"Not Ever" - A Campaign Against Blaming Rape Victims

[Last of the Fraggles]

Look, if you guys want to seriously discuss things that women can be taught that will minimize their chances of being raped, the whole "risky behaviour" thing is just pointless. This is not something most women don't know. In all honesty, I don't know a single woman who considers, for example, getting drunk and going home with a stranger, to be a good, risk-free activity. I think this is why it feels like 'blaming the victem' when people harp on about these sort of behaviours as a way to prevent rape. Do any of you think that any woman who is raped as a result of risky behaviour on her part is not already feeling ashamed and guilty, in part because they know they weren't 100% absolutly perfectly careful? I guess all I'm saying here is that women are already being warned about the dangers of so called risky behaviour, most are warned from an early age, and insinuating that we can simply... tell them again, and thus reduce the number of rapes is kind of insulting.

That said, I think there are things more women need to learn that could help reduce instances of rape. These things include ways of recognizing a potentially abusive relationship, systems for how to get out of a situation that makes you uncomfortable. Teaching girls that it is ok to be assertive, and that feeling safe is much much more important then not being rude. These are things that therapists will teach someone after they have been raped as a form of empowerment that I think should be reinforced far more then they are, and I find far more useful then the **** 'be careful' mantra.

Let's be honest here... No matter how careful you are, you can still wind up in a situation that could end in rape. Statistics tell us it probably won't be some stranger on the street, but someone you know. It is so important to learn strategies that could get you out of that situation then to delude yourself into thinking you can just be that little bit more careful and nothing will ever happen. Teach women what to do if something does go wrong. That's rape prevention.

I guess this topic kind of hit a nerve.

I pretty much agree with what you have said here.

I think the fact that most rapes are committed by people the victim knows has become the myth that most rapes are committed totally out of the blue by 'nice guys' in situations where nothing could be done.

In my experience a lot of women are horrendously bad at judging who is and isn't a bad guy and in judging when a situation is starting to become 'risky' and/or doing something about it when it becomes so. Being able to better judge situations, be more assertive and take control would be useful skills but no doubt again would be seen as blaming the victims.

I disagree slightly with your first paragraph though because I still see women getting drunk out of their faces and going home with strangers every weekend. Of course it's their 'right' to do so because men do it too.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Look, if you guys want to seriously discuss things that women can be taught that will minimize their chances of being raped, the whole "risky behaviour" thing is just pointless. This is not something most women don't know. In all honesty, I don't know a single woman who considers, for example, getting drunk and going home with a stranger, to be a good, risk-free activity. I think this is why it feels like 'blaming the victem' when people harp on about these sort of behaviours as a way to prevent rape. Do any of you think that any woman who is raped as a result of risky behaviour on her part is not already feeling ashamed and guilty, in part because they know they weren't 100% absolutly perfectly careful? I guess all I'm saying here is that women are already being warned about the dangers of so called risky behaviour, most are warned from an early age, and insinuating that we can simply... tell them again, and thus reduce the number of rapes is kind of insulting.

Just because you don't know them personally doesn't mean that there aren't women out there who are unaware of the risks or do not take sensible precautions.

That said, I think there are things more women need to learn that could help reduce instances of rape. These things include ways of recognizing a potentially abusive relationship, systems for how to get out of a situation that makes you uncomfortable. Teaching girls that it is ok to be assertive, and that feeling safe is much much more important then not being rude. These are things that therapists will teach someone after they have been raped as a form of empowerment that I think should be reinforced far more then they are, and I find far more useful then the **** 'be careful' mantra.

Let's be honest here... No matter how careful you are, you can still wind up in a situation that could end in rape. Statistics tell us it probably won't be some stranger on the street, but someone you know. It is so important to learn strategies that could get you out of that situation then to delude yourself into thinking you can just be that little bit more careful and nothing will ever happen. Teach women what to do if something does go wrong. That's rape prevention.

I guess this topic kind of hit a nerve.

While this is presented as if it's disagreeing with what's come before, I don't see any conflict at all and I agree with all of the things you suggest as sensible measures to reduce the likelihood of women being raped.

 

[myowninvention]

And this is inherent knowledge? I don't think so, she had to be told.



What do you mean "harp on"? It shouldn't be discussed in public? Just have the government mail a young woman "the Pamphlet". I think it's only harping when someone says "don't say that you're blaming the victim". Then it becomes circular.



No one is "telling them again". This isn't directed at rape victims, it's always directed at the girl who doesn't yet know it isn't a good idea to get drunk at a bar and go home with a guy.I've never heard anyone say "This is what rape victims should have done..." It's always "If a woman wants to avoid engaging in high risk behaviour..."

This is what doesn't make sense. What this amounts to is "Don't tell anyone not to get drunk at a bar and go home with a guy she just met because some victim might over hear it and feel blamed. The message is at the thousands that don't know, not the hundreds that have already lived it.

I realize this, and of course agree that these are lessons girls need, but most girls learn these lessons quite young. I have no problem with this; everyone should be able to identify risky behaviour and shoud know that there are situations to be avoided. My point, really, is that this is already being taught to a point where most women I have talked to consider it to be common sense. Why then, is it such a major talking point for rape prevention? (I hear the same risky behaviour mantra every time.). It implies that people assume that a significant number of rape victims lacked the knowledge or the ability to apply basic common sense to their actions and therefore are raped. Now I realize that most people are not thinking this at all, but when that is the first thing, and often the only thing that is talked about when it comes to rape prevention, that is what can come across. Keep in mind, I don't think we should not teach girls about the risks associated with their behaviour, I simply think it doesn't deserve the amount of attention it gets when looking for ways to help protect people from rape.

There was an analogy earlier of car theft where the keys are left in the car. Yes, this happens, but can you imagine if the main talking point in car theft prevention was 'don't leave your keys in the ignition'. If this was the main piece of advice, would you blame someone for feeling a little miffed when their car is broken into and hotwired, as are hundreds of other peoples' cars and still, the main thing people say to prevent theft is 'don't leave your keys in the ignition'.

The hurtful part to the victim here is not that this is a point, it's the fact that it is the main point. You cannot separate rape victims from the discutions on how to prevent rape. They are the number one audience in my experience, they are the ones most fearful of being raped (again) and the most desperate to learn what they can so in the future (and maybe didn't do in the past) to avoid rape. And what are they confronted with? A large amount of 'advice to women' telling them this godforsaken bit about 'not engaging in risky behaviours'.

There's so much more we should be teaching people. I worked for years at a call center for a collage campus rape hotline, and before that I heard some other stories while group therapy, following my own attack. Yes there were plenty of stories that involved drugs and alchohol-these were collage students, but there were plenty that didn't. What I noticed was how many of these girls had been afraid of seeming rude, or mean or bitchy or cold. How many were shocked that ...person x...could do that because 'he was such a nice guy', and how few had any idea what means they could take to protect themselves once already in a bad situation. I know this information is out there, but it's usually what you get from the crisis center after the fact. These things need to be common knowledge, as well known to every girl as 'don't get into a strange mans car', or the like.

 

[chillzero]

I think some girls expect to have guy friends and expect them to not have feelings for them.

I think this confuses guys, especially younger guys, in this high risk age group. They bide their time as friends hoping that eventually things will change and the girls will develop feeling for them.

Things don't progress as far as a relationship goes but a trust builds. Then frustration.

Then along comes alcohol and with it opportunity and happy accidents. Or maybe not. Maybe it isn't an accident at all,maybe it's something much worse.
<snip>
I think the above scenario is a very good example of how an unreported rape happens. A girl is victimized by a friend or acquaintance that she trusts enough to to be alone and intoxicated with.

Any statistics on the proportion of rapes that occur in this manner?
It iseems to me that you are trying to cover ground in a very narrow field.

So you guys can tell anecdote after anecdote about how you have guy friends you "hang around" with and nothing happens, but you're just making it harder to explain the number of assaults we know occur.

The anecdote was not to address the number of assaults, but to address the perception that females should not trust a situation where they will be alone with a male.

Unless you come up with a viable explanation, I'm still inclined to believe a majority of these assaults occur because older men encourage younger girls to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, young girls are foolishly going home with or taking home a guy they think is a friend, and drinking so much they're easily coerced into the above or worse yet pass out.

Say what you want about me, I think it amounts to neglect for parents not to start instilling this information in young girls starting around the age of 14 so by the age of 18 it's something they can carry on for themselves into their mid twenties.

There's nothing in this that precludes a girl from having guy friends or even being alone with a guy. It's just information that keeps them from forgetting that being alone with a guy shouldn't be taken lightly. Especially if you've been drinking.

Feel free to actually show how this is misguided or how exactly it "blames the victim".

It's not about blaming the victim. It's about overlooking the fact that many rapes occur when the victim believes they should be safe - with an established partner, husband, relative ....

It is good to teach girls about risk assessment in various situations - not just these, but you give the impression that this is where your advice on such matters ends, and it should not. Girls need to understand that even in a relationship they have certain rights, and about the priority of respect - and indeed this advice should go to both genders.

Good post. Teaching your daughter how to communicate effectively with males can certainly decrease her risk of being raped.

I think this is what I tried to say earlier, but for some reason 3bodyproblem was disagreeing, and referring back to the campaign under discussion. Thanks for putting it more succinctly.
I think the highlighted part is perhaps where he and I are disagreeing.

And this is inherent knowledge? I don't think so, she had to be told.

Yeah ... us girls ... we're all so stoopid that we'd never realise without someone spelling it out for us.
Some people engage in behaviour that may place them in danger, for various reasons. Don't paint everyone with the same brush and claim that women 'had' to be told something in order to do it.

 

[chillzero]

I realize this, and of course agree that these are lessons girls need, but most girls learn these lessons quite young. I have no problem with this; everyone should be able to identify risky behaviour and shoud know that there are situations to be avoided. My point, really, is that this is already being taught to a point where most women I have talked to consider it to be common sense. Why then, is it such a major talking point for rape prevention? (I hear the same risky behaviour mantra every time.). It implies that people assume that a significant number of rape victims lacked the knowledge or the ability to apply basic common sense to their actions and therefore are raped. Now I realize that most people are not thinking this at all, but when that is the first thing, and often the only thing that is talked about when it comes to rape prevention, that is what can come across. Keep in mind, I don't think we should not teach girls about the risks associated with their behaviour, I simply think it doesn't deserve the amount of attention it gets when looking for ways to help protect people from rape.

There was an analogy earlier of car theft where the keys are left in the car. Yes, this happens, but can you imagine if the main talking point in car theft prevention was 'don't leave your keys in the ignition'. If this was the main piece of advice, would you blame someone for feeling a little miffed when their car is broken into and hotwired, as are hundreds of other peoples' cars and still, the main thing people say to prevent theft is 'don't leave your keys in the ignition'.

The hurtful part to the victim here is not that this is a point, it's the fact that it is the main point. You cannot separate rape victims from the discutions on how to prevent rape. They are the number one audience in my experience, they are the ones most fearful of being raped (again) and the most desperate to learn what they can so in the future (and maybe didn't do in the past) to avoid rape. And what are they confronted with? A large amount of 'advice to women' telling them this godforsaken bit about 'not engaging in risky behaviours'.

There's so much more we should be teaching people. I worked for years at a call center for a collage campus rape hotline, and before that I heard some other stories while group therapy, following my own attack. Yes there were plenty of stories that involved drugs and alchohol-these were collage students, but there were plenty that didn't. What I noticed was how many of these girls had been afraid of seeming rude, or mean or bitchy or cold. How many were shocked that ...person x...could do that because 'he was such a nice guy', and how few had any idea what means they could take to protect themselves once already in a bad situation. I know this information is out there, but it's usually what you get from the crisis center after the fact. These things need to be common knowledge, as well known to every girl as 'don't get into a strange mans car', or the like.

Excellent post.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I realize this, and of course agree that these are lessons girls need, but most girls learn these lessons quite young. I have no problem with this; everyone should be able to identify risky behaviour and shoud know that there are situations to be avoided. My point, really, is that this is already being taught to a point where most women I have talked to consider it to be common sense. Why then, is it such a major talking point for rape prevention? (I hear the same risky behaviour mantra every time.). It implies that people assume that a significant number of rape victims lacked the knowledge or the ability to apply basic common sense to their actions and therefore are raped. Now I realize that most people are not thinking this at all, but when that is the first thing, and often the only thing that is talked about when it comes to rape prevention, that is what can come across. Keep in mind, I don't think we should not teach girls about the risks associated with their behaviour, I simply think it doesn't deserve the amount of attention it gets when looking for ways to help protect people from rape.

There was an analogy earlier of car theft where the keys are left in the car. Yes, this happens, but can you imagine if the main talking point in car theft prevention was 'don't leave your keys in the ignition'. If this was the main piece of advice, would you blame someone for feeling a little miffed when their car is broken into and hotwired, as are hundreds of other peoples' cars and still, the main thing people say to prevent theft is 'don't leave your keys in the ignition'.

What if it turned out a significant number of car thefts were facilitated by people leaving their keys in the ignition? It might be common sense to you, but if it's not common sense to a sufficient number of people, or for whatever other reason they just aren't doing it, it might still be worth saying.

The hurtful part to the victim here is not that this is a point, it's the fact that it is the main point. You cannot separate rape victims from the discutions on how to prevent rape. They are the number one audience in my experience, they are the ones most fearful of being raped (again) and the most desperate to learn what they can so in the future (and maybe didn't do in the past) to avoid rape. And what are they confronted with? A large amount of 'advice to women' telling them this godforsaken bit about 'not engaging in risky behaviours'.

I think it's almost completely unproductive in a situation where everyone agrees that X, Y and Z are important to pick fights, point fingers and generally start trouble by accusing people of talking too much about Y and not enough about X and Z for your tastes.

There's so much more we should be teaching people. I worked for years at a call center for a collage campus rape hotline, and before that I heard some other stories while group therapy, following my own attack. Yes there were plenty of stories that involved drugs and alchohol-these were collage students, but there were plenty that didn't. What I noticed was how many of these girls had been afraid of seeming rude, or mean or bitchy or cold. How many were shocked that ...person x...could do that because 'he was such a nice guy', and how few had any idea what means they could take to protect themselves once already in a bad situation. I know this information is out there, but it's usually what you get from the crisis center after the fact. These things need to be common knowledge, as well known to every girl as 'don't get into a strange mans car', or the like.

Agreed. Ideally everyone, male and female, would take a course in this stuff at the high school level.

That said doesn't this contradict to some extent what you were saying earlier, in that in your direct personal experience that there are plenty of sexual assaults involving drugs or alcohol? Maybe to you it seems too obvious to mention that they are risk factors, but it seems to me incontrovertible that if people are still getting raped as a result of risky behaviour involving drugs and alcohol then by definition we need to do more to get that message out in such a way that people will act on it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm confused trying to figure out what's what.

Is it acceptable to discuss behaviors, choices and judgments in the context of reducing the chances of a woman being raped without being accused of blaming the victim?

If so, is the debate now centered around what actually constitutes reasonable advice?

 

[myowninvention]

What if it turned out a significant number of car thefts were facilitated by people leaving their keys in the ignition? It might be common sense to you, but if it's not common sense to a sufficient number of people, or for whatever other reason they just aren't doing it, it might still be worth saying.

do you think that someone who leaves their keys in the car does it becuse they have no idea this could lead to theft? Or are there a multitude of other reasons that simply saying 'don't do that' fail to address?

I think it's almost completely unproductive in a situation where everyone agrees that X, Y and Z are important to pick fights, point fingers and generally start trouble by accusing people of talking too much about Y and not enough about X and Z for your tastes.

I'm sorry if my posts are coming off like that, but they are a product of years of frustration with this same conversation. ThiS was brought to the surface by seeing 10 pages of posts where womens risky behaviour was being discussed as though stoping this kind of behaviour is all women can do. And there is an attitude that implies that those who do engage in these behaviours do it because they don't know the risks, and simply telling them 'don't do this' is the answer.

Agreed. Ideally everyone, male and female, would take a course in this stuff at the high school level.

That said doesn't this contradict to some extent what you were saying earlier, in that in your direct personal experience that there are plenty of sexual assaults involving drugs or alcohol? Maybe to you it seems too obvious to mention that they are risk factors, but it seems to me incontrovertible that if people are still getting raped as a result of risky behaviour involving drugs and alcohol then by definition we need to do more to get that message out in such a way that people will act on it.

yes, I spoke to girls who had been raped in conjunction with, sometimes as a result of, drug and alchohol use. Not one of them ever implied, in any way, that they didn't realize they were engaging in a risky behaviour... That if they had just been told a few more times not to get too drunk this wouldn't have happened. They all knew they had done something risky. For many of them this translated to 'knowing' they had done something 'wrong'... If we want to reduce the number of incidents like this, we are talking about undermining an entire culture at universities, and in society at large. We've been trying the 'just tell them it's wrong' approach for a long time, and it's not working. If you want a campaign against the binge drinking culture that leads to girls getting pass out drunk, I am right there with you. But don't minimalize them, or the issue, by blaming it on a basic lack of understanding of the risks involved. If you want to talk about what we can teach our girls to keep them safe, we need to go light years beyond just telling girls to avoiding risky behaviour.

 

[Meed]

In fairness, I can understand why there's paranoia that when someone says "women can reduce their risk of rape by changing their behavior" they're actually motivated by some underlying contempt of the victim and sympathy with the rapist on some level. Given the sordid social and legal history of blaming rape victims and thus letting the rapist off the hook, a statement like "a woman's behavior could make it more likely for her to get raped" carries a lot of ugly baggage that is likely not intended by most of the posters here. Hence all the reading between the lines, and smörgåsbord of reasons for resisting such assertions. That said, while it may be understandable, I don't think it's reasonable to object to factual claims simply due to the baggage they carry.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Given the sordid social and legal history of blaming rape victims and thus letting the rapist off the hook,

In looking at a history of the law's treatment of rape, it's important to remember that often rape was being used as a defense by a woman accused of sexual promiscuity, which was itself a criminal offense. Because rape was, in many places, an affirmative defense to a crime (for which the burden is on the accused), it could be difficult to meet the high standards of evidence to prove the defense.
On the other hand, the man was guilty of the same sexual crimes whether the woman consented or not, so the rape issue wasn't even relevant to his prosecution.
Of course this serves to illustrate how nonsensical it is to make consensual sex a crime.

 

[bookitty]

In fairness, I can understand why there's paranoia that when someone says "women can reduce their risk of rape by changing their behavior" they're actually motivated by some underlying contempt of the victim and sympathy with the rapist on some level. Given the sordid social and legal history of blaming rape victims and thus letting the rapist off the hook, a statement like "a woman's behavior could make it more likely for her to get raped" carries a lot of ugly baggage that is likely not intended by most of the posters here. Hence all the reading between the lines, and smörgåsbord of reasons for resisting such assertions. That said, while it may be understandable, I don't think it's reasonable to object to factual claims simply due to the baggage they carry.

Except that that baggage is the main reason that rape is under-reported. If a woman knew the guy, was dressed in a skimpy outfit, had anything to drink, didn't know him very well, let him in her house, or initiated any sort of physical contact, she knows that she will be blamed. People will say that she should have known better.

This happens at the personal and legal level. All of the focus is on her actions. What did she do to bring this upon herself. The focus is not on the attacker.

And why not? We have seen so many examples in this thread of how the attitude, actions, and choices of a woman can lead to rape. Where are the posts and posts about the attacker? How is it that a man will decide to rape? How does he cover his tracks if there have been previous rapes? What does he do to gain her trust? How does he choose a victim? What is it about his upbringing that allows him to think this is acceptable? Are there men out there who have forced sex on a woman and don't consider it rape? If so, are there social rewards for manipulating women into unwanted sexual attack? Is there a "rape culture" that allows some men to think that opportunity equals consent?

 

[AvalonXQ]

The focus is not on the attacker.
And why not?

Because the culture unmitigatingly demonizes and dehumanizes the attacker. There's no empathy for the rapist; we don't put ourselves in her shoes or try to figure out why she did what she did because any attempt at understanding seems to be rationalizing and because no one wants to associate rational motivations to her.
For most any other crime, we want to get into the criminal's head to understand why it happens, provide some amount of sympathy to the causes and find ways to prevent it through reaching out.
Not this crime. The unspoken assumption is that real people don't do this; other less-than-human creatures do.

 

[bookitty]

Because the culture unmitigatingly demonizes and dehumanizes the attacker. There's no empathy for the rapist; we don't put ourselves in her shoes or try to figure out why she did what she did because any attempt at understanding seems to be rationalizing and because no one wants to associate rational motivations to her.
For most any other crime, we want to get into the criminal's head to understand why it happens, provide some amount of sympathy to the causes and find ways to prevent it through reaching out.
Not this crime. The unspoken assumption is that real people don't do this; other less-than-human creatures do.

Yes, that is human nature and is totally understandable. It's is also exactly why we should focus on them. If rapists were less than human and easily identified, they would be easily avoided. It is also human nature to put yourself in the shoes of a victim and figure out what you would have done differently, so that in the same circumstance you would be safe. (Zombie movies come to mind.)

Human nature gives us many emotional reactions to common problems but they are not always the best solution.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Except that that baggage is the main reason that rape is under-reported. If a woman knew the guy, was dressed in a skimpy outfit, had anything to drink, didn't know him very well, let him in her house, or initiated any sort of physical contact, she knows that she will be blamed. People will say that she should have known better.

I believe that's your straw man. The criminal justice system and society have an obligation to treat both parties fairly. We have to determine if, in fact, a crime has taken place. Both parties have equal credibility at the start, and from there we have to look at the evidence to see if a crime occurred.

Take your scenario. Every night what you describe happens all over the world, and in the overwhelming majority of cases neither party believes a rape occurred. There's some other element that makes it into the crime of rape, and we have a duty to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that such an element was present.

Rape is unlike most other crimes in that the event that occurs (sex) is most often not a crime. There are virtually no scenarios where a stranger demands your wallet while brandishing a weapon where it's not a crime. Hell, there are virtually no scenarios where you give your wallet to a stranger even without a weapon. Rape requires figuring out if a crime occurred or not even if there is clear evidence of sex.

Rape requires a lack of consent, and that can be pretty tricky to determine. Evidence of violence is a pretty good indicator that there was not only a lack of consent but an outright objection. Absent something so obvious, it is not "blaming" the victim to examine what constitutes consent. In fact consent can be implied based on context and the relationship between the parties.

Your arguments tend to assume that a rape occurred and ignore the legal and ethical obligations we have to determine if it actually did. The accused has just as much right to argue implied consent (she was dressed provocatively, flirted, responded to lesser sexual contact, and willingly went home) as the accuser has to argue that no consent was given (told him no, pushed him away, tried to leave).

It's unfortunate that women are fighting an uphill battle. The "objective" evidence may be independently verified. By that I mean her outfit is objective, her conduct in the bar could have witnesses, and she could be seen willingly leaving with the man and going to his home. The rest can be he said, she said.

As for your claim that the focus is not on the attacker, that's just your lack of understanding of how it works. Both parties are scrutinized. Everything relevant to consent, explicit or implied, is fair game. I'd hate to be on a jury in a trial without obvious objective evidence pointing to rape (violence, total stranger) because as a juror it's my job to know for sure that a rape occurred, not just think it more likely than not. It sucks.

This is all the more reason to take precautions. I'm sure I will piss off a lot of people when I say this, but if a woman goes to a club alone dressed in a skimpy outfit, meets up with a stranger, flirts with him, engages in some physical contact, and then goes home with him, she's going to have a very difficult time convincing people that she didn't consent even if she objected strenuously. Without physical evidence of violence or other coercion, what's a juror supposed to do? Somebody is lying, and it's not easy to figure out who.

None of this excuses a rapist or blames the victim. It's just reality.

 

[Emet]

I never heard this before. Can you post a reference? It would seem to make sense on the surface. I always wondered why we can try a 14 year old girl as an adult if she stabs her 18 year old boyfriend on a date, but if she has sex with him, we assume she wasn't mature enough to understand the consequences and charge the boyfriend with rape.

I found this:

A. A BRIEF HISTORY OF STATUTORY RAPE

Statutory rape, which is "at least as ancient as the 4000-year-old Code of Hammurabi" was codified in English law in 1275.(42) Essentially, statutory rape criminalizes acts which would not otherwise be classified as rape.(43) Initially, the age of consent was twelve; in 1576, the age was lowered to ten.(44)
(...)
Statutory rape laws were gender-specific, criminalizing sexual relations with young females, but not with young males. Commentators note that the laws reflected the historical legal perception of women and girls as "special property in need of special protection."(49) American courts in the 19th century originally adopted statutory rape as a strict liability offense, in accordance with English law.(50)

link.

 

[bookitty]

I believe that's your straw man. The criminal justice system and society have an obligation to treat both parties fairly. We have to determine if, in fact, a crime has taken place. Both parties have equal credibility at the start, and from there we have to look at the evidence to see if a crime occurred.

Take your scenario. Every night what you describe happens all over the world, and in the overwhelming majority of cases neither party believes a rape occurred. There's some other element that makes it into the crime of rape, and we have a duty to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that such an element was present.

Rape is unlike most other crimes in that the event that occurs (sex) is most often not a crime. There are virtually no scenarios where a stranger demands your wallet while brandishing a weapon where it's not a crime. Hell, there are virtually no scenarios where you give your wallet to a stranger even without a weapon. Rape requires figuring out if a crime occurred or not even if there is clear evidence of sex.

Rape requires a lack of consent, and that can be pretty tricky to determine. Evidence of violence is a pretty good indicator that there was not only a lack of consent but an outright objection. Absent something so obvious, it is not "blaming" the victim to examine what constitutes consent. In fact consent can be implied based on context and the relationship between the parties.

Your arguments tend to assume that a rape occurred and ignore the legal and ethical obligations we have to determine if it actually did. The accused has just as much right to argue implied consent (she was dressed provocatively, flirted, responded to lesser sexual contact, and willingly went home) as the accuser has to argue that no consent was given (told him no, pushed him away, tried to leave).

It's unfortunate that women are fighting an uphill battle. The "objective" evidence may be independently verified. By that I mean her outfit is objective, her conduct in the bar could have witnesses, and she could be seen willingly leaving with the man and going to his home. The rest can be he said, she said.

As for your claim that the focus is not on the attacker, that's just your lack of understanding of how it works. Both parties are scrutinized. Everything relevant to consent, explicit or implied, is fair game. I'd hate to be on a jury in a trial without obvious objective evidence pointing to rape (violence, total stranger) because as a juror it's my job to know for sure that a rape occurred, not just think it more likely than not. It sucks.

This is all the more reason to take precautions. I'm sure I will piss off a lot of people when I say this, but if a woman goes to a club alone dressed in a skimpy outfit, meets up with a stranger, flirts with him, engages in some physical contact, and then goes home with him, she's going to have a very difficult time convincing people that she didn't consent even if she objected strenuously. Without physical evidence of violence or other coercion, what's a juror supposed to do? Somebody is lying, and it's not easy to figure out who.

None of this excuses a rapist or blames the victim. It's just reality.

First off, you misread or purposefully misinterpreted "or" for "and." Secondly, in this case I wasn't talking about the court system. I said "under-reported" which, again, you ignored. Rape is the most under-reported crime. If a crime is not reported it doesn't go to court. If it doesn't go to court, there is no way that the rapist can be punished. He is free to rape again.

So, to repeat, if a woman has done any ONE of those things, she is less likely report the crime. Why? Because she's heard mile-long lecture like yours a thousand times. So, even if it is not "blaming" victims, it's failing to protect them.

You know what, maybe that is wrong. Maybe women do need to "take more responsibility" or whatever you think it is. But the reality is that rape is not being reported enough, it is not being prosecuted enough, not enough rapists are being punished, and rape is happening too often. Something in this system of saying "she should/shouldn't have done X" is not working.

 

[myowninvention]

This is all the more reason to take precautions. I'm sure I will piss off a lot of people when I say this, but if a woman goes to a club alone dressed in a skimpy outfit, meets up with a stranger, flirts with him, engages in some physical contact, and then goes home with him, she's going to have a very difficult time convincing people that she didn't consent even if she objected strenuously. Without physical evidence of violence or other coercion, what's a juror supposed to do? Somebody is lying, and it's not easy to figure out who.

None of this excuses a rapist or blames the victim. It's just reality.

You make a number of excelent points in your post regarding the many difficulties of prosecuting a sexual assault. However, I do take some issue with this last part. While everything you say is true, we can not confound the issues of prosicution with those of prevention. They are two separate issues, and while it would help the legal system, we cannot expect that a womans risk assesment will be done on the probability of her actions to appear to her favor in court. In other words, no woman, planing a night out will, or should be thinking 'if I do that and then get raped it will be a very hard case to prove'. This is not a valid (not to mention healthy or sustainable) form of risk assesment.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Rape is the most under-reported crime.

I find this very hard to believe. At what rate is assault under-reported? How about tresspassing?
Honestly, I'm wondering where you got accurate statistics for under-reporting at all.

 

[bookitty]

I find this very hard to believe. At what rate is assault under-reported? How about tresspassing?
Honestly, I'm wondering where you got accurate statistics for under-reporting at all.

http://www.rapetraumaservices.org/rape-sexual-assault.html

 

[myowninvention]

I find this very hard to believe. At what rate is assault under-reported? How about tresspassing?
Honestly, I'm wondering where you got accurate statistics for under-reporting at all.

Estimates vary on what persentage of rapes are reported to the police. Wikipedia puts it at about 60% of women and 90% of men who are raped will not end up reporting. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics?wasRedirected=true
these numbers are based on a study done in 1999, but I find it holds true to my own experiences as well, which were considerably more recent. Keep in mind too that I only hade contact with those who chose to call a helpline. I have no way of estimating how many people didn't tell anyone.

And to be honest, I don't know the report rates for other crimes, nor do I think it particularly relevent.