"Not Ever" - A Campaign Against Blaming Rape Victims

[Big Boss]

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:

We need to stop victim-blaming and assign responsibility to those whose decisions do lead to rape – perpetrators and the apologists whose woman-blaming views have assigned rape its current status as a low-risk crime. For as long the notion that women can “ask for it” or invite attack through their dress or behaviour are allowed to persist, rapists will continue to act with impunity, confident in the knowledge that their actions will receive far less scrutiny than those of the women they assault.

Thoughts?

 

[Skeptic]

There is a difference between not blaming someone for being raped and considering the woman's behavior beyond reproach a priori under all circumstances.

When a woman doesn't follow advice like "don't go to a hotel room with three guys you've just met in the pub" or "don't have a violent ex-con as your live-in boyfriend after a week's acquaintance", the gang or the boyfriend are guilty of the rape, of course -- but she could very easily have prevented it by saying "no thanks". If this is "blaming her for her behavior", well, so be it.

Perhaps the best analogy is scams. When someone who falls for a stupid scam, the scammer is the criminal; but it doesn't mean the victim shouldn't have been more careful. These folks would ban any education about the nature of scams or con games, since noting one can use common sense and natural skepticism to avoid most scams is "blaming the victims" by suggesting they lacked it.

I think we should do the opposite. In ancient Japan where, before duly punishing the criminal, the court would appoint an orderly to cane the especially stupid and careless victims, as a punishment for their stupidity. Had this been the law today, then in some rape cases -- and many scam cases -- the court would have quite a lot of work to do.

 

[live830]

Skeptic... No.

 

[brodski]

I think the point that manner of dress is not consent is an important one, but I am a little worried about the stance which the campaign seems to take against providing useful safety advice. Rape is the only crime where advising people to take care is somehow endorsing crime.
Also the idea that rape is a "low risk crime" as compared to other crimes is not sported by the data, and I would love to see any evidence that rape victims are subject to mroe scrutiny than rapists. I think the tv spot sends a powerful message, but I think the website contains some outright false, and perhaps even dangerous claims which help to perpetuate some of the myths of rape.

 

[Big Boss]

There is a difference between not blaming someone for being raped and considering the woman's behavior beyond reproach a priori under all circumstances.

From the perspective of the rape victim, I am going to make the case that there isn't for this one reason: she didn't make men rape her. Men chose to rape her. Blaming her for what other parties chose to do is thus irrational and she's still going to perceive preventative advice directed toward women as blame. This really is a debate where agency must be properly clarified in these situations and things like "she was asking for it by engaging in behavior X" imply that behavior X made men rape her, which must be proven (and evidence regarding potential provocations such as dress, behavior, etc. suggest that it's not connected).

Myth: Rape victims provoke the attach by wearing provocative clothing

• Most convicted rapists do not remember what their victims were wearing.
• Victims range in age from days old to those in their nineties, hardly provocative dressers.
• A Federal Commission on Crime of Violence Study found that only 4.4% of all reported rapes involved provocative behavior on the part of the victim. In murder cases 22% involved such behavior (as simple as a glance).

On top of agency, this is also about onus: the onus should not be on women to prevent men from raping them. The onus should be on men not to rape.

 

[Big Boss]

And as for why people blame victims of crimes, scams, etc. in general, it's because of an irrational cognitive bias: just-world theory. From the paper (you may not be able to access it):

In general, the results show that subjects attribute blame to the rape victim. Attribution of blame helps to reinforce the casual observer’s belief that the world is a safe, protected place, and that occurrences such as rape can be controlled...Blame reflects the way in which people organize data regarding events and behaviors that have actual or potential adverse consequences. It is possible that, given the perception that women are vulnerable, exposed, and more aware of their vulnerability, they are expected to act with extra caution to avoid rape, and are therefore judged more harshly when actually victimized.

 

[travelgirl]

There is a difference between not blaming someone for being raped and considering the woman's behavior beyond reproach a priori under all circumstances.

When a woman doesn't follow advice like "don't go to a hotel room with three guys you've just met in the pub" or "don't have a violent ex-con as your live-in boyfriend after a week's acquaintance", the gang or the boyfriend are guilty of the rape, of course -- but she could very easily have prevented it by saying "no thanks". If this is "blaming her for her behavior", well, so be it.

Perhaps the best analogy is scams. When someone who falls for a stupid scam, the scammer is the criminal; but it doesn't mean the victim shouldn't have been more careful. These folks would ban any education about the nature of scams or con games, since noting one can use common sense and natural skepticism to avoid most scams is "blaming the victims" by suggesting they lacked it.

I think we should do the opposite. In ancient Japan where, before duly punishing the criminal, the court would appoint an orderly to cane the especially stupid and careless victims, as a punishment for their stupidity. Had this been the law today, then in some rape cases -- and many scam cases -- the court would have quite a lot of work to do.

I am not surprised to see your abhorrent human rights stances also extend to rape victims. How could she have avoided it by saying "no thanks?" Do you seriously think if someone wanted to rape a woman, then any of the lessons we are taught actually do any good? We know all the lessons, things to avoid, etc. Rape still occurs. And while there are situations a victim may be in that puts them at risk, these decisions do not influence a rapist. A rapist is going to rape regardless of the signals one sends or the actions one should or should not have performed.

 

[Brattus]

There is a difference between not blaming someone for being raped and considering the woman's behavior beyond reproach a priori under all circumstances.

When a woman doesn't follow advice like "don't go to a hotel room with three guys you've just met in the pub" or "don't have a violent ex-con as your live-in boyfriend after a week's acquaintance", the gang or the boyfriend are guilty of the rape, of course -- but she could very easily have prevented it by saying "no thanks". If this is "blaming her for her behavior", well, so be it.

Perhaps the best analogy is scams. When someone who falls for a stupid scam, the scammer is the criminal; but it doesn't mean the victim shouldn't have been more careful. These folks would ban any education about the nature of scams or con games, since noting one can use common sense and natural skepticism to avoid most scams is "blaming the victims" by suggesting they lacked it.

I think we should do the opposite. In ancient Japan where, before duly punishing the criminal, the court would appoint an orderly to cane the especially stupid and careless victims, as a punishment for their stupidity. Had this been the law today, then in some rape cases -- and many scam cases -- the court would have quite a lot of work to do.

I do not agree with the caning thing but I agree with the rest.

 

[badnewsBH]

Rape victims are not to blame for their attackers' actions, no question there. I do think, though, that people have to be careful in this effort not to blame victims, in that we don't want people to think that they shouldn't still take sensible precautions against getting attacked. Advice like "Don't walk home alone if you can help it", for instance, still makes sense, and encouraging people to make wise decisions in no way blames them if they do get attacked, IMO.

 

[Big Boss]

Rape is the only crime where advising people to take care is somehow endorsing crime.

Not endorsing it, but irrationally assigning blame. Preventative strategies are good in so far as they'll tell you the scenarios where you're least likely to get raped, but it still perpetuates a misleading narrative that distracts people from the fact that the onus should be on men not to rape. That's what the narrative should be about.

Also the idea that rape is a "low risk crime" as compared to other crimes is not sported by the data...

I'd have to ask what data you are looking, given the epidemic of a rape kit back log for starters: if that doesn't signal that rape isn't taken as a serious crime, I don't know what does.

And our universities, supposed bastions of social justice... hrm:

Newly obtained Justice Department data show that reports of sexual assaults on college campuses rarely lead to serious sanctions. Ten New England universities and colleges provided the data as part of a campus grant program overseen by the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women.

Of the more than 240 alleged assaults the schools reported between 2003 and 2008, four led to expulsions.

All of this seems to suggest that compared to something like murder, there's a culture that really doesn't take it that seriously and that contributes to its status as a "low-risk" crime.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I like women. I enjoy the fact that our species is sexually dimorphic. I want to live in a world where women are free to wear whatever they want, no matter how much skin it covers or fails to cover, and free to express their sexuality if they want to do so. That means getting rid of the idea that clothing and sexual behaviors can somehow imply consent to violence. The alternative is to keep this wierd cultural idea we have that women who expose skin or who don't act like they hate sex should live in fear that they'll be assaulted. Push that idea too far and you get women walking around in tents with eyeslots, and trying hard not to be noticed.

 

[Wolfman]

A rapist is going to rape regardless of the signals one sends or the actions one should or should not have performed.

I'm sorry, but that is just so incredibly wrong that it shocks me to hear someone making such a claim...and is perhaps representative of part of the problem with more extreme views in this debate.

Yes, there are some rapists who go out specifically looking for a woman to rape. In those cases, he's going to rape someone, regardless of how the women dress or what they do.

However, there are a great many rapes -- particularly date rapes, or similar scenarios -- where that's not the case at all. The man initially has no intent to rape. He's with a woman, and the woman does things that turn him on, make him horny. And to him, the woman seems to be sending signals that she wants to have sex (in some cases, that is the signal the woman intends to send, but then later decides she doesn't want to).

I'm not blaming the woman for the man's actions. Regardless of what she did, regardless of the messages she sent, any man should be able to control himself enough to cease sexual activity if the woman does not want it. To force her is rape, and entirely unacceptable, regardless of what she did.

But the claim that "a rapist is going to rape regardless of the signals one sends or the actions one should or should not have performed" is simply ludicrous. In many instances of rape, had the woman acted in a different manner -- ie. not sticking her tongue in the guy's ear and grabbing his crotch -- the man would not have become aroused to the point of trying to force her into sex. Again, I'm not saying that its the woman's fault for being raped...because had she acted in exactly the same manner with another man, he would not have raped her, he would have been able to control himself. It is the fault of the rapist.

There are things that women can do to at least decrease their chances of getting raped. And they should be aware of this, and act accordingly. The "out of control man who is going to rape women regardless of what they do" does exist...but is hardly representative of all rapists.

 

[Big Boss]

In many instances of rape, had the woman acted in a different manner -- ie. not sticking her tongue in the guy's ear and grabbing his crotch -- the man would not have become aroused to the point of trying to force her into sex. Again, I'm not saying that its the woman's fault for being raped...because had she acted in exactly the same manner with another man, he would not have raped her, he would have been able to control himself. It is the fault of the rapist.

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

 

[travelgirl]

But the claim that "a rapist is going to rape regardless of the signals one sends or the actions one should or should not have performed" is simply ludicrous. In many instances of rape, had the woman acted in a different manner -- ie. not sticking her tongue in the guy's ear and grabbing his crotch -- the man would not have become aroused to the point of trying to force her into sex. Again, I'm not saying that its the woman's fault for being raped...because had she acted in exactly the same manner with another man, he would not have raped her, he would have been able to control himself. It is the fault of the rapist. //

This is patently false. Yes, you saying that it is the women's fault. It's exactly what you are saying. Some men don't rape the women that stick her tongue in the guy's ear or grab his crotch. Why? Because they're not rapists. Most men have the ability to control themselves and their actions even when being felt up by a woman. Rape is about power, control and anger, not sexual arousal or gratification.

 

[Wolfman]

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

Ah, if only life (and humans) were so simple, and all human motivation could be conveniently reduced to such simplistic generalizations.

Two scenarios:

1) A drunk 17 year old kid is at a party. He's been dancing with a girl, grinding their bodies against each other, and he's horny as hell. Walking into another room, he sees a girl in a short skirt passed out on a couch. In his inebriated and horny state, he pulls down her panties, and has sex with her. She never wakes up, she never fights him, there is no violence or power involved.

Had he not previously gotten so turned on by the dancing with another partner, he wouldn't have done this. Had the girl not been passed out, he wouldn't have done it. Or had she woken up, and told him not to do it, he wouldn't have done it. Or, to be blatantly frank, had she not drunk so much as to pass out unconscious at a party with a bunch of horny teenagers, it would not have happened.

No, its not her fault. But she could have avoided it by not getting that drunk in such an environment. And he wasn't trying to show his power...he was getting his rocks off during a moment of drunken lack of control.

2) A guy and girl have been dating for awhile, and end up back at her place. There's a lot of heavy sexual activity going on...she's putting her tongue in his ear, has taken off her shirt and bra to expose her breasts, and has taken out his penis to stimulate it. The guy is 21, and horny as hell. Everything she's doing indicates to him that she's interested in sex. Then, for some reason (what the reason is is irrelevant), she decides she wants to stop, and not go any further. But the guy doesn't want to stop...he's in the grips of a rather strong sexual passion, and feels he 'deserves' to consummate that passion.

Against her will, he pushes her down, and forces her to have sex with him. Yes, it is an act of power...but had she not previously acted in that manner, he would never have taken it this far.

If I am to accept your argument, then I must accept the ludicrous argument that if the girl had not invited her to her apartment, he would still have raped her. If she had not exposed her breasts, and stimulated an erection through deliberate manipulation of his penis, he would still have raped her.

Again.

Nowhere am I claiming that its the woman's fault. But this extreme political correctness where somehow men are reduced to blind slaves of violent desire who are going to rape a woman regardless of what that woman does simply doesn't match with reality. Yes, there are some rapes like that. But not all of them.

And there are ways in which women can moderate their behavior, that will reduce their chances of being exposed to at least some kinds of rape. Its not about giving men an 'excuse' for raping women ("I did it because she made me horny"); it is about giving women the power to recognize and act on the fact that their behavior can either increase or decrease their chances of being raped.

There is no behavior by a woman that can justify rape. The vast majority of men, regardless of how the woman acted, would be able to refrain from forcing them to have sex.

However, among those men who do commit rape, there are two types. One are those who set out with the intent to rape, and are going to rape a woman regardless of what happens. The other type have no intent of raping, and in most cases would never commit such an action...but given particular circumstances (potentially including the specific behavior of the woman they are with, among other factors), will commit rape.

 

[Furcifer]

Blaming her for what other parties chose to do is thus irrational.

But saying "don't engage in high risk activity" isn't blame.

There's a difference between a 12 year old girl having sex forced on her and a 20 year old college girl getting drunk, stripping down naked, climbing into bed with a stranger and waking up to find she's had sex without her consent (it happened in Chicago if I recall correctly).

We need to be able to differentiate between the two without running the risk of "blaming the victim". Campaigns like this tend to make that differentiation difficult while marginalizing victims.

 

[Wolfman]

Let me put this another way.

Consider that, among a group of potential rapists, there are different 'thresholds' that will push them over the line, and cause them to rape.

For one man, that threshold is very low. He sees a woman wearing a short skirt, and says to himself, "That bitch is just begging for it". Or perhaps a woman looks at him with what he perceives as disgust, and he says to himself, "I'm gonna' teach that bitch a lesson, and show her I'm a real man".

In this case, there's probably nothing the woman could have done to avoid his attention...he was gonna' find some excuse or reason to commit rape, no matter what.

For another man, he can easily walk by women on the street, even ones dressed provocatively, with no more than a glance of appreciation, and a slight stirring in his loins. He can go out on a date with a woman, have a nice time, take her home, exchange a night-time kiss...and while thinking of having sex with her, not even consider the possibility of forcing her.

But then one night she invites him to her home, and they get into some heavy-duty petting. He's majorly turned on, and at least in his mind, she's signaling that she wants to have sex with him. Then, at some point, she tells him to stop.

Unfortunately, he's reached his threshold. Whereas before he wouldn't have considered violence, now he thinks, "This bitch has been teasing me, she made me think she wants sex, she got me turned on, and now she wants me to just turn it off? Not a chance! She's gonna' give me what she promised!"

And he rapes her.

Most men, I think, would never reach the point where there would be such a threshold. But there are, obviously, men who do.

It ain't so black-and-white, nor as simplistic, as some people wanna' claim.

 

[live830]

From a National Crime Prevention Council article to which I'm not yet privileged enough to link:

"Nothing—not even previous consensual sex—entitles anyone to force others to perform sexual acts. Without consent, forcing sexual contact is a crime. Date rape is a betrayal of trust and causes longlasting emotional injuries. Date rape or acquaintance rape is about power, control, and anger—not romance." [Emphasis mine]

Also, look into DiCanio's The Encyclopedia of Violence*, where you will read that power and anger are the primary motivations for rape.

The assertion that rape is virtually always about power--and very little if at all about sexuality--is not just our opinion; it is demonstrably true. If any of you would like to continue to insist that this is not the case, I'm sure we would be willing to review what proof you have to offer.

*DiCanio, Margaret. The Encyclopedia of Violence: Origins, Attitudes, Consequences. New York: Facts on File, 1993. Print. (ISBN 0-8160-2332-8)

 

[Big Boss]

(Wolfman, I haven't forgotten to reply. I may or may not tonight.)

But saying "don't engage in high risk activity" isn't blame.

It misses the point though. Like I said, this also about onus. Guess what? I want a woman to be able to get super drunk around men and not worry about having to be raped!

Again, if the goal is preventative measures, then that's where you go to RAINN. If the goal is to change how the crime of rape perceived, that's what the above link is trying to do. And it's not marginalizing the victims. I don't see any rational basis for that claim. It's empowering them to realize that what happened to them was not their fault.

That they don't have to experience revictimization by pondering what they could have done differently... and blame themselves as a result. No. This campaign does not marginalize. It puts the focus where it belongs: on men who rape.

There's a difference between a 12 year old girl having sex forced on her and a 20 year old college girl getting drunk, stripping down naked, climbing into bed with a stranger and waking up to find she's had sex without her consent (it happened in Chicago if I recall correctly).

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

About one third of all rapes are committed by individuals under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and that number is much higher for inappropriate sexual exchanges on college campuses. Courts of law hold perpetrators fully responsible for their sexual misconduct, even if they were drinking or on drugs at the time of the incident. If a victim was under the influence, courts of law usually consider that individual incapable of giving sexual consent. Thus even if the victim did not fight back, their assertion of rape is typically considered valid, as their drug or alcohol usage may have prevented them from responding as they would have while sober.

We need to be able to differentiate between the two without running the risk of "blaming the victim". Campaigns like this tend to make that differentiation difficult while marginalizing victims.

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. However, guess how a rape victim is going to such advice? As blame. That's not her fault, because you're implicitly suggesting she should have acted differently. And that leads to revictimization. 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.

 

[Wolfman]

The assertion that rape is virtually always about power--and very little if at all about sexuality--is not just our opinion; it is demonstrably true. If any of you would like to continue to insist that this is not the case, I'm sure we would be willing to review what proof you have to offer.

Fine.

I will accept that assertion.

Now...go and read my above posts, and the different scenarios that I posted. Are you going to say that the women involved would have been raped regardless of their behavior in every situation? That a change in their behavior would not have changed the situation also?

Yeah, the guy who gets pissed off cuz a girl has turned him on, then won't let him have sex...its about anger, and its about power. But if the girl hadn't turned him on in the first place, she would not have found herself in that situation.

And again -- no, it is not her fault, she does not bear any of the blame for being raped. But a claim that she would have been raped had she acted differently (ie. not engaged in overtly sexual activity with the man) is so fundamentally ludicrous that I have a very difficult time understanding how anyone can seriously be making it.