"Not Ever" - A Campaign Against Blaming Rape Victims

[Big Boss]

So instead we "blame" every man for the actions of the few "not nice guys"?

We make sure all men are informed and know what to do in situations that are dangerous to women. Simple as that.

If we don't blame the women for not doing the right thing and leaving these men, then we do the children a disservice. Sometimes we need to lay blame on the victim in order to protect them from themselves and their poor decision making skills.

I completely disagree with that assessment and so would pretty much any well-adjusted counselor. Blaming the victim of a domestic abuse scenario just reinforces the conclusion, in their minds, that they're doing something to deserve to being abused. In fact, what you're suggesting is definitely on the list of don'ts.

Don’t:

• Wait for him or her to come to you.
• Judge or blame.
• Pressure him or her.
• Give advice.
• Place conditions on your support.

Some of the don'ts and dos here may seem counterintuitive, but it's all about how you'll be perceived; the wrong perception could push the victims away.

 

[Wildy]

Guess what? The latter is still rape. An inebriated woman cannot given consent and what defines rape is sex without consent. According to UPenn:

Even though I understand why that is the case I still don't really understand it. I guess it's the impression that the woman is to be considered totally blameless. Do you think that such a definition would also apply to men?

If you tell a rape victim that she should have not had too much to drink, you're blaming the victim. If you tell a woman that she shouldn't have too much to drink tonight because people might take advantage of that, that's an attempt to prevent.

In other words the difference is hindsight.

Which is why the lessons should be for men. Instead of focusing on the woman who drinks, focus on the men who would take advantage and tell them why it's wrong. That's ALL this campaign is trying to do: put the focus in its proper place.

Which in my opinion is still wrong. You should be targeting the woman who drinks and the man who takes advantage.

 

[Big Boss]

Even though I understand why that is the case I still don't really understand it. I guess it's the impression that the woman is to be considered totally blameless. Do you think that such a definition would also apply to men?

It's really about impaired judgment; if you're inebriated, this affects sound judgement and thus any verbal go-ahead an inebriated woman gives cannot be taken as genuine consent to sex.

Also, it's dependent on the aggressor, who is usually male in these scenarios, but if the aggressor were female, I don't see why it shouldn't apply to male victims who had too much to drink.

Which in my opinion is still wrong. You should be targeting the woman who drinks and the man who takes advantage.

Why? The societal onus isn't on women not to drink. The societal onus is on men not to rape. Drinking, clothes, provocative behavior, etc. are all just excuses used to distract from the fact that men rape and choose to.

 

[Furcifer]

I do not buy that the woman is in any way to blame for a man's violent disregard for self-control when he's told no.

Would you agree that a woman that engages in this behaviour on a regular basis is at a higher risk than a woman that doesn't?

This always seems to boil down to how things are and how we want them to be. I don't believe for a second a man can't control himself when aroused, but I realize some won't. I don't have enough faith in society to think this will ever change. At least not in my lifetime

 

[Soapy Sam]

If the ad campaign gets the idea into mens' heads that rape is always the man's fault- no matter what the circumstances, no matter the behaviour of the woman (and the campaign clearly is about male on female assault) then it will probably have some positive effect on modifying the behaviour of some men. Whether that is "fair" is a matter of opinion and opinions on this issue tend to be strong and polarised.

Whether such a campaign will affect the behaviour of the small minority of men most likely to attempt a "classic" rape assault on a total stranger in a park at night is another question. I really doubt it.

This is just one of several campaigns in Scotland recently attempting to modify public behaviour or attitudes. Smoking and alcohol abuse are other targets. I find the aims generally laudable, but there is a subtle risk that the moral implications of such campaigns may be over simplified to get a message across.

It is a reasonable supposition that nobody wants to be raped. It is also an evident fact that women do want to have sex. There are situations where those two desires can be safely satisfied. There are situations where the risks are higher. Avoiding those situations seems wise- and it wouldn't hurt for the campaign to try to get that point across too. If it manages to make men think about their responsibilities, fine. If it creates the idea in some women that anything they do is not their fault, that's not so fine.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Rape is a crime of power. You're trying to portray it as a crime of passion that the woman sexually induced.

The 70's called and they want their hair back.

I was just thinking "at least no ones bringing up the old rape is a crime of power or rape is a crime of hate nonsense"

Thanks for setting women back 50 years guy

 

[pipelineaudio]

Rape is about power, control and anger, not sexual arousal or gratification.

Oh man, another one.

I see a Benson and Hedges advertisement coming up here somewhere

 

[Big Boss]

Thanks for setting women back 50 years guy

lol

It's really amusing when people think they have a clue and just... don't.

There's an even more amusing disparity in here: the feminists are bringing sources to back their claims and a lot of the other folks are just bringing claims (although a few are attempting legitimate discourse).

Guess which side you're on.

But really, do everyone a favor and take you and your brain cell far away.

 

[Furcifer]

Some of the don'ts and dos here may seem counterintuitive, but it's all about how you'll be perceived; the wrong perception could push the victims away.

Maybe it's just an artifact of a growing society and the media, but despite this approach things seem to be getting worse not better.

Maybe I'm getting cynical in my old age, but it's like we'd rather deal with the victims than worry about infringing on someone's freedom.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I think campaigns aimed at men should emphasise that no matter how a woman is dressed, or behaves, it is never OK to have sex with her, without consent. Campaigns aimed at women's safety are a little more difficult. I think that whenever they talk about risk and keeping yourself safe, they need to emphasise that this is not because such behaviour is wrong, or that it makes any rapist less culpable for their behaviour, or that the woman provoked the attack but because we don't live in a perfect world and sadly sometimes we have to trade some of our freedoms to keep ourselves safe from evil people.

A bit off-topic, but I just wanted to mention an on-going case in the UK where a woman has been jailed for falsely retracting a rape allegation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11727763

 

[pipelineaudio]

the feminists are bringing sources to back their claims

must resist




can't

The feminists bring mullets to back their claim

 

[Big Boss]

I think that whenever they talk about risk and keeping yourself safe, they need to emphasise that this is not because such behaviour is wrong, or that it makes any rapist less culpable for their behaviour, or that the woman provoked the attack but because we don't live in a perfect world and sadly sometimes we have to trade some of our freedoms to keep ourselves safe from evil people.

Well said. Unfortunately, the implication (or reasoning) I see nearly every time a preventative measure is suggested in here is "don't do X or you're culpable."

 

[Soapy Sam]

I think campaigns aimed at men should emphasise that no matter how a woman is dressed, or behaves, it is never OK to have sex with her, without consent. Campaigns aimed at women's safety are a little more difficult. I think that whenever they talk about risk and keeping yourself safe, they need to emphasise that this is not because such behaviour is wrong, or that it makes any rapist less culpable for their behaviour, or that the woman provoked the attack but because we don't live in a perfect world and sadly sometimes we have to trade some of our freedoms to keep ourselves safe from evil people.

Absolutely. Assault is assault whatever the victim is wearing. But if someone leaves the key in the ignition, and his car is stolen, few people would hesitate to assign a degree of responsibility to the driver, even though the thief remains the thief.
Men and women have to solve this together .

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

This campaign was started in Scotland. They released what is now kind of an old ad (from the summer), but it's pretty interesting. I personally think this is a good idea and would like to see a correlate in the states.

More about the Not Ever campaign:



Thoughts?

Having read the thread, my thoughts are that they've got a lot of work to do.

I think they're definitely on the right track, but it's not going to be a sudden change.

 

[Big Boss]

]But if someone leaves the key in the ignition, and his car is stolen, few people would hesitate to assign a degree of responsibility to the driver, even though the thief remains the thief.

You're right, people do assign blame to the driver, but again, that's a cognitive bias: the just-world phenomenon.

According to the hypothesis, people have a strong desire or need to believe that the world is an orderly, predictable, and just place, where people get what they deserve. Such a belief plays an important function in our lives since in order to plan our lives or achieve our goals we need to assume that our actions will have predictable consequences. Moreover, when we encounter evidence suggesting that the world is not just, we quickly act to restore justice by helping the victim or we persuade ourselves that no injustice has occurred. We either lend assistance or we decide that the rape victim must have asked for it, the homeless person is simply lazy, the fallen star must be an adulterer. These attitudes are continually reinforced in the ubiquitous fairy tales, fables, comic books, cop shows and other morality tales of our culture, in which good is always rewarded and evil punished.

The reason it's called out more so with rape though is because the consequences of it, and other violent assaults, are pretty traumatic and the victims hearing that they could have done something differently is not part of the healing process and implies blame. In reality though, blaming the victim in all these scenarios is irrational.

 

[Aepervius]

In response to the Op and to skeptic post : even if the woman was dancing naked in an isolated room in an isolated house in a remote area withotu witness, with 3 horny men, while her behavior is risky and stupid, in NO WAY whatsoever does it even excuse one single bit her rape if she says "No". We human are in control of our action. If those "men" rape her, it does not matter what she did or say PRIOR to say "no". The men (or women) are guilty. As guilty as if they had rapped a women which did not go into risky behavior. And that's it.

And by the way , why the heck concentrate on women as the victim ? Women are sometimes guilty of rape and abuse too.

 

[Soapy Sam]

A bit off-topic, but I just wanted to mention an on-going case in the UK where a woman has been jailed for falsely retracting a rape allegation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11727763

What a bizarre story.

The law is an ass sometimes. I can see maybe an afternoon in a cell as a warning not to "waste police time", but taking it further seems daft- what did they hope this would achieve?

 

[Soapy Sam]

You're right, people do assign blame to the driver, but again, that's a cognitive bias: the just-world phenomenon.

I don't think calling the facts of life "cognitive bias" changes them much.
Gravity is not cognitive bias. Jump off a cliff, you go down. Tiptoe along the edge in a rainstorm and you are knowingly increasing the likelihood of a fall. That does not make you responsible for gravity, but you did have a reasonable responsibility for your own safety. If you leave your doors unlocked in a neighbourhood known for burglary, you will have a hard time getting your insurance to pay out, not because they think you stole your own stuff, but because their premium was calculated on the assumption you would take reasonable care.

You're right it's hard to tell someone they are in part responsible when something bad just happened to them. Far better to advise them before it happens- so that maybe it will not. That's why I worry that a campaign like the one in the OP might give some women the idea that they don't need to take care. We all need to take care. I think there's a legitimate difference between the concepts of "culpability" and "reasonable responsibility". Like most posters to the thread, I totally accept that this in no sense decreases the culpability of the rapist.

The reason it's called out more so with rape though is because the consequences of it, and other violent assaults, are pretty traumatic and the victims hearing that they could have done something differently is not part of the healing process and implies blame.

This is true, but the consequences of any assault can be anywhere from trauma to death. I'm male and 5'11". There are still places in Scotland I don't go alone , at night, or drunk. Bad is bad, whoever it happens to.

 

[3point14]

I'm a little confused.

Is the argument that women should not be told to be careful as it is always the fault of the man that raped them?

I'm not disputing the latter part of the previous sentence, it is always the rapist's fault, no discussion there, but I have the (I think confused) impression that some are advocating not giving advice to women that would lessen their chances of being the victim of rape because that somehow blames anyone unfortunate enough to be the victim of such a crime for what happened to them? Somebody tell me I've got that wrong.

In a perfect world such advice would not be needed, but it is. I suspect that many victims of any sort of crime (particularly violent crime) do a lot of 'if only'ing after the event. If there's been a lot of preventative advice around beforehand that they did not heed, then the fact that the victim had received the advice may make them feel (wrongly) a little to blame for not having heeded the advice ("they told me not to walk through the park on my own at night, if only I'd listened", or "They told me not to wave my money around once I'd taken it from the ATM, if only I'd listened").

Does this mean that the advice should not be given? I really doni't think so. As others have said, I should be able to walk through bad neighbourhoods at night, but I'm not bloody going to just because in a perfect world I should be able to. I'll walk the extra mile and stick to where there are streetlights and people.

To summarise my random rambling:

No, it's never the victim's fault. End of discussion.

Yes we should issue advice to follow even if it makes those that don't (or won't or can't) follow it feel guilty for not having followed it.



(Please note, much of the above may be baseless speculation, please feel free to rip it to

 

[Soapy Sam]

3923928



I'm a little confused.

Is the argument that women should not be told to be careful as it is always the fault of the man that raped them?

Specifically, the thread is about the Scottish Government TV campaign linked to in the OP.
The aim of that campaign is to raise awareness among men that womens' behaviour is not "chosen to encourage rape" and that whether a woman is wearing a short skirt, or (by extension) acting lewdly, or is drunk in public etc- (none of this) should be considered to make her "fair game". So far, I think most posters agree, so good.
The aspect of the campaign that concerns me personally is that it sends a dangerously false message to women that nothing they do contributes in any way to the probability they might be assaulted. It does. It should not. But it does. And pretending otherwise will not help anyone.