may hold some fault.
I can't say for certain without knowing all the details, but he was the catalyst for it all. He choose to get so drunk that he wasn't "driving safe" (assuming he risked vomiting more), and was most likely the one that delayed your departure, in the first place. He needs to hold some responsibility. And probably needs to, at the bare minimum, slow down on the alcohol. Wouldn't hurt for him to apologize for his behavior...
Keep in mind, I have very little information to go on, but seeing the situation as it was describing in the opening post, I feel the blame largely falls on the attackers, with the girls behavior being needlessly reckless, and the brother's apparent abuse of alcohol being the catalyst for the whole scenario. The one person acting with a clear head and acting out of concern for all involved, doesn't deserve blame.
Here's my thoughts.
They are to blame.
They are the ones who choose to leave rather than wait. I can understand that they didn't want to stay out much later, but that doesn't mean they couldn't call a taxi from where they were and have it pick them up. I'd assume that one of them has a cell phone, or that there would be a phone available at the bar. There was no reason to walk. Though, if you were only planning to wait another 15 minutes, they had no reason to insist on leaving. By the time they got a taxi, you would be ready to leave.
You attempted to warn them, and rather than listen, or politely disregard your advice they called you a victim blamer and yelled at you. This may be unpopular, but sometimes the victim has to take responsibility for their actions. Especially when those actions needlessly place them in danger. They are adults. They are responsible for their own actions. Drunk or not, they made the choice. And getting drunk was also their choice.
The attacker(s) are to blame.
They attacked these people. They didn't have to. Without their needless actions, this would have never happened. So obviously they are more to blame than anyone. I don't think I need to explain this position further.
You have no fault.
You did the best you could given the situation. You can't control all three people at the bar. You're not their keeper. And you did warn them beforehand.
Your brother may hold some fault.
I can't say for certain without knowing all the details, but he was the catalyst for it all. He choose to get so drunk that he wasn't "driving safe" (assuming he risked vomiting more), and was most likely the one that delayed your departure, in the first place. He needs to hold some responsibility. And probably needs to, at the bare minimum, slow down on the alcohol. Wouldn't hurt for him to apologize for his behavior...
Keep in mind, I have very little information to go on, but seeing the situation as it was describing in the opening post, I feel the blame largely falls on the attackers, with the girls behavior being needlessly reckless, and the brother's apparent abuse of alcohol being the catalyst for the whole scenario. The one person acting with a clear head and acting out of concern for all involved, doesn't deserve blame.
Yes, that was exactly what I was thinking, you must be a psychiatrist. Way to not be condescending at all.Reeve said:That might be right but that doesn't justify you claiming that the girls wearing revealing clothing was "stupid of them" in your earlier post.TheRightToArmBears said:
Victim blaming, much?
I understand why you're doing it. You want the world to seem Just so that you feel safer. If it was their fault for wearing revealing clothing then YOU don't have to worry about getting attacked when YOU go out because...hey, you wouldn't be as stupid as them, would you? >.<
That reasoning that you're employing: It's called 'fallacious.' Look it up.
I'm well aware that walking around on your own late at night can be risky for anyone (fuck it, half the year I live in Liverpool of all places). However, the point remains that two girls walking around on a Friday night are more likely to be attacked, and revealing clothing doesn't help with horny drunks. I'm not saying it's their fault, I'm not saying they shouldn't have worn that clothing, I am saying that they shouldn't have wandered off on their own and I am saying that their clothing didn't exactly help the situation. Just because it's not their fault doesn't mean they didn't do anything silly here.
This sounds so ridiculously tailored to be a hypothetical that it's become funny.
Anyhow, you're not to blame, because you didn't tell them to shove it, you told them to wait a few minutes.
The girls aren't entirely blameless, because they chose to walk drunk into the street in a "bad neighborhood" in the middle of the night. Just because I don't want to get burned doesn't remove my responsibility if I decide to take up firewalking and get burned from taking a bad step.
On the whole, though, the vast majority of the blame goes to the attacker. Because duh.
Anyhow, you're not to blame, because you didn't tell them to shove it, you told them to wait a few minutes.
The girls aren't entirely blameless, because they chose to walk drunk into the street in a "bad neighborhood" in the middle of the night. Just because I don't want to get burned doesn't remove my responsibility if I decide to take up firewalking and get burned from taking a bad step.
On the whole, though, the vast majority of the blame goes to the attacker. Because duh.
The main thing I have to add is listen to this guy.Nuxxy said:
The most interesting thing about this thread is the jump straight form assault to sexual assault. It seems much more likely to me that it is much more likely that somebody wanted to rob two random drunk girls than to rape them. The op mentioned in one line that he told them that their clothing would draw unwanted attention. Which he was wrong about, but is not an uncommon belief. This immediately becomes the focus, instead of two drunk people walking home in a shady part of town. Over all the op did nothing wrong except giving up at the end and telling them they can do what they want should but that is quite understandable and a normal reaction. The girls did something dumb but that does not mean they did anything wrong so I would not say they are to blame so much as they could have easily prevent the incident. the attacker bears all the actual blame though.
I'm just going to jump in and say that while, yes, the vast majority of rapes are all about power and have little to do with clothing, this scenario (and the scenario the guy was talking about) could not be considered the "majority" of rapes. Most rape/sexual assault victims are not random targets walking down the street.Reeve said:That might be right but that doesn't justify you claiming that the girls wearing revealing clothing was "stupid of them" in your earlier post.
Victim blaming, much?
I understand why you're doing it. You want the world to seem Just so that you feel safer. If it was their fault for wearing revealing clothing then YOU don't have to worry about getting attacked when YOU go out because...hey, you wouldn't be as stupid as them, would you? >.<
That reasoning that you're employing: It's called 'fallacious.' Look it up.
However, in this case the girls were in an extremely bad neighborhood. The chance of there being an individual who was looking to prey on intoxicated people and WOULD actually consider clothing when deciding who to assault is vastly increased. (Again, because he is not part of the majority of rapists.) The original poster knew this and warned the women appropriately. If, in fact, they knew that they were going to a bar in a bad part of town and still chose to wear provocative clothing to that bar then, yes, they did make a decision that could possibly increase the chances of them being attacked.
A similar scenario would be if I knew I was going to a bar in a bad part of town and decided to wear a suit and flaunt off my wealth. Then, after I got wasted, I tried to walk home but was attacked by a thug who then proceeded to mug me. It was technically not my fault I was attacked but I was still a dumbass for flaunting off my wealth. The same logic applies to the women but with revealing clothing instead of wealth and a rapist instead of a mugger. (I know a women's appearance should not be compared to 'wealth' or 'goods' but the attacker in this situation isn't going to make that distinction.)
To sum up my point, no, clothing is not a factor in the vast majority of rapes. However, rapes behind a bar in a dark alleyway are NOT the vast majority of rapes either. As such, it is perfectly probable for a woman's appearance to have an effect on the chance that they are going to be assaulted in a bad neighborhood, in the dark, when they are drunk.
Statistics are generalities and, as such, are almost completely useless when analyzing specific situations such as the one in the story.
If you had data that shows that a women's clothing does NOT, in fact, increase a women's chance of being raped in a dark alleyway when they are drunk and in a bad neighborhood, then you would actually have a valid point.
Technically your point is valid. I do not actually know one way or the other, I am just assuming based on common sense.Master of the Skies said:
However, the 'statistics' that have been cited in an attempt to claim that clothing doesn't have an effect on how likely these women were to be attacked are actually as equally invalid as my assumptions when applied to this situation. Without statistics that CAN be reasonably applied to this situation, we don't actually know anything.
@Master of the Skies: I know, right? It's such a double standard. I apparently need facts & statistics to back up what I'm saying but that poster thinks they can make any claim they want and don't have to back it up with anything. Jesus Christ. It's even more amusing that the poster is presuming to know all the ins-and-outs of the situation from the OP. Coming out with stuff like "not your typical rapist" - How the F**&6211/'~@ do you know that???
An interesting point to make is one of if the attacker themselves are not victims of mental illness.
No rational person acts in a way which inflicts pain upon another for their own pleasure.
Thus, I've always kept the opinion that these people simply aren't capable of humanity in this regard.
They need help. A lot of it.
So, for the sake of argument, let's say they're not in control of their actions.
How would it then be their fault for being driven to do something out of mental illness?
I think at some stage, your own well-being is your own to look after. Failure to do that is your own fault. If you know something is more likely to happen, not taking precautions against it is nobody's fault but your own.
Especially, if ignoring safety was on account of not wanting to wait 15 minutes.
That's just dumb.
No rational person acts in a way which inflicts pain upon another for their own pleasure.
Thus, I've always kept the opinion that these people simply aren't capable of humanity in this regard.
They need help. A lot of it.
So, for the sake of argument, let's say they're not in control of their actions.
How would it then be their fault for being driven to do something out of mental illness?
I think at some stage, your own well-being is your own to look after. Failure to do that is your own fault. If you know something is more likely to happen, not taking precautions against it is nobody's fault but your own.
Especially, if ignoring safety was on account of not wanting to wait 15 minutes.
That's just dumb.
Blameless or not, you'd have to be an idiot to think you shouldn't be cautious. Even if it's the perpetrator's fault, why risk it?
So, y'know...Not the girls' fault, but it really would've been a better idea to wait for the drive. The important thing is, no serious damage was done. Shame you have to take the blame, though. Western culture is far too obsessed with placing the blame. Sometimes, things are just what they are. There's no use in trying to find a non-existant source for very real problems.
So, y'know...Not the girls' fault, but it really would've been a better idea to wait for the drive. The important thing is, no serious damage was done. Shame you have to take the blame, though. Western culture is far too obsessed with placing the blame. Sometimes, things are just what they are. There's no use in trying to find a non-existant source for very real problems.
No, you're not at all to blame. You were looking out for your brother and the girls as well. It's not your fault that they wouldn't listen to reason.
Ultimately, the attacker is the only one to blame.
Also, them trying to pin the blame for their attack on you even after you tried to warn them is a pretty shitty move.
Ultimately, the attacker is the only one to blame.
Also, them trying to pin the blame for their attack on you even after you tried to warn them is a pretty shitty move.
Here are some statistics:Master of the Skies said:
http://www.nmcsap.org/statistics.html
Only 33% of offenders are strangers.
19% of that 33% of offenses take place in a street away from the persons home. That totals to 6.27% of rapes that come from a stranger and take place away from the person's home.
If you are using a statistic that takes data from ALL the rapes, (which are mostly committed by family members, spouses, or friends) then when trying to apply it to a specific subsection of rapes and treat it as fact is grossly inaccurate.