Poll: Am I to blame

[Reeve]

Obviously the weight of the blame is with the attacker, but they should have been more cautious. You did the right thing; you tried to get them to be sensible and it would have been impossible for you to manhandle them (someone would probably think you were trying to attack them). Ultimately I think it's pretty sexist to entirely blame their clothing for being attacked, but it was very stupid of them.

Pffft....way to support rape culture, seriously >.>

I suppose women that go out in burkas are less likely to be attacked, right? Wrong. You're naive if you think choice of clothing is a real preventive measure. >.<

I'm not entirely sure how much (or if) you're screwing with me so... Bleuargh! Have words.

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.

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.

 

[VonKlaw]

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.

 

[Saltyk]

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.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Obviously the weight of the blame is with the attacker, but they should have been more cautious. You did the right thing; you tried to get them to be sensible and it would have been impossible for you to manhandle them (someone would probably think you were trying to attack them). Ultimately I think it's pretty sexist to entirely blame their clothing for being attacked, but it was very stupid of them.

Pffft....way to support rape culture, seriously >.>

I suppose women that go out in burkas are less likely to be attacked, right? Wrong. You're naive if you think choice of clothing is a real preventive measure. >.<

I'm not entirely sure how much (or if) you're screwing with me so... Bleuargh! Have words.

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.

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.

Yes, that was exactly what I was thinking, you must be a psychiatrist. Way to not be condescending at all.

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.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

 

[zerragonoss]

snip

The main thing I have to add is listen to this guy.

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.

 

[Filiecs]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Filiecs]

Right, but you don't need data to make claims about clothing. Of course.

Technically your point is valid. I do not actually know one way or the other, I am just assuming based on common sense.
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.

 

[Reeve]

@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???

 

[The Lunatic]

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.

 

[Cheesepower5]

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.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

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.

 

[Filiecs]

'Common sense' is the weakest of arguments. It just means "I think it makes sense", which really is not any kind of support at all. At least the statistics are something solid. 'Common sense' isn't at all. Sure statistics are generalities. That's still a whole hell of a lot better than 'common sense' and is more applicable. Saying we don't have statistics for that exact situation doesn't erase the fact we do know a bit about the relationship between clothing and rape and what we know seems to say that clothing doesn't matter.

Btw, I'd think common sense is that if you're alone in an alley and someone is looking to attack the clothign doesn't actually matter.

Here are some statistics:
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.

 

[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.