Poll: Am I to blame

[Kyr Knightbane]

Would you mind providing evidence of the supposed lack of correlation between attire and likelihood of assault? The only evidence I have seen shows a fairly direct correlation.

Well I didn't know that info mind linking to your sources that state that as I would assume that clothing would normally play some sort of factor but I could be wrong.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=djglp

The author of this article goes as far to suggest:

While people perceive dress to have an impact on who is assaulted, studies of rapists suggest that victim attire is not a significant factor. Instead, rapists look for signs of passiveness and submissiveness, which, studies suggest, are more likely to coincide with more body-concealing clothing. (140) In a study to test whether males could determine whether women were high or low in passiveness and submissiveness, Richards and her colleagues found that men, using only nonverbal appearance cues, could accurately assess which women were passive and submissive versus those who were dominant and assertive. (141) Clothing was one of the key cues: "Those females high in passivity and submissiveness (i.e., those at greatest risk for victimization) wore noticeably more body-concealing clothing (i.e., high necklines, long pants and sleeves, multiple layers)." (142) This suggests that men equate body-concealing clothing with passive and submissive qualities, which are qualities that rapists look for in victims. Thus, those who wore provocative clothes would not be viewed as passive or submissive, and would be less likely to be victims of assault.

It's also in the list here: http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html

Research has found that the vast majority of rapes are planned. Rape is the responsibility of the rapist alone. Women, children and men of every age, physical type and demeanor are raped. Opportunity is the most important factor determining when a given rapist will rape.

It is a disgusting and harmful lie that scantily dressed women are more likely to be targetted, as evidenced by how many people in this thread are blaming the victims in this scenario. Were the women rude not to wait for your brother? Yes, but you were more rude when you accused them of being rape bait.

Were they wrong to supposedly try and blame you afterwards? Of course.

Was it their fault for daring to step outside unaccompanied and dressed scantily and provocatively [sub][sub](you never said slut!)[/sub][/sub]? Fuck no. None the less, that is the strong implication of your OP, and it's appalling and untrue. You also attempt to ridicule the people who called you out for victim blaming (which you were) with the phrasing of your next line ("Well as it turns out, I was right!") further reinforcing the notion that you think they were wrong for standing up for themselves. They should have accepted your slut-shaming with grace and just gotten into the car [sub][sub](but you never said slut!)[/sub][/sub].

Dear Madam or Sir.
Calm the fuck down. Not every single response to you is an attack on your intelligence or facts. 'Tis a forum. A place where people project thoughts, emotions and opinions. You are blatantly being overzealous.

OT:
I'd say fuck 'em. (But apparently you can't, eh rapist? Huh huh? *nudge nudge*)
They want to blame someone and as they were 'attacked' and could never blame their attacker, they want to blame someone of the same sex. You're a male, therefore blame is transferred to you. I've dealt with that with my Mom and Sisters who instead of being mad at the person(s) who molested/victimized them, took their anger and frustration with males out on their brother/son (me) and Husbands and male children.

 

[kickyourass]

While the obvious answer is that the person who attacked them is to blame for them getting attacked, THEY are the ones who left all by themselves, YOU were the one who tried to stop them, they left anyway. In general it's a really shit idea to walk home, alone, at night, while drunk, this is true basically everywhere on the planet. So when you not only do that, but do so against the advice of the person you specifically brought along to make sure you didn't get hurt while you drink, a good deal of it is your own damn fault when *shock-horror* you get hurt.

I'm sorry that they got hurt, but when someone gets hurt and one of the main factors is their own stupidity, it's hard to feel much more then basic sympathy.

 

[major_chaos]

Opportunity is the most important factor determining when a given rapist will rape.

Ugh. I was't going to touch this thread but I can't resist this one. Based on the statement I quoted, isn't it a good idea to just not create opportunity? And isn't alone, at night, wasted, and apparently not in the nicest part of town the very picture of opportunity? Make no mistake, I'm not saying these women "deserve" what happened to them, nor am I trying to somehow take blame off the attacker, but I believe crime is a thing that happens and thus failure to act with caution is unwise. And this doesn't just apply to rape. I would never walk drunk and alone at night in the shit part of town because there is a decent chance someone would mug me. And I'm not a stranger to the consequences of failing to take precautions, and it cost me all the cash I had on me at the time.

 

[Filiecs]

It's more of something to go on than "I think it makes sense". You should look to how solid your position too. It's like you're ignoring that. And it makes your uneven expectations about evidence all that much more ludicrous.

The fact of the matter is that a 6.27% chance that clothing does not have an effect on the assault in the MAJORITY of cases is not in any way a valid reason to assume that an attacker won't consider clothing in any way when choosing a victim.

Also, I am in no way claiming that the way they dressed had any effect at all on why the assailant attacked them. We don't even know if the attacker even WAS a rapist. I am simply claiming that the original poster was reasonable in believing that, in combination with a bad neighborhood AND being drunk, provocative clothing might add to the chance of the girls receiving unwanted attention and was in no way victim blaming.

Is his assumption based on intuition alone? Yes, and could not be considered scientifically valid.
However, the claim that he was going against facts is completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Stephen Harland]

Only person ever to blame for the rape is the rapist.

Equally however, They can't say you're victim blaming and then equally blame you for them being attacked in the same rationale. It doesn't fit with its own internal logic. It'd be like saying taxi drivers are to blame for rape for not giving free rides to all women.

Equally, they doubly can't blame you because you did offer than a ride, it was their impatience that prevented it.
So yeah, ridiculous.

 

[Hazy]

They made their choice, inebriated or not. You are not to blame in any way.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

I'd say it isn't your fault at all, it's the attacker's fault and partially their fault.

You aren't their guardian, nor can you compel them to listen to you. If they were adamant about leaving without you and compromising their own safety there wasn't anything you can do to stop them. You tried, you failed, it's their own fault they wouldn't listen to reason.

As far as the actual attack goes, obviously the vast majority of the fault lies with the attacker, since you know, he attacked them. Part of the blame does lay with the two girls though. There's nothing wrong with wearing revealing clothing, or being a little drunk, the reason some of the blame lays with them is because they refused to look out for their own safety. The only one responsible for their safety in that situation was themselves, and since they decided to do something unsafe it's their own fault when shit goes bad.

And no, I don't think that expressing concern for your own well being somehow validates rape culture. There's a difference between accepting rape as being ok, and understanding that there are scummy people in the world that are willing to take advantage of you. The easier you make it for people to take advantage of you the less surprised you should be when it actually happens. The world is not a safe place, regardless of how we wish it to be, and people need to realize that.

Then again, I'm a huge proponent of personal responsibility, which it seems like these girls aren't, so it's not like any of these arguments are going to make them change their views.

I'd have to agree with this. While in an ideal world things like this would not happen, sadly bad things can and do happen in this world. Sometimes people need to exercise caution and not take unnecessary risks in certain situations.

 

[Bluestorm83]

Scenario:My brother and two lady friends went to a bar I'm the driver so no alcohol for me,all three of them get wasted my brother more so than the girls he get's so bad that he runs off to the toilet to throw up to the point where it would not be possible to get him into my car so I decide to wait a bit intill he's safe to travel.

The two girls decide that they want to leave immediately and refuse to wait for my Brother who I can't leave behind,so they say they are going to walk and find a taxi,I warned them not too go and instead to please be patient and wait 15 minutes more because it exceptionally late, they are both drunk,both wearing revealing clothing and we are not in the best neighborhood all of which could make them targets to an attack.

It at this point that I get yelled at for victim blaming/shaming and that I'm degrading them,encouraging rape culture ect ect at this point some other people join in on the yelling at me so I give up and tell them to leave and they do while I go back to the toilet to check on my brother to see if he's better yet.

Well as it turns out they were attacked as I was to find out today luckily they were able to escape with some minor bruising and nothing else, but here's the catch-they blame me completely for what happened to them due to the fact that I let them leave alone and are now trying to turn my other friends against me.

So I ask you Escapist Am I to Blame?

You are 100% completely innocent, and to be lauded for your efforts. This is the fault of lack of restraint on the parts of your brother and both women involved, the fault of whatever shithead was the attacker, and that's all it was. You win, they're bitches, cut them off and do yourself a favor by being free of their nonsense forever, the end.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Dear Madam or Sir.
Calm the fuck down. Not every single response to you is an attack on your intelligence or facts. 'Tis a forum. A place where people project thoughts, emotions and opinions. You are blatantly being overzealous.

Lol okay, maybe you should take your own advice. I have no idea how this could be perceived as an attack on my intelligence since the discussion I was having had nothing to do with me. It was however an attack on facts as I demonstrated, providing evidence as was requested. And yeah, you really do like to project emotions, don't you. I have no idea why you even bothered to quote me. Just to tell me you don't like my attitude? Sorry but tough luck.

Opportunity is the most important factor determining when a given rapist will rape.

Ugh. I was't going to touch this thread but I can't resist this one. Based on the statement I quoted, isn't it a good idea to just not create opportunity? And isn't alone, at night, wasted, and apparently not in the nicest part of town the very picture of opportunity? Make no mistake, I'm not saying these women "deserve" what happened to them, nor am I trying to somehow take blame off the attacker, but I believe crime is a thing that happens and thus failure to act with caution is unwise. And this doesn't just apply to rape. I would never walk drunk and alone at night in the shit part of town because there is a decent chance someone would mug me. And I'm not a stranger to the consequences of failing to take precautions, and it cost me all the cash I had on me at the time.

I thought I made it quite clear that my qualm was with the suggestion that their clothing was a factor in their assault. And the women weren't alone. There were two of them, which is another aspect of the story which makes me sceptical. Unless by 'alone' you mean 'manless'.

Frankly stranger rape is so uncommon that to let fear of it dictate your life is just sad. And if someone decided to mug me I could be sober as a judge and there'd still be fuck all I could do about it. In retrospect it's easy to point the finger at someone and say they shouldn't have been alone, shouldn't have been out at night, and all that pish. But frankly if the only time you leave your house is during the day with someone constantly holding your hand, I pity you. It's completely unreasonable and impractical to expect people to constantly take every precaution lest someone claim they should have known better.

 

[Chaosian]

I'm not sure I get it. How can anyone but the attacker be to blame for an attack? Anything else is who's to blame for influencing the scenario, which, everyone is to blame for - even your brother. Sure the women may have been stupid for not listening to your advice, and you're not exactly 100% not shining for not following up on it (which is the lesser offense in my opinion), but for anyone besides the attacker to be at fault?

 

[Filiecs]

There is not a '6.27%' chance there. If you're going to try to complain about statistics at least know how to use them right.

And it's going against the only actual fact presented with nothing at all. Maybes with no backing are empty.

Oh and did you honestly think I'd forget this?

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.

You did make a claim about the clothing.

And you're still not answering for your double standard about evidence.

First of all, if a statistic is 100% accurate about 100% of a group then it can only be accurately considered when accounting for the whole/most of group. When you focus on only a single subsection (6.27%) of the of the whole then the accuracy of the study in relation to that subsection is also reduced to 6.27%. That is, the study has a 6.27& chance of actually being applicable in any way to the smaller sample size.

The study about clothing and its relation to rape that was cited earlier was based off of ALL cases of rape. 66% of rape is done by a friend, family member, or ex-spouse. With friends, family members, and ex spouses we know that the rape is most likely all about power and less about sex. As a result, appearance is most likely not going to have an affect at all on the chance of rape. A stranger who rapes someone in/near the victims home has probably planned the assault and the victim's clothing would not likely matter in this case either.

However, when a random stranger is looking to assault a person away from the victim's home (such as just outside of a bar) the intended victim has most likely not been chosen yet. As such, the assailant chooses a victim based on what he senses is an easy/valuable target. Revealing clothing DOES make a person look more attractive and DOES attract attention. Consequently, if the assailant has a choice between assaulting a drunk person in normal clothes or a drunk person in revealing clothes, chances are he'd be more attracted to the one in revealing clothes. (However, this assumes that the assailant didn't just attack the first drunk person he saw, which could possibly be the case.)

Finally, I said increased. Increased relative to the majority of cases of rape which are planned with a specific target in mind. If the assailant has no knowledge of/motive to assault a specific victim, it is only reasonable that he would look towards appearance when choosing a victim.

I do not have a double standard on evidence.
I used evidence and reasoning to support my claim that the idea that the women's clothing in this situation had absolutely no affect is false and I have just provided reasoning to support the claim that you just cited.

 

[grey_space]

He lives in Australia, do you even know anything about gun law's there? There strict and besides that I don't know about you but i don't think having a bunch of drunk chicks running around is the best idea.

Then said gun laws are the problem. I know that Australia is among the only country in the world that even bans bullet resistant vests, which says a lot about how they view the right to self defense. Yes, drunk people get attacked too so they would need a gun as well. Also, learn to distinguish between they're and there, because I had to read your post a few times to make out what you meant.

Drunk people should have guns.

In case they get attacked.

Are you serious?

 

[Filiecs]

Just to clarify, I am not saying that they "asked for it" and never even implied such. I said in my first post

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.

It is never a victims fault for being attacked. The criminal is the one who decided to take action. All I am arguing is that the idea that an attacker outside the bar wouldn't be attracted by revealing clothing is most likely false.