"Not Ever" - A Campaign Against Blaming Rape Victims

[Skeptic]

So... what's the bottom line? All men are potential rapists, and their behavior tells you nothing of the beast that lurks inside them; any woman who dates a man, ever, is legally open season, and may be raped with impunity; all situations with men are equally dangerous, and the woman has absolutely no control over the danger.

Well, a sad situation indeed. But if it's an accurate description, how is this any different from what 19th-century spinster aunts used to tell their nieces with "a fate worse than death"? Saying "but it's the rapist's fault, not yours" at the end? Perhaps; but this is a purely theoretical difference since the rapist won't be prosecuted anyway; at most it might help the victim feel a bit better later. Get thee to a nunnery! Or at least date only with close supervision of family members, never go out alone, etc.

It's a bit like the claim that all and every Black crime is 100% the fault of "racism". If that's true the bottom line is the same as that of the KKK: avoid all Black people, they're all potential criminals. The only difference is that one side thinks this unfortunate situation it's the Blacks' fault and the other that its the White's fault. But practically speaking, what's the difference?

 

[tyr_13]

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

A twelve year old Thai girl is sold into sex slavery.

EDIT: Although I personally would include most of the personal stories shared so far in this thread, but we apparently were speaking of two different thresholds or context for 'relevant' and I doubt you'll change your mind on that.

 

[theprestige]

What about the legal principle that if someone engaged in a felony commits murder during the course of the felony, then all their accomplices in the felony are also on the hook for the murder, since they reasonably could be expected to know what they were getting into, and what might come of it?

I'm not saying that therefore rape victims are legally on the hook for their own rape. But if you intentionally participate in creating a situation you know is risky, and then things get out of hand, surely you bear some of the responsibility for being present when bad things happen.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

What about the legal principle that if someone engaged in a felony commits murder during the course of the felony, then all their accomplices in the felony are also on the hook for the murder, since they reasonably could be expected to know what they were getting into, and what might come of it?

I'm not saying that therefore rape victims are legally on the hook for their own rape. But if you intentionally participate in creating a situation you know is risky, and then things get out of hand, surely you bear some of the responsibility for being present when bad things happen.

In all fairness, not every rape is due to anything the woman did (or didn't do, as the case may be).

For instance, my gf was raped by her brother's friend. She did nothing to invite the attention. Was it, at any point, her fault? Most certainly not. She does now, however, have a strict policy about never being left alone with any males other than myself, her brother, and her father (maybe uncles/cousins as well...but I think we get the idea). It's not foolproof - relatives are guilty of rape as well - but it's certainly a limiting factor in the probability that she'll ever be raped again.


So, Kitty, there you go. An anecdote where the woman was not at fault, but most certainly agrees that there were actions she could have taken to better protect herself.

 

[tyr_13]

In all fairness, not every rape is due to anything the woman did (or didn't do, as the case may be).

For instance, my gf was raped by her brother's friend. She did nothing to invite the attention. Was it, at any point, her fault? Most certainly not. She does now, however, have a strict policy about never being left alone with any males other than myself, her brother, and her father (maybe uncles/cousins as well...but I think we get the idea). It's not foolproof - relatives are guilty of rape as well - but it's certainly a limiting factor in the probability that she'll ever be raped again.


So, Kitty, there you go. An anecdote where the woman was not at fault, but most certainly agrees that there were actions she could have taken to better protect herself.

Yeah, maybe too many actions to the point of being unhealthy now. Treating every male as a potential rapist wasn't the point. At least it wasn't the point I wanted to make.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yeah, maybe too many actions to the point of being unhealthy now. Treating every male as a potential rapist wasn't the point. At least it wasn't the point I wanted to make.

Honestly, though, I feel it's a relatively healthy approach - she doesn't allow herself to be alone (if she can help it), but at the same time when she's not alone, she's not stand-offish (if that makes sense).

Think of it the same way you think of walking through a bad neighborhood. Sometimes you have to do it alone, but you'd prefer to do it with friends (preferably big guys with guns, but ya know...you'd take what you could get... ). When you're alone, you're cautious, watching your back, on your guard. When you're with your friends, you're still a little on your guard, but much more relaxed (normal, if you will).

 

[theprestige]

In all fairness, not every rape is due to anything the woman did (or didn't do, as the case may be).

For instance, my gf was raped by her brother's friend. She did nothing to invite the attention. Was it, at any point, her fault? Most certainly not. She does now, however, have a strict policy about never being left alone with any males other than myself, her brother, and her father (maybe uncles/cousins as well...but I think we get the idea). It's not foolproof - relatives are guilty of rape as well - but it's certainly a limiting factor in the probability that she'll ever be raped again.


So, Kitty, there you go. An anecdote where the woman was not at fault, but most certainly agrees that there were actions she could have taken to better protect herself.

And in all fairness, not every witness to a murder is an accomplice in the murder. But that doesn't change the fact that having a strict policy of not participating in armed robberies goes a long way towards minimizing the risk of being party to murder committed during an armed robbery.

ETA: And having a strict policy of not hanging around armed robbers goes a long way towards minimizing the risk that their armed-robbery related problems will cause trouble for you.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

And in all fairness, not every witness to a murder is an accomplice in the murder. But that doesn't change the fact that having a strict policy of not participating in armed robberies goes a long way towards minimizing the risk of being party to murder committed during an armed robbery.

ETA: And having a strict policy of not hanging around armed robbers goes a long way towards minimizing the risk that their armed-robbery related problems will cause trouble for you.

psst...I'm on your side I agree completely.

Taking a commonsense approach to protecting oneself from the world is hardly something to throw away for fear of shaming the victim of a crime.

 

[Polaris]

I am a white male in the United States of America. And even I am sickened with the amount of privilage that is being shown in this thread.

People, quit making excuses for rapists. It just makes you evil. Yes, evil.

No, I am not going to respond to your evil, privilaged posts so don't bother. Quit blaming victims. Just stop it.

I'm going to err on the side of Poe's Law as did Kevin_Lowe in this case. If I'm correct, then bravo! Way to satire a steaming early morning emotionally-driven pile of bovine squirts.

If I'm not, then damn, what a silly goose I was to think JREF was a bastion of skepticism and critical thinking.

 

[Meed]

What about the legal principle that if someone engaged in a felony commits murder during the course of the felony, then all their accomplices in the felony are also on the hook for the murder, since they reasonably could be expected to know what they were getting into, and what might come of it?

I'm not saying that therefore rape victims are legally on the hook for their own rape. But if you intentionally participate in creating a situation you know is risky, and then things get out of hand, surely you bear some of the responsibility for being present when bad things happen.

Your comparison makes no sense. First of all, the fact that felony is illegal is essential to the legal principle. But more importantly, they are guilty of murdering someone else, not being the victims of murder. If a criminal gets assaulted during the course of a felony, he's not going to be convicted of assaulting himself.

 

[Meed]

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

We have to distinguish between preventative measures that are reasonably achieveable and those that aren't. If you never date, never socialize with males alone, never go to parties and so on, then you'll be less likely to get raped. But advising women to behave like this would be ridiculous. So saying that not living under a rock can lead to rape would be technically true, but meaningless to point out.

f there are reasonable measures that can be taken that would make being raped significantly less likely to occur, then I think advising women to consider them for the sake of their safety is certainly reasonable.

OTOH, chastising a rape victim for not taking these measures after the fact would just be cruel and pointless.

 

[Skeptic]

We have to distinguish between preventative measures that are reasonably achieveable and those that aren't.

Bull's-eye.

Of course, it's always possible to say, "But if measure X is reasonable, why not Y? And if Y, why not Z?", etc., until you reach some preventive measure W that is clearly unreasonable, and then say: "Aha! So you admit W is unreasonable! So you must admit X is unreasonable as well!"

Then, since you just "proved" to tell a woman not to get drunk with a total stranger in his room is just as "unreasonable" as as to demand she never leave the house without a male relative while wearing a burkha, you "proved" it's "blaming the victim" to ever tell any woman to not do anything, however stupid and dangerous.

But such junk reasoning aside... you hit the nail right on the head.

 

[theprestige]

Your comparison makes no sense. First of all, the fact that felony is illegal is essential to the legal principle. But more importantly, they are guilty of murdering someone else, not being the victims of murder. If a criminal gets assaulted during the course of a felony, he's not going to be convicted of assaulting himself.

Well, it's a good thing I explicitly disavowed any legal ramifications.

I think the comparison makes perfect sense: Knowingly contributing to a situation where bad things may reasonably be expected to happen, makes you at least partly responsible for whatever bad things actually do happen.

This seems like an obvious principle, except where rape is concerned, where apparently appeal to emotion trumps reasonable expectation, and reasonable assignment of responsibility for the risk one assumes, and the situation one participates in creating.

 

[Meed]

Well, it's a good thing I explicitly disavowed any legal ramifications.

Are you saying there should be non-legal ramifications?

I think the comparison makes perfect sense: Knowingly contributing to a situation where bad things may reasonably be expected to happen, makes you at least partly responsible for whatever bad things actually do happen.

Responsible in what sense if not legally? Ethically? Or responsible in the same sense that I'm responsible for being killed by a drunk driver, because I chose to drive instead of take the bus (i.e. made possible or made more likely)?

This seems like an obvious principle, except where rape is concerned, where apparently appeal to emotion trumps reasonable expectation, and reasonable assignment of responsibility for the risk one assumes, and the situation one participates in creating.

If it's an obvious principle in cases other than rape then why don't you give a non-ridiculous example for comparison? Like one where someone is actually the victim.

 

[bookitty]

We have to distinguish between preventative measures that are reasonably achieveable and those that aren't. If you never date, never socialize with males alone, never go to parties and so on, then you'll be less likely to get raped. But advising women to behave like this would be ridiculous. So saying that not living under a rock can lead to rape would be technically true, but meaningless to point out.

f there are reasonable measures that can be taken that would make being raped significantly less likely to occur, then I think advising women to consider them for the sake of their safety is certainly reasonable.

OTOH, chastising a rape victim for not taking these measures after the fact would just be cruel and pointless.

"Reasonable measures" are open to interpretation. I agree that not going off to a hotel with an obvious felon is a reasonable preventative measure. Too bad that's not the most common rape scenario, it would make things a lot easier.

Someone else suggested that grown women never be in the company of a man alone, unless he is one of those very few she has vetted for safety. That would reduce the number of rapes but it is a little difficult to support the idea of cloistering women in this day and age.

In between is the reality of rape, women are usually raped by someone they know in a situation that at the time seemed safe. It is very difficult to plan for that.

Chastising rape victims after the fact is cruel on a personal level but on a legal level it is detrimental to rape convictions. Because women are most often raped by someone they knew, it is far too easy to turn that against them.

 

[bookitty]

In all fairness, not every rape is due to anything the woman did (or didn't do, as the case may be).

For instance, my gf was raped by her brother's friend. She did nothing to invite the attention. Was it, at any point, her fault? Most certainly not. She does now, however, have a strict policy about never being left alone with any males other than myself, her brother, and her father (maybe uncles/cousins as well...but I think we get the idea). It's not foolproof - relatives are guilty of rape as well - but it's certainly a limiting factor in the probability that she'll ever be raped again.


So, Kitty, there you go. An anecdote where the woman was not at fault, but most certainly agrees that there were actions she could have taken to better protect herself.

I am so sorry that happened to your girlfriend. It's horrible. Too me, it's a bit heartbreaking to hear that she blames herself. If only she hadn't been alone with him. It's not her fault in any way, shape, or form. She trusted him, he raped her.

It was her brother's friend. There was nothing wrong with her trust. She didn't do anything stupid. She didn't do anything unusual. That "friend" of her brother's was just a criminal, a vicious beast.

On the other hand, it's great to hear that she has you as a boyfriend. Although her precautions wouldn't work for me, they work for her which is what's really important. It's given her a safe place to start new relationships. That's great.

 

[Skeptic]

It is not at all surprising most rapes are by someone one knows -- because one spends the vast majority of one's time, naturally, with someone one knows, and not with total strangers.

But I wonder how much of that is an artefact of the same sort as "very few accidents happen at 100 MPH or more" or "dying in bed is a lot more likely than dying while skydiving". It's still safer to drive slower and still dangerous to skydive.

 

[Meed]

Chastising rape victims after the fact is cruel on a personal level but on a legal level it is detrimental to rape convictions.

Yeah, that's disgusting.

 

[bookitty]

It is not at all surprising most rapes are by someone one knows -- because one spends the vast majority of one's time, naturally, with someone one knows, and not with total strangers.

But I wonder how much of that is an artefact of the same sort as "very few accidents happen at 100 MPH or more" or "dying in bed is a lot more likely than dying while skydiving". It's still safer to drive slower and still dangerous to skydive.

My psycho womens studies teacher had a theory about why the common idea of rapists is that they are lurking in dark alleys, or are hulking evil menaces that any woman could easily avoid if she was smart. She said that most men are nice guys who think they would rape if they could get away with it. It is in their best interest to keep up the myth of "boys being boys" or women doing something wrong so that they would be forgiven in their turn.

I think she was half-right. Most men are nice guys who wouldn't rape even if they could get away with it. If they were in a position where a woman was powerless, they would respect that and not take advantage. So, they assume that other people are like that as well. The idea that a friend or family member is potentially willing to rape is unthinkable. So they imagine a man who is capable of something so horrific.

 

[Mark6]

My psycho womens studies teacher had a theory about why the common idea of rapists is that they are lurking in dark alleys, or are hulking evil menaces that any woman could easily avoid if she was smart. She said that most men are nice guys who think they would rape if they could get away with it. It is in their best interest to keep up the myth of "boys being boys" or women doing something wrong so that they would be forgiven in their turn.

Your womens studies teacher has a very unusual definition of "nice".