"Not Ever" - A Campaign Against Blaming Rape Victims

[Skeptic]

Lul them into a false sense of security, then POW!, they're lying flat on their back wondering what happened.

(with the poinsoned nerf bow )

The nerf of some people.

 

[Skeptic]

There is always a person who says that when you teach a girl to not put herself into a dangerous situation you are blaming the victim. My answer to that is, "she isn't a victim and if she learns this stuff she never will be."

I never undestood this. Take crossing the road in a green light. You learn to look both ways regardless. Is that "blaming the victim" of road accidents?

 

[qayak]

I never undestood this. Take crossing the road in a green light. You learn to look both ways regardless. Is that "blaming the victim" of road accidents?

Exactly! I think it is a matter of these people being terrified they might be attacked and knowing they don't have the tools to deal with it. Instead of changing themselves, they try to change the entire world.

In my view, it's better to educate yourself to be protected (and to protect your children by teaching them) in the short term and then try to change the world in the long term. The world takes a long time to change.

 

[JAStewart]

The whole problem with rape cases if that some chick could accuse Darat of teh raep and his name would be published across newspapers "Some chick accuses Darat of rape" etc. Reputation destroyed.

Darat is cleared.

"No smoke without fire!", they'll say. Reputation obliterated.

If there's one thing I'd change about the rape laws in this country it's to protect the accused until he or she is convicted.

 

[Furcifer]

Exactly! I think it is a matter of these people being terrified they might be attacked and knowing they don't have the tools to deal with it. Instead of changing themselves, they try to change the entire world.

In my view, it's better to educate yourself to be protected (and to protect your children by teaching them) in the short term and then try to change the world in the long term. The world takes a long time to change.

When I took motorcycle training they explained how statistically "driver error" accounts for about 10% of motorcycle accidents, the other 90% are the other driver's fault. Given the number of fatalities when a motorcycle is involved it's better to err on the side of caution, don't assume because you have the green light the driver creeping into the intersection is going to give you the right of way. "Dead right" or "dead wrong" is still "dead".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

When I took motorcycle training they explained how statistically "driver error" accounts for about 10% of motorcycle accidents, the other 90% are the other driver's fault. Given the number of fatalities when a motorcycle is involved it's better to err on the side of caution, don't assume because you have the green light the driver creeping into the intersection is going to give you the right of way. "Dead right" or "dead wrong" is still "dead".

I think this is a very good analogy, because even though the majority of fatal motorcycle accidents are not the fault of the motorcycle rider we still think it is a very good thing to train motorcycle riders not to make fatal mistakes, we can discuss those 10% of accidents which are the rider's fault without getting our heads bitten off for "blaming the victim", and we don't get accused of implicit victim-blaming for not discussing the other 90% of accidents enough.

Everyone just accepts the idea that as long as significant numbers of people are getting hurt by both kinds of accident we should welcome any attempts to reduce the incidence of either kind of accident.

(There is of course a difference in that motorcyclists can wrap themselves around a tree all by themselves, whereas women don't get raped without additional, culpable actions by another party, however I believe the point remains sound as long as n% of rapes could as a matter of fact have been prevented by reasonable precautions on the part of the victim).

 

[myowninvention]

I think this is a very good analogy, because even though the majority of fatal motorcycle accidents are not the fault of the motorcycle rider we still think it is a very good thing to train motorcycle riders not to make fatal mistakes, we can discuss those 10% of accidents which are the rider's fault without getting our heads bitten off for "blaming the victim", and we don't get accused of implicit victim-blaming for not discussing the other 90% of accidents enough.

Everyone just accepts the idea that as long as significant numbers of people are getting hurt by both kinds of accident we should welcome any attempts to reduce the incidence of either kind of accident.

(There is of course a difference in that motorcyclists can wrap themselves around a tree all by themselves, whereas women don't get raped without additional, culpable actions by another party, however I believe the point remains sound as long as n% of rapes could as a matter of fact have been prevented by reasonable precautions on the part of the victim).

While this is a good analogy in some ways, neither the history of social stigma nor level the psychological trauma are comparable. I don't think many motorcyclists have refused to seek medical treatment or legal aid following an accident because of a fear of being disbelieved or blamed. (Of course, considering the fatality rate in motercycle accidents, many are a bit beyond that).

 

[qayak]

When I took motorcycle training they explained how statistically "driver error" accounts for about 10% of motorcycle accidents, the other 90% are the other driver's fault. Given the number of fatalities when a motorcycle is involved it's better to err on the side of caution, don't assume because you have the green light the driver creeping into the intersection is going to give you the right of way. "Dead right" or "dead wrong" is still "dead".

I like that analogy!

 

[qayak]

The whole problem with rape cases if that some chick could accuse Darat of teh raep and his name would be published across newspapers "Some chick accuses Darat of rape" etc. Reputation destroyed.

Darat is cleared.

"No smoke without fire!", they'll say. Reputation obliterated.

If there's one thing I'd change about the rape laws in this country it's to protect the accused until he or she is convicted.

I agree and it would put an end to the practice of trying the accused in the media and forming public opinion before the trial. How many times have I heard that "during a search of the accused's house, pornographic magazines were found?"

So what? If porno mags are an admission of guilt there are millions of guilty people, men and women, all over the world. Why don't they use a different marker to decide guilt, I mean, it's pretty obvious the person is guilty if we hear, "during a search of the accused's house, National Geographic magazines were found!"

Now there's a pervert that needs hangin'!

 

[Uncayimmy]

I would be OK with keeping the accused name out of the media up until the time that he's officially charged. If they're going to prosecute, then I think the public has a right to know.

At the same time, I'm against keeping the accuser's name out of the media (except until the same point as above). As a society we need to recognize that being a victim of rape doesn't make the victim less of a person. There should be no shame associated with being a victim. The shame belongs to the perp. As long as we continue to "protect" the victims in this manner, we're perpetuating shame and, quite frankly, being a little paternalistic.

 

[WildCat]

When I took motorcycle training they explained how statistically "driver error" accounts for about 10% of motorcycle accidents, the other 90% are the other driver's fault.

I seriously doubt that has any basis in fact.

 

[Skeptic]

I agree and it would put an end to the practice of trying the accused in the media and forming public opinion before the trial.

That is hardly something unique to rape accusations, but is true in all (sensational) accusations of a crime. It is one of the downsides of living in a society with a free press. But the accused is NOT tried in the media, but in the courts.

 

[mediocrity511]

That is hardly something unique to rape accusations, but is true in all (sensational) accusations of a crime. It is one of the downsides of living in a society with a free press. But the accused is NOT tried in the media, but in the courts.

Exactly. To be honest I'm not bothered about the accused having anonymity, so long as it is applied to all crimes equally and not just rape. If it only applies to rape then I'm vehemently against it.

 

[Furcifer]

I seriously doubt that has any basis in fact.

I've heard that from several sources over the years.

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=5939

NHTSA says 70% of all accidents are caused by the other driver. I can't find a source for the number of fatal accidents, but I'm pretty sure that's where the 90% comes from. Or it might come by removing the number of single vehicle accidents from the total number of accidents.

When you consider the fact that you don't usually see motorcycle riders using a cell phone, yelling at kids or putting on make-up while driving you get a pretty good idea why it's inherently safer. That and the fact that motorcycles are simply better at avoiding accidents because of handling and braking make them much safer than cars.

75% of all motorcycle accidents involve the front wheel. After riding for 20 years I can tell you why; people don't look properly before pulling out. It's like you're invisible. Whether it's the size of the motorcycle or the fact that most drivers are zombies, they're just looking for oncoming cars and that's it, I can't say. What I can tell you is once every 50KM of city driving I get cut off. People just don't see you and the bike I have now is bright yellow.

I haven't been in an accident, but I'm fairly confident that if I am it's going to be the other driver's fault.

 

[bookitty]

I've heard that from several sources over the years.

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=5939

NHTSA says 70% of all accidents are caused by the other driver. I can't find a source for the number of fatal accidents, but I'm pretty sure that's where the 90% comes from. Or it might come by removing the number of single vehicle accidents from the total number of accidents.

When you consider the fact that you don't usually see motorcycle riders using a cell phone, yelling at kids or putting on make-up while driving you get a pretty good idea why it's inherently safer. That and the fact that motorcycles are simply better at avoiding accidents because of handling and braking make them much safer than cars.

75% of all motorcycle accidents involve the front wheel. After riding for 20 years I can tell you why; people don't look properly before pulling out. It's like you're invisible. Whether it's the size of the motorcycle or the fact that most drivers are zombies, they're just looking for oncoming cars and that's it, I can't say. What I can tell you is once every 50KM of city driving I get cut off. People just don't see you and the bike I have now is bright yellow.

I haven't been in an accident, but I'm fairly confident that if I am it's going to be the other driver's fault.

Yeah, it was riding on the street that helped me understand that really loud Harleys are more than a statement of rebellion.

For the rape analogy, it should be pointed out that most people who cut you off are distracted or careless. They are very rarely looking for motorcyclists to hit.

 

[Furcifer]

They are very rarely looking for motorcyclists to hit.

3 weeks ago so crazy old lady tried to hit me, or at least put the fear of god into me. I was trying to turn off a street that was turning into a 1 way. The old broad must have thought I was driving down the 1 way the wrong way and decided she was going to force me off the road. She came within inches of me.

Ride a motorcycle long enough and you will find people trying to run you off the road. It's uncommon, but not rare.

Anyhow, I agree it's not the best analogy. It's just supposed to make you think about how sometimes being right isn't enough. Especially when the stakes are high.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I've heard that from several sources over the years.

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=5939

NHTSA says 70% of all accidents are caused by the other driver. I can't find a source for the number of fatal accidents, but I'm pretty sure that's where the 90% comes from. Or it might come by removing the number of single vehicle accidents from the total number of accidents.

When you consider the fact that you don't usually see motorcycle riders using a cell phone, yelling at kids or putting on make-up while driving you get a pretty good idea why it's inherently safer. That and the fact that motorcycles are simply better at avoiding accidents because of handling and braking make them much safer than cars.

75% of all motorcycle accidents involve the front wheel. After riding for 20 years I can tell you why; people don't look properly before pulling out. It's like you're invisible. Whether it's the size of the motorcycle or the fact that most drivers are zombies, they're just looking for oncoming cars and that's it, I can't say. What I can tell you is once every 50KM of city driving I get cut off. People just don't see you and the bike I have now is bright yellow.

I haven't been in an accident, but I'm fairly confident that if I am it's going to be the other driver's fault.

Rule #1: No cars see you.

Rule #2: All dogs will see you.

I recall reading that there is a relatively high percentage of motorcyclists involve in accidents by themselves. We're not likely to hit another vehicle for several reasons. One, we know how vulnerable we are, so we're careful around people in cages. The other, I think, is that we can maneuver so well. I've avoided accidents that I could not had I been in my cage.

I sincerely wish we could discuss rape avoidance just as dispassionately as we can other subjects such as motorcycle accidents.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The other problem with the analogy is that the vast majority of vehicle collisions aren't intentional acts between consenting drivers. If millions of people every day were choosing to crash into each other, including driving drunk to facilitate the process, it might be harder to determine when crashes involved a real victim.