"Not Ever" - A Campaign Against Blaming Rape Victims

[tyr_13]

So can anyone list those high-risk activities? Considering that we've established that most rape victims actually know their aggressor, so it's not even about "walking alone in a dark alley at night" that's relevant here.

So far the only advice I gleaned from this thread is: don't get drunk at a party, ever. Not just, "don't get drunk at a party with men you don't know" because once again, rape victims usually know their aggressors. So, ladies, don't ever get drunks even with friends around. Or if you do, accept the possibility that you might get raped.

Another I saw is about younger girls being pressured by older guys. So another high-risk behaviour would be, "being friends with older guys if you're a teenage girl". Hmm, some advice.

Anything else? What other "high risk behaviour" should we avoid to reduce our chances of getting raped, and to reduce the scorn and lack of sympathy if that should ever happen anyway?

Just curious.

I don't think risk reduction advice is being thought of in this thread as eliminating or addressing all rape, or even most rape. What is being said is that when it is relevant to a rape it should be addressed.

Besides, identifying high risk behavior isn't the same as prohibiting such. With your example of 'being friends with older guys if you're a teenage girl' for instance, the advice would be, 'any given guy might try to pressure you into having sex even though you don't want it. With the authority, trust, and other social conditions involving an older man, one might use those pressures against you. Be ready for it and know that you don't have to if you really don't want to.' The advice 'don't ever get drunk' or 'don't ever have older friends' doesn't seem to be what is being advocated.

 

[bookitty]

I don't think risk reduction advice is being thought of in this thread as eliminating or addressing all rape, or even most rape. What is being said is that when it is relevant to a rape it should be addressed.

OK, so please describe a rape scenario in which the woman's behavior was not relevant to being raped.

 

[Skeptic]

So can anyone list those high-risk activities?

Yes. Getting drunk out of your mind in roudy parties with strangers is not recommended. Neither is having a boyfriend who's 25 when you're 15. Moving in with a violent boyfriend is also a bad idea. Avoid going up to a man's room after a party unless you actually want to have sex with him. "Coffee" is a four-letter word in such situations, if you get my drift.

Don't get me wrong, ladies. Most men would NOT rape you even if you go up to his apartment and then do not have sex with him -- even if he expected sex. Most men would NOT rape you even if you get drunk in a party -- and even if you pass out half-naked. And that 25-year-old boyfriend of the 15-year-old is, most likely, a morbidly shy kid who can't believe he would ever get a girlfriend his age. Not the making of a happy romance, perhaps, but not one of forceful rape, either.

But then again, if you drive on a motorcycle without a helmet chances are you won't get hurt or injured, either; it's nevertheless foolish to do so.

That some behaviors are more high risk than others is reality. It isn't changed just because you wish they weren't, or consider it unfair and insulting to women that they are.

 

[Furcifer]

So can anyone list those high-risk activities? Considering that we've established that most rape victims actually know their aggressor, so it's not even about "walking alone in a dark alley at night" that's relevant here.
So far the only advice I gleaned from this thread is: don't get drunk at a party, ever. Not just, "don't get drunk at a party with men you don't know" because once again, rape victims usually know their aggressors. So, ladies, don't ever get drunks even with friends around. Or if you do, accept the possibility that you might get raped.

Seriously, you can't put this together from the data yourself? In most cases if a young woman avoids getting intoxicated to the point of losing control and avoids being alone by way of something as simple as "The Buddy System" her chances of getting raped drop to almost zero. She can get naked and go crazy on the dance floor if she wants.

Another I saw is about younger girls being pressured by older guys. So another high-risk behaviour would be, "being friends with older guys if you're a teenage girl". Hmm, some advice.

Are you kidding me? I pray you don't have a daughter. If I found out a 19 year old guy was hanging around my 15 year old daughter I'd castrate him and ground her. FFS it's practically a law. Do you know what statutory rape is? Even a 2 year age gap is flirting with trouble.

Anything else? What other "high risk behaviour" should we avoid to reduce our chances of getting raped, and to reduce the scorn and lack of sympathy if that should ever happen anyway?

Just curious.

I'm just shocked that you don't understand girls and younger women shouldn't hanging around or be alone with older men, including family. I can't tell if you're being serious or just deliberately dense to make a point. If you're trying to make a point I just don't get it.

 

[bookitty]

So asking that a girl takes responsibility for who she consents to have sex with makes it open season on them?

Depends on the age of consent laws. She may not be legally able to give consent.

Even if she is, why are you putting the responsibility on her? Where's the scorn for the men who take advantage of teenage girls?

If you twist the situation to include intimidation or threats of violence as you seem to be doing then I think most reasonable people who say that's not giving consent freely.

If you are talking about some girl who sleeps with a guy because he promises her the world or because he says he'll leave her if she doesn't, or because all her friends are doing it or whatever other lines the guy can come up with then hell yeah she carries the can for that.

And what about him? What is his responsibility?

No different to some daft old rich guy who gets strung along by some young pretty thing and loses everything he has.

OK, so a teenage girl who is emotionally manipulated into having sex is the same thing as two consenting adults?

The adult world is a murky place at times and not everyone is nice, people need to deal with that and if they want to be regarded as adults then they need to be taught to deal with such situations or learn the hard way.

So if a man can manipulate a teenage girl into having sex that she doesn't want, he should. It's the adult way after all. She will learn her hard lesson, and he gets his rocks off. Win/win!

If I ever have a daughter damn right I am going to tell her how to reduce her probability of being raped because you know what, I'd much rather she didn't get raped than be sitting after the fact telling her that she wasn't to blame.

It's not just about rape either - if you put yourself in situations where you can't control the outcomes then there is a chance that bad things will happen. I know from experience how things can go wrong when you drink more than you should. Lucky all I lost was some money it could have been a lot worse.

So yeah, I will be teaching my daughter about managing risk and being in control of herself. No reason why we can't do that AND make it clear that raping women is not acceptable.

Yes, losing some money is the same thing as sexual assault. Body parts are replaceable, as is the human psyche.

Here's an idea. What if the people who commit rape look for ways to get people into a situation in which they have no control. What if they have practice.

 

[bookitty]

I'm just shocked that you don't understand girls and younger women shouldn't hanging around or be alone with older men, including family. I can't tell if you're being serious or just deliberately dense to make a point. If you're trying to make a point I just don't get it.

So if a woman is between 16-20, she should ever be alone with any man, ever?

 

[bookitty]

Yes. Getting drunk out of your mind in roudy parties with strangers is not recommended. Neither is having a boyfriend who's 25 when you're 15. Moving in with a violent boyfriend is also a bad idea. Avoid going up to a man's room after a party unless you actually want to have sex with him. "Coffee" is a four-letter word in such situations, if you get my drift.

Don't get me wrong, ladies. Most men would NOT rape you even if you go up to his apartment and then do not have sex with him -- even if he expected sex. Most men would NOT rape you even if you get drunk in a party -- and even if you pass out half-naked. And that 25-year-old boyfriend of the 15-year-old is, most likely, a morbidly shy kid who can't believe he would ever get a girlfriend his age. Not the making of a happy romance, perhaps, but not one of forceful rape, either.

But then again, if you drive on a motorcycle without a helmet chances are you won't get hurt or injured, either; it's nevertheless foolish to do so.

That some behaviors are more high risk than others is reality. It isn't changed just because you wish they weren't, or consider it unfair and insulting to women that they are.

OMG! These poor rapists! They can't help themselves! That poor 25 year old guy who needs to mess up a 15 year old, he just can't get a real girlfriend - cut him some slack!

 

[Skeptic]

OK, so please describe a rape scenario in which the woman's behavior was not relevant to being raped.

I can give you fifty. Here's one off the top of my head.

You go out with a guy and you like each other. But you so far only kissed a little and you made it clear you want to know a bit more before you go any further (if you do). He accepts your desires politely.

Well, it's your fourth date. You do out to a romantic dinner with you both seem to enjoy. But, after the dinner, on the way home, he pushes you against the wall in a dark alley and rapes you, saying he "couldn't help himself", blah blah blah.

I'd say that in that case your behavior was not relevant to the rape.

Of course if you can claim your behavior is still "relevant" in the sense that if you hadn't dated him at all you won't be raped. But by that criterion the behavior of every victim of any crime whatever is "relevant": if X had never known Y, Y wouldn't have taken an intense dislike of X and would not have killed him; if Z had not lived in the street where W prowls for victims, W would not have robbed him.

If, however, you mean "relevant" in the sense of "behaving in a high-risk way that significantly increases the chances of being raped", then you did nothing "relevant".

 

[Skeptic]

OMG! These poor rapists! They can't help themselves! That poor 25 year old guy who needs to mess up a 15 year old, he just can't get a real girlfriend - cut him some slack!

Oh, for goodness' sake.

If I said that all 25-year-olds who date 15-year-olds are rapists, you'd accuse me of "telling a 15-year-old never to be with a 25-year-old". Now that I said most 25-year-olds who date 15-year-olds are NOT rapists but it's still a bad idea for a 15-year-old to date them, you accuse me of coddling the 25-year-old rapists.

Well, make up your mind! If you think most 25-year-olds who date 15-year-olds ARE rapists, why, yes, it would be exceedingly stupid for any 15-year-old to date one. If, on the other hand, you htink most 25-year-olds who date 15-year-olds are NOT rapists, what are you whining about me "cutting them some slack"?

 

[bookitty]

I can give you fifty. Here's one off the top of my head.

You go out with a guy and you like each other. But you so far only kissed a little and you made it clear you want to know a bit more before you go any further (if you do). He accepts your desires politely.

Well, it's your fourth date. You do out to a romantic dinner with you both seem to enjoy. But, after the dinner, on the way home, he pushes you against the wall in a dark alley and rapes you, saying he "couldn't help himself", blah blah blah.

I'd say that in that case your behavior was not relevant to the rape.

Of course if you can claim your behavior is still "relevant" in the sense that if you hadn't dated him at all you won't be raped. But by that criterion the behavior of every victim of any crime whatever is "relevant": if X had never known Y, Y wouldn't have taken an intense dislike of X and would not have killed him; if Z had not lived in the street where W prowls for victims, W would not have robbed him.

If, however, you mean "relevant" in the sense of "behaving in a high-risk way that significantly increases the chances of being raped", then you did nothing "relevant".

What if the woman had a few glasses of wine and was a bit tipsy?

 

[Skeptic]

What if the woman had a few glasses of wine and was a bit tipsy?

Before I answer that, do you agree I found a scenario -- the one I just gave -- where the woman's behavior is not relevant to the rape?

 

[bookitty]

Before I answer that, do you agree I found a scenario -- the one I just gave -- where the woman's behavior is not relevant to the rape?

No. I don't agree.

Rapes like the one you described are also notoriously difficult to prosecute. They were having a romantic dinner. Maybe they kissed. Obviously there was some expectation of sex. If she did not fight back by kicking or screaming, it is even worse. (Of course, all the rape literature tells you not to fight.)

But before the trial happens, there's the cops. Who will interrogate the woman to find out if it really was rape. "So...you guys were dating? You had a romantic evening? Did you flirt? Did you kiss? Did you maybe discuss your sexual fantasy of being push up against a wall?"

This often happens in the hospital after a woman has gone through the process of getting a rape test. Pap smear, blood drawn, then a pile of pills to prevent AIDS and pregnancy. If she's lucky, her insurance or the police department will pick up the tab for the rape kit. If she's not, she'll have to pay. In any case, that kit will often sit around. Because she knows the guy, the kit will not be processed. Which means that some of the information will not appear at trial, the DNA sample will not be entered into the data-banks.

The guy? Picked up that night if the cops decided to do something about it. Out on bail within 24 hours. Waits a few months for the trial, a good lawyer will keep postponing it until the victim, who only wants this to be over, decides that she doesn't want to be a witness. Even if it goes to trial, the defense already has a good case. It was their 4th dinner, it was romantic.

 

[Skeptic]

No. I don't agree.

So you're saying that in ALL cases of rape a woman's behavior IS relevant? Well, okay -- you're obviously using a different definition of "relevant" than I am. So let's re-phrase that.

Let's take two women who do NOT want to have sex tonight, but want male company hoping to meet someone for a relationship. One goes out with a nice man with no criminal record to a "first date" restaurant and then gives him a "good night" kiss on her doorstep. The other goes to an all-night bar and cuddles with someone who's obviously an ex-con right out of jail and goes to his room in the sleazy motel. When both say they don't want sex to their nightly partner, which one is more likely to be raped?

Again, let me be clear. It's going to be rape and the rapist fault no matter what. I'm not speaking about moral or criminal blame here -- it's the rapist's. I'm speaking about statistics. Do you think both have an equal chance of getting raped?

If so, you and I have nothing more to discuss. If you agree they don't, you have an idea of what I mean by the fact that sometimes the woman's behavior is "relevant" -- as in "making rape significantly more likely" -- and sometimes it isn't.

Really, I don't undestand what's so hard to undestand about this. Leaving a key in the ignition doesn't make you a thief. But it's relevant -- makes more likely -- to your car being stolen.

 

[bookitty]

So you're saying that in ALL cases of rape a woman's behavior IS relevant? Well, okay -- you're obviously using a different definition of "relevant" than I am. So let's re-phrase that.

Let's take two women who do NOT want to have sex tonight, but want male company hoping to meet someone for a relationship. One goes out with a nice man with no criminal record to a "first date" restaurant and then gives him a "good night" kiss on her doorstep. The other goes to an all-night bar and cuddles with someone who's obviously an ex-con right out of jail and goes to his room in the sleazy motel. When both say they don't want sex to their nightly partner, which one is more likely to be raped?

Again, let me be clear. It's going to be rape and the rapist fault no matter what. I'm not speaking about moral or criminal blame here -- it's the rapist's. I'm speaking about statistics. Do you think both have an equal chance of getting raped?

If so, you and I have nothing more to discuss. If you agree they don't, you have an idea of what I mean by the fact that sometimes the woman's behavior is "relevant" -- as in "making rape significantly more likely" -- and sometimes it isn't.

Really, I don't undestand what's so hard to undestand about this. Leaving a key in the ignition doesn't make you a thief. But it's relevant -- makes more likely -- to your car being stolen.

The one who is with the rapist will be raped. The "nice guy" is just as dangerous as the obvious ex-con.

The majority of rapes do not happen because a woman was in an obviously dangerous situation. C'mon, do you really think that women are that dumb? They aren't. Women are raped by someone they know in a situation that they thought was safe. Stranger rape, or rape that happens during another crime is statistically low

You know those con-men who bilk old people out of their savings? They don't do it by being an obvious danger, they do it by being a really nice guy that anyone would trust. This is the situation in which most rapes happen.

The attitude that women are somehow complicit in their own rapes is the reason why few rapists are ever persecuted or caught.

 

[Skeptic]

What you're telling me is that any woman who dates a man is ipso facto putting herself legally in a situaiton where he can rape her at will, and therefore it doesn't matter -- the moment you are not in a nunnery, you're open season to anybody you know. Allow me to seriously doubt that.

 

[Skeptic]

The one who is with the rapist will be raped. The "nice guy" is just as dangerous as the obvious ex-con.

The majority of rapes do not happen because a woman was in an obviously dangerous situation. C'mon, do you really think that women are that dumb?

There's a contradiction here between the first and second sentence.

If it's equally dangerous to be with a nice guy from work as with an ex-con who just got out of jail, may I inquire what exactly is an "obviously dangerous situation"?

How can there be such a thing as an "obviously dangerous situation" when you clearly consider all possible meetings between a woman and a man as equally (and apparently, terribly) dangerous to the woman?

Isn't that like telling me all tomatoes are equally red, and then saying women will know better than to choose the ones that are "obviously redder"?

 

[bookitty]

What you're telling me is that any woman who dates a man is ipso facto putting herself legally in a situaiton where he can rape her at will, and therefore it doesn't matter -- the moment you are not in a nunnery, you're open season to anybody you know. Allow me to seriously doubt that.

I understand your doubts. It's a messed up situation that seems surreal sometimes.

It's notable that the ad campaign in the OP came from Scotland. In 2001, a 16 year old girl, Lindsay Armstrong, got off a bus and was attacked in a park. She was brutally raped by a boy who went to her school but was not an acquaintance. The police were called, it was reported.

Pretty cut and dry, right. There's nothing there to blame the victim for.

The attacker refused to confess, so Lindsay had to testify. In a closed-session without even her parents in the room, she was subjected to a humiliating questioning by the defense that included holding up the underwear she wore the night she was raped. It was saucy.

Despite this, the boy was convicted and sentenced to 4 years. Lindsay Armstrong committed suicide. It was determined that the cross-examination played a part in this. Her suicide was made public and there was much talk of examining how rape cases were processed.

Today in Scotland only 3% of reported rapes lead to a conviction. The victim's prior history, dress, and actions are still used to free rapists.

 

[FattyCatty]

No. I don't agree.

Rapes like the one you described are also notoriously difficult to prosecute. They were having a romantic dinner. Maybe they kissed. Obviously there was some expectation of sex. If she did not fight back by kicking or screaming, it is even worse. (Of course, all the rape literature tells you not to fight.)

But before the trial happens, there's the cops. Who will interrogate the woman to find out if it really was rape. "So...you guys were dating? You had a romantic evening? Did you flirt? Did you kiss? Did you maybe discuss your sexual fantasy of being push up against a wall?"

From an interview with a rape victim for Human Rights Watch,

The day after my rape kit was collected I went to the police for my interview. The police officer spent the whole interview asking me about my character, my actions that night. He didn’t seem interested in hearing about my rapist’s behavior. At the end of the interview, he told me he didn’t think I had a very strong case. I called for months afterwards to see if they were going to test the rape kit, but I never heard back.

This often happens in the hospital after a woman has gone through the process of getting a rape test. Pap smear, blood drawn, then a pile of pills to prevent AIDS and pregnancy. If she's lucky, her insurance or the police department will pick up the tab for the rape kit. If she's not, she'll have to pay. In any case, that kit will often sit around. Because she knows the guy, the kit will not be processed. Which means that some of the information will not appear at trial, the DNA sample will not be entered into the data-banks.

I was saddened to find that untested rape kits are not uncommon. According to Human Rights Watch,

As of May 2010 there were at least 3,926 rape kits in Illinois storage facilities that law enforcement confirmed were not tested, based on public records data sent to Human Rights Watch from 148 agencies. This number may be higher, as it only represents those rape kits where law enforcement could confirm their status. There are an additional 2,094 kits in storage that law enforcement could not confirm whether they were tested or untested. The vast majority of these untested rape kits were never requested for testing. But in some instances, the rape kits in police storage were sent for testing, but returned from the crime lab untested because the case was closed by the state’s attorney’s office.

The guy? Picked up that night if the cops decided to do something about it. Out on bail within 24 hours. Waits a few months for the trial, a good lawyer will keep postponing it until the victim, who only wants this to be over, decides that she doesn't want to be a witness. Even if it goes to trial, the defense already has a good case. It was their 4th dinner, it was romantic.

A quote from a police officer from an interview with Human Rights Watch:

“In my experience, many rape victims are lying. They come forward to hide from their parents that they had sex with their boyfriend, or they want attention. In other cases, the victim’s story doesn’t make sense, or maybe it does but there is no way a jury is going to believe her over the suspect.”

Why do police still think this way? Shouldn't training teach them better?

 

[bookitty]

From an interview with a rape victim for Human Rights Watch,



I was saddened to find that untested rape kits are not uncommon. According to Human Rights Watch,



A quote from a police officer from an interview with Human Rights Watch:
Why do police still think this way? Shouldn't training teach them better?

So you would think.

http://www.copblock.org/1054/what-d...raping-a-female-needs-a-re-write-or-edit-rob/

Cue the comments "She's drunk, mouthy and that's the way the world works."

 

[BobTheDonkey]

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5ddd74dd827ab059