SpectacularWebHead said:
1: Being the victim of Rape because of your own stupidity does not take responsibility from those who did it.
Definitely does not. By the same token, while we are holding rapists accountable for what they have done, encouraging would-be victims to take precautions does not
put responsibility on
them This is an important point that works both ways.
First way: Doing something stupid/ill-advised that leads to you being raped does not in any way make the rape your fault. Second way: Advising someone not to do certain stupid/ill-advised things is not the same as blaming them for rape, if and when it occurs.
2: Being dressed like a slut/Man-whore does not entitle people to Rape.
I really haven't heard anyone use this one to say what you think they're saying. The way I frame it? Most folks that dress "provocatively" do it to provoke
attention from others. And hey, that's their right. At the same time, it means they'll need to be a little more careful, because that also means they're more likely to draw the wrong
kind of attention.
And I'm not just talking rape, either. Advertise with your body, and you attract people that want your body. If you're not careful to filter through the attention, you can easily fall for the wrong kind and get hurt in lots of different ways -- like falling in with some schmuck just using you for sex, or letting the
very wrong guy take to his place, where you're less in-control of the situation. (Again, letting people know their actions are ill-advised is not putting blame on them.)
This was your most problematic, because of the way you approach it. First off, like it or not, "rapists" do have rights. Foremost, they have the right not to be called "rapists" until they are convicted by a jury of their peers.
Putting that aside: Do you know what we call murder that happens accidentally?
Not murder. We call it manslaughter. See, it's an entirely separate charge. And there are degrees of murder for when it
is intentional (crime-of-passion versus premeditated).
If we can see a difference between types of murder, surely we can recognize the difference between a man forcing a woman into sex and knife point, and two drunk people having ill-advised sex (with a drunk man foolishly accepting a drunk woman's 'consent'). Or a 18-year-old with a 16-year-old girlfriend, when they've been openly dating since 15/13.
Not all
killings are malicious, premeditated, or even intentional. The law recognizes this. Not all situations that involve sex are rape, and not all rapes are the same kind.
If a guy drugs a girl's drink? Flat-out rape. If she's passed-out drunk, and he's not? Flat-out rape. If they're both drunk and both have sex? Very different, grey scenario. If, on the outside chance, it's one of the rare false accusations? Good thing the purpose of a trial is to find out
if a rape happened, and not to assume guilt and immediately label the accused a "rapist."
I'm all for throwing the book at rapists. Also murderers and robbers and all that. But until they are convicted under due process,
they're not rapists, murderers, and robbers. And not every situation is exactly how it first appears. So just, in general, people have rights -- and that includes criminals, and
alleged criminals.