"Not Ever" - A Campaign Against Blaming Rape Victims

[ponderingturtle]

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).

So if for basic assault if we point out that someone made some poor choices leading up to being beaten we would blaming them?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Cut the false diacotomy BS. Power is sexy and power dynamics and such run through sex all the time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

That is not really at all what is being discussed, so can you cut the strawmen?

 

[Skeptic]

The quote about the Japanese system, by the way, is from the excellent book "The Hitler Diaries" by Hamilton.

It was by the defense lawyer of the forger, Konrad Kujau. His defense attorney noted that, had the rule been followed in the trial of the forger, the judge would have quite a lot of work to do, since "Stern" magazine, in their desire for sensation, threw the most elementary caution to the wind and bought without question everything Kujau offered, including obvious historical howlers and, even, a re-delivery of the SAME notebook he gave Stern at first to "hook" them later on, when he delivered the "complete set".

Were "Stern" a victim of forgery? Yes. Were they innocent victims? No, they should have known behaving so carelessly and recklessly is courting disaster. If course, again, I didn't say a woman who wears a short skirt -- or any woman -- deserves to be raped. But there is a world of difference between "wearing a short skirt" and "going up to the hotel room with three guys you don't know".

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.

Asolutely, but who'se saying the three guys in the hotel room are NOT rapists, or that Kujau is NOT a forger? Nobody.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

Again that is not what he said, he said that some men especially when drunk will act on that with out consent.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Ah fun blatant sexism. What about women raping guys because they were drunk? I what to see more cases where both parties get locked up for raping each other when drunk. It is only fair after all.

I also think that it would also mean that "Hey I was drunk and so not responsible for my decisions when I decided to drive drunk." would be a valid defense.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

So women should never be convinced of DUI then? Because women can not be held accountable for their decisions when drunk.

 

[Skeptic]

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.

To say that rape is "about power, not about sex" is like saying robbery is "about power, not about money". Robbery is using force to GET money violently, rape is about using force to get sex violently. It is almost by definition about both.

If it were just about "control of women" or "power", you'd expect homosexual men, for example, to rape women just as much as heterosexual men. While I cannot deny there could be, for all I know, some rare cases where a homosexual man might have raped a woman out of spite, surely it is very rare, as rare as someone robbing a victim out of spite and then just throw the money away because all they care about is seeing the victim submit.

There seems to be, by the way, a contradiction here. You can't claim BOTH that all men are potential rapists because of their potentially out-of-control libido, and that rape has "nothing to do with sex".

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

By her later position she then lied to police. So she either lied to police when she said she lied to police or originally.

Lying to the police is a crime you know, ask Scooter Libby.

 

[Skeptic]

How could she have avoided it by saying "no thanks?"

Well, to point out the obvious, if you do NOT go up to a hotel room with three guys you hardly know, they are less likely to rape you. Just a thought. Similarly, inviting a convicted violent offender to live with you in your apartment is more likely to end up with him raping you than not having anything to do with him.

Do you seriously think if someone wanted to rape a woman, then any of the lessons we are taught actually do any good?

Yes. A violent ex-con that lives with you is more likely to rape you if he wants to do it, than a similar ex-con who doesn't live with you. Similarly, a group of three guys in a locked hotel room are more likely to ignore or belittle your refusal to have sex with them than a group of three guys in the hotel restautant.

We know all the lessons, things to avoid, etc. Rape still occurs.

So does car theft; this hardly means that leaving your car unattended and running with the key in the ignition is a bright idea.

And while there are situations a victim may be in that puts them at risk, these decisions do not influence a rapist.

They sure do. The less opportunity a rapist has the less likely he is to rape. Of course some people will not be stopped by anything, but we're not talking about such a situation.

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

Nonsense. If you refuse the three guys and don't go with them to a locked hotel room, or you don't invite an ex-con to live with you, chances are much higher than they won't rape you than if you do.

The same is true of most other crimes -- if you constantly provoke someone who hates your guts, the chances of him murdering you are considerably higher than if you avoid him.

 

[Wildy]

Why? The societal onus isn't on women not to drink.

So women shouldn't drink responsibly? There are probably far more dangers in getting ********* beyond rape.

The societal onus is on men not to rape.

And?

Drinking, clothes, provocative behavior, etc. are all just excuses used to distract from the fact that men rape and choose to.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that men choose to rape.

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.

And would tell male rape victims that their being raped is their own fault.

 

[Soapy Sam]

And would tell male rape victims that their being raped is their own fault.

I don't understand. Would you expand on that?

 

[Cainkane1]

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?

No woman or girl deserves to be raped. A woman or girl can be foolish and put themselves in harms way but theres no situation where a woman or girl deserves to be raped.

 

[Soapy Sam]

By her later position she then lied to police. So she either lied to police when she said she lied to police or originally.

Lying to the police is a crime you know, ask Scooter Libby.

I do know. "Wasting police time" is an offence. That's why I agree she deserved some comeback for it. I just doubt the sentence applied made much sense. It would get her away from her husband for a time, which might help I suppose. It is a bizarre story though.

 

[Wildy]

I don't understand. Would you expand on that?

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.

That's the important bit. Essentially if you present the idea that rape is always the man's fault then the message you send to male victims of rape is that their own rape is their own fault.

 

[Delphinium]

So women should never be convinced of DUI then? Because women can not be held accountable for their decisions when drunk.

It's not about not being accountable for their decisions, it's about someone advantaging themselves when it should be known that they are not capable of truly consenting. The same scenario would apply for a contract, if it you are asked to sign and not competent to do so for some reason then you could rightly say that full consent wasn't given and rescind it.

What the problem is to me is that the victim's behaviour is used to excuse the subsequent events, with the implication they brought it on themselves. It's like alcohol is the new miniskirt and if a woman goes to a bar and drink, then the blame can be deflected off the male that rapes and the blame placed on the victim. It's her behaviour that must modified, not the male that rapes her.

That's pretty much the crux of the whole campaign, it's not meant to be directed at women and telling them how to keep safe. It's about (just for a change) men modifying their behaviour.

If it were just about "control of women" or "power", you'd expect homosexual men, for example, to rape women just as much as heterosexual men.

I don't think so, the control and power issues are not just limited to just women. It just so happens that sexual assault is more commonly a women's issue rather than a men's issue. Unfortunately, that might be because male rape is under recognised and reported.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I don't understand. Would you expand on that?

I think he meant that your paragraph:

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.

Would have been better if the bolded word was 'rapist's' . Not all rapes involve a male agressor and female victim.

 

[LTC8K6]

Duke Lacrosse.

 

[brenn]

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?

Not blaming rape victims would be a good idea. Unfportunately, what these campaigns end up being is "don't blame women who claim to have been raped." Which, in turn, ends up meaning "don't question rape allegations - turn of skepticism." That is far, far different. People on day time talk shows may insist that women never lie about being raped, but if you've ever been a cop investigating siuch complaint, it takes a short time to see so many proven false that you are suspicious of every one. Add to that, that it's one of the few crimes where "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is often arrived at based on nothing more than one person's word against another, and you have a real problem.

I saw a statistic a few years ago that 1 in 6 pre-DNA convicted rapists was proven not guilty when DNA was tested by the FBI. In my experience, some are mistakes by victims, some are not.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I do know. "Wasting police time" is an offence. That's why I agree she deserved some comeback for it. I just doubt the sentence applied made much sense. It would get her away from her husband for a time, which might help I suppose. It is a bizarre story though.

So which time do you think she was lying?