"Not Ever" - A Campaign Against Blaming Rape Victims

[Furcifer]

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

This has been shown to be somewhat of a myth. Some rapes are about power and control, but the majority of rapes are drunk men being too aggressive and not heeding the warnings to stop. Older men taking advantage of young women also make up a large portion of the rapes committed. These too are committed because of sexual arousal and gratification, although you could make a case for it being because of power or control.

 

[live830]

This has been shown to be somewhat of a myth. Some rapes are about power and control, but the majority of rapes are drunk men being too aggressive and not heeding the warnings to stop. Older men taking advantage of young women also make up a large portion of the rapes committed. These too are committed because of sexual arousal and gratification, although you could make a case for it being because of power or control.

These sound like claims that require some substantiating.

 

[Wolfman]

Let's deal with the issue of anger and power.

There is a certain class of men who, in most situations, would never force a woman to have sex. However, if a woman seems first to be interested in them, and promising them sex...and then suddenly turns around, and tells them "No"...then this will make them angry, and they will demonstrate their power by forcing that woman to have sex with them.

I've seen this dynamic (on a smaller scale) tons of times at bars, watching various men there. A man approaches one woman, asks her to dance, and she simply says no. He's slightly miffed, but he walks away, and forgets about her quickly. He finds another woman who flirts with him quite intensely, dances with him for awhile, even gropes him a little...then suddenly drops him and goes back to her friends, ignoring him. He's furious at this "cock tease", very visibly angered.

Both women rejected him. But his reaction to each was very different, based on their behavior towards him.

A woman's behavior does make a difference to how this kind of man will respond and act towards her. No, it never justifies rape. But simply saying "its about anger and power" doesn't address the full issue at all...the simple fact that a woman's behavior and actions can have a direct impact on that man's emotions and behavior.

Two women at the same bar, in the same environment, who both reject the same man. One woman is treated with minor disdain; the other is the target of intense hatred, and a desire to demonstrate his power to control her.

The difference here isn't the man...its the same guy. The difference is the woman, and her behavior towards that man.

 

[travelgirl]

This has been shown to be somewhat of a myth. Some rapes are about power and control, but the majority of rapes are drunk men being too aggressive and not heeding the warnings to stop. Older men taking advantage of young women also make up a large portion of the rapes committed. These too are committed because of sexual arousal and gratification, although you could make a case for it being because of power or control.

Cite it.

 

[Skeptic]

and even if your advice is preventative, guess how it's going to be perceived by the rape victim? As blame, because it implies SHE should have done something differently

Why, yes, she shouldn't have gone up to the hotel room with three guys she met half an hour ago in the pub.

I don't see why this is so extraordinary. Suppose I go around in a bad neighborhood with a neon sign on my head saying "I HAVE MONEY AND AM UNARMED" while dropping dollar bills all over the place. If I get mugged, someone chose to mug me, but that hardly means my behavior was beyond reproach.

 

[Richard Masters]

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.

...

I mostly agree with you this far.

Events don't necessarily have a single cause and the actions of a potential victim of rape can have an effect, however minor, on future events.

 

[Big Boss]

Why, yes, she shouldn't have gone up to the hotel room with three guys she met half an hour ago in the pub.

And if you tell that to a rape victim, that is blame.

I don't see why this is so extraordinary. Suppose I go around in a bad neighborhood with a neon sign on my head saying "I HAVE MONEY AND AM UNARMED" while dropping dollar bills all over the place. If I get mugged, someone chose to mug me, but that hardly means my behavior was beyond reproach.

Check out my post on just world theory, by the way, because that's the reason WHY people would blame you. I know people do this all the time, but it's an irrational cognitive bias. The main reason it's called out so much with rape is because it leads to revictimization for victims of rape (did anyone consider a victim could be reading this thread?), but ultimately, this mindset is wrong regardless of the crime. I do think though there is a difference between an attractive woman and uh... advertising yourself vocally.

 

[live830]

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?

Correct. She did not precipitate the rape in any case. If those scenarios occurred in reality, studies have indicated to us that each of those rapes was not about sexual arousal but power or anger. The woman is not responsible for the man's anger or power drive.

Unless, of course, you mean a "change in their behavior" the way, say, living in a different state would have accomplished the same thing, then sure. But then what's the point of your argument? In none of those scenarios did she do anything wrong. You're basically saying that woman should not make out with a man unless she is prepared to have sex with him which, effectively, places the blame of the rape on the woman for making out with a guy she didn't want to sleep with.

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.

How on earth is she supposed to know who does and does not have that "threshold"? How far do we take the "she's partly responsible because if she hadn't done this, it wouldn't have happened" explanation?

If anything, you've suggested that most men are not like that, which is actually a counterpoint to your argument.

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.

It can be made because the rape is not her fault for being an attractive or engaging woman; she is only the victim of his anger/power needs.

 

[live830]

Suppose I go around in a bad neighborhood with a neon sign on my head saying "I HAVE MONEY AND AM UNARMED" while dropping dollar bills all over the place.

An attractive or friendly woman is just like a rich, unarmed guy announcing to a bad neighborhood his vulnerability.

 

[Furcifer]

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!

I want my children to play in the park without getting hurt or being abducted. Guess what? No amount of denial is going to change the fact that kids shouldn't play in the road or talk to strangers.

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.

We need to do a better job protecting those that can't protect themselves. As long there are children being abused I feel this marginalizes them because they can't get the resources they need. If there were infinite resources I might see this differently.

And what makes rape any different than violent assault? Because it's sexual? I think you'd have troubling making that case to someone paralyzed lying in a hospital bed. And yet we take measures to ensure we minimize the possibility of being assaulted by not engaging in high risk activities. Once again, until that threat is completely eliminated from society people need to take some responsibility for their own safety. That isn't blaming the victim.

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 perceive the latter? As blame. 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.

I find this only allows people to allow themselves to be victimized. I'd rather see measures taken to prevent a rape from happening, than worry about victims feeling like they are being blamed. I feel campaigns this can give women a false sense of security.

 

[live830]

I'd rather see measures taken to prevent a rape from happening, than worry about victims feeling like they are being blamed.

This is a false dichotomy. Both can be done simultaneously, whereas your way (choosing to maintain that existing stigma on survivors, essentially compromising their wellbeing) would only repress real progress, due to survivors' fear of humiliation.

 

[Big Boss]

I want my children to play in the park without getting hurt or being abducted. Guess what? No amount of denial is going to change the fact that kids shouldn't play in the road or talk to strangers.

This is an issue where we can easily reach out to males. Advice as simple as this:

What can men do to become part of the solution?

• Approach gender violence as a MEN’S issue.
• Make sure that the sex you are having is consensual. Do not accept the myth that “no” means “yes”. Understand that submission is not consent. Do not make assumptions about consent, ASK for consent.
• Remember that having sex with someone who is drunk is sexual assault. If an individual is drunk, they cannot legally consent to sex (they cannot make an informed, rational decision).
• Communicate clearly how you feel and what you want. Listen to your partner. Do not rely on body language.
• Do not make assumptions about consent based on style of dress, body language or previous sexual activity. ASK for consent.
• Understand, and help friends understand, that sexual assault is assault, and has little to do with sex.
• Do not remain silent, do not look the other way. Become an “active bystander” – confront friends who are becoming disrespectful or abusive towards women. Intervene when a friend is making a decision that could have devastating consequences.
• Examine your attitudes about women and men that may perpetuate sexism and violence against women.
• Interrupt actions, comments or jokes that support rape and other acts of violence.

This is preventative advice and appropriately targeted.

And what makes rape any different than violent assault? Because it's sexual? I think you'd have troubling making that case to someone paralyzed lying in a hospital bed.

There is a difference, actually. There are still people out there who don't realize these scenarios where the women is drunk... is rape. Whereas someone who was violently assaulted is unequivocally violent assault. There's an ambiguity with sexual assault, concerning the motivations for it, the locus of causality, etc. that needs to be confronted. And it needs to be confronted with the onus put on the males to not rape as well.

And yet we take measures to ensure we minimize the possibility of being assaulted by not engaging in high risk activities. Once again, until that threat is completely eliminated from society people need to take some responsibility for their own safety. That isn't blaming the victim.

We need to take steps to ensure men don't rape. How is this in ANYWAY a bad narrative? It isn't. And as I demonstrated with another link, it can be preventative!

I feel campaigns this can give women a false sense of security.

I don't see how. I mean, did anyone else explore the original website? Because it provides some pretty thorough resources for women.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

Do you have any factual evidence to back that up?

Because as far as I'm aware it's merely feminist dogma with no basis in evidence. (I say that as a feminist - for better or for worse feminism is a big tent and some of the things in the tent are very stupid).

These sound like claims that require some substantiating.

I think the burden of proof is on the fairly silly claim that rape - particularly date rape - is not intimately tied up with sex.

Cite it.

I think the burden of proof is on the fairly silly claim that rape - particularly date rape - is not intimately tied up with sex.

I think this meme probably originates in some fuzzy-minded feminist not really grasping the idea that an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse.

Rape is an evolved behaviour. It happens for sound biological reasons: because at some stage in our ancestry, rape was an effective means of passing on your genes. It's not an effective means of passing on your genes any more, but our Y chromosome hasn't figured that out yet.

The fact that it's natural and tied up with sexual desire doesn't take anything away from the fact that it's a morally revolting crime.

 

[Furcifer]

Cite it.

Cite what? The number of rapes where alcohol is involved? The number of rapes that happen to college age girls on campus? The number of rapes that happen to girls under the age of 16?

We're talking about the psychology of rape. It's hard to know what a guy is thinking, but we can look at some of the facts regarding rape and make some assumptions. The typical rape as portrayed in TV and movies, that power and control raping of a random victim just doesn't happen. A majority of rapes happen to young women and girls in high school and college, I believe it was around 66%. Depending on the study over half involve alcohol. 60-70% reported being penetrated, again depending on the study.

Perhaps it would be easier if you explained how you eliminated sexual arousal and gratification from rape? Like I said, most of the rapes that occur seem to be drunk college age guys that take advantage of girls while they are intoxicated. This to me suggests it's about sex, not "power". But you could make a case that everything we do in life is about "power" depending how you define it.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

For me, this continues to be a question of what sort of culture I want to live in. This particular one sees more problem with sexuality than with violence, and I think that needs to be reversed.

I want to live in a world where women can dress and act as they please without worrying about being raped. Why should women have to choose their clothing and limit their sexuality out of fear?

I want to live in a world where someone can walk down a dark street, carrying money but no weapons, without being afraid that they'll be killed. Why should people have to go about armed if they have valuables?

I want to live in a world where children can play outside, without being targeted for abduction. Why should children have to play inside?

I want to live in a world where the decisions we make are not based on fear of violence. Recognizing that skimpy clothing is not an excuse for violence against women is just one place to start.

 

[live830]

I think the burden of proof is on the fairly silly claim that rape - particularly date rape - is not intimately tied up with sex.

I provided it: an excerpt from an NCPC article and a reference to a book by DiCanio. I'd LMGTFY them, but I can't link yet.

Meanwhile, I have not seen from others, nor do I see from you, any semblance of academic research to support your explanations.

Rape is an evolved behaviour. It happens for sound biological reasons: because at some stage in our ancestry, rape was an effective means of passing on your genes. It's not an effective means of passing on your genes any more, but our Y chromosome hasn't figured that out yet.

A) Sociobiological rape is hardly a theory at all. Burden of proof is on you, in this case.

B) I don't understand what place this has in this discussion.

 

[Furcifer]

This is an issue where we can easily reach out to males. Advice as simple as this:
This is preventative advice and appropriately targeted.

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

So how that works? I could take it as you blaming everyone, or I can accept it as good advice.

Heck I could even say you're just teaching the "not nice guys" how to take advantage of women! You bastard!

There is a difference, actually. There are still people out there who don't realize these scenarios where the women is drunk... is rape. Whereas someone who was violently assaulted is unequivocally violent assault. There's an ambiguity with sexual assault, concerning the motivations for it, the locus of causality, etc. that needs to be confronted. And it needs to be confronted with the onus put on the males to not rape as well.

I think it's pretty clear the onus is on males not to rape. I don't know any guys that don't know it isn't OK to force sex on women. On the other hand i know a few guys that think it's OK to go out, get drunk and get into fights.

We need to take steps to ensure men don't rape. How is this in ANYWAY a bad narrative? It isn't. And as I demonstrated with another link, it can be preventative!

Absolutely. It's just as important as keeping women safe by telling them what to look out for.

This came up in another thread and I explained why I felt this "don't blame the victim" attitude can be bad.

A man assaulting his wife and children is wrong and there is nothing she or they can do to deserve this. It's his fault and he's to blame.

The problem is too many women stay with these men and don't remove their children from the situation.

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. That doesn't and shouldn't mean the guy gets a free pass to beat his wife and children.

 

[Alan]

[...]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.

That is the most abhorrent thing I can remember reading on this forum.

 

[Big Boss]

Live830 addressed the first part, but oh man, this bit:

Rape is an evolved behaviour. It happens for sound biological reasons: because at some stage in our ancestry, rape was an effective means of passing on your genes. It's not an effective means of passing on your genes any more, but our Y chromosome hasn't figured that out yet.

This is the most atrocious thing I've seen in here for multiple reasons. First of all, it's pop evolutionary psychology garbage that tries to ascribe evolutionary selective pressures to a modern, abhorrent social behavior, which you have absolutely no scientific justification for and chances are, you aren't going to get a peer-reviewed source to back it up either. I mean, I'm not a fan of pop evolutionary psychology in general, but to ask for "factual evidence" in this thread for something and than go into misguided conjecture is just the most astonishing piece of hypocrisy I've ever seen. You say feminism is a big tent, but I know I've ever seen this in the tent... like ever. It's not only an attempt to rationalize violent misogyny in our society, it's pseudoscience, which I thought was supposed to be bad here.

 

[slingblade]

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.

You don't really want me to believe that men are such libidinous beasts that once turned on, they cannot control themselves if told no?

I've had enough sex to know that even when highly aroused, I can still control myself and my actions.

The man in your hypothetical is a rapist, and he's not raping out of sexual frustration, but out of power and anger. SHE didn't cause him to react that way. Her actions did not lead to the rape, unless it's true that men lose the capacity for rational thought when aroused, and that all women should know this, and never arouse a man they don't intend to bring to climax.

It's not that she aroused him and told him no, it's that she told him no. I say this, because I've been in hot, passionate situations where we were interrupted and had to stop suddenly, and not once did any of my partners simply have to keep going, to the point of forcing me, because he was already so aroused.

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. Even if she's being a teasing bitch, I still don't buy that it's because of HER actions she was raped. Because I do not for a second buy the implied premise that men are such mindless brutes, they can't stop having sex if told "no." They can get angry about it, of course! Who wouldn't be, in the right circumstances? But saying the rape is then somehow understandable (or whatever term you prefer) is ridiculous. The anger would be understandable and justified, but you yell at her, you argue with her. You don't beat her up with your penis and say she got what she asked for.

"He wouldn't have raped her if she hadn't led him on" is how women get wrapped in walking shrouds and kept locked away.