The Limits of "Blaming the Victim"

Debate arising from chat.

We can all agree tha outright blaming of the victim is bad, but there are limits to this expression. When the victim fails to take proper precautions for their own safety, then they are inviting trouble, and some small part of the blame has to lie with the victim.

Some context: in the wake of robberies and assaults on Indian students in Australia, the Chief Commissioner has urged Indian students in high risk areas to "dress poorer", ie shed the bling when walking the streets alone. This is actually something I have said amongst friends - quite a few students who study here from India are from very wealthy backgrounds, and their choice of accessories shows this.

So a young, pampered and obviously cashed up person is wandering the streets alone, it is no surprise that they are occasionally assaulted.

Dressing down is a good precaution, trying to avoid wandering around alone is a better one. Ignoring these basic safety precautions raises your risk factors. In this case it isn't a matter a blaming the victim, but rather acknowledging that the victim is partly responsible for what happened.

Discuss.

I suppose the two things are related but separate.

One should always take practical precautions that minimise the danger to ourselves and/or our property. Lock your car, lock your bike, don't bring unnecessary valuables about unless you need them. Don't walk alone at night or in unfamiliar areas. Avoid deserted thoroughfares etc. These are sensible measures in pretty much any urban area in the world. When someone falls afoul of criminals and hasn't done these things we are naturally less inclined to be sympathetic to them.

However, this isn't the same as blaming the victim. In rape cases where one most hears blame assigned to the victim, there is a misogynistic strain to discourse wherein the (primarily women) victims are seen to have brought the attack upon themselves by dressing sluttily, getting too drunk or whatever. Their own "immorality" has brought the crime upon them, also men are uncontrollable animals when they see bare female flesh and thus have diminished responsibility when the woman is wearing revealing clothing.

In an ideal world, nobody would have to take precautions when venturing out in public, but of course, we all do, some take it to extremes, others just take sensible measures. Most people harbour most people no ill will, nor have criminal intent but some do. The difference between the two things though is that the first thing is about trying to avoid being the victim of a crime, and/or minimise your loss when you are a victim of a crime and the second supposes that there is something that you have done to deserve a rape/beating/whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

some small part of the blame has to lie with the victim

---

No, no no no. All of the blame lies with the perpetrator of the crime.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Allwalker

So a young, pampered and obviously cashed up person is wandering the streets alone, it is no surprise that they are occasionally assaulted.

Dressing down is a good precaution, trying to avoid wandering around alone is a better one.

---

It may, in fact, be a good precaution. However, there is pretty much always the possibility of a person being a victim of violent crime no matter what they do, or how they behave. Trying to find a reason for why it occurred may be comforting for some ("y would never happen to me because I do x"), but it takes the focus off of where it belongs - trying to find a way to prevent the crimes in the first place or punishing the people actually responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

In this case it isn't a matter a blaming the victim, but rather acknowledging that the victim is partly responsible for what happened.

---

Alla, the second part of your sentence directly contradicts the first. Assigning "blame" or "responsibility" to the victim of a violent crime is victim blaming.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

No, no no no. All of the blame lies with the perpetrator of the crime.

---

Why? I mean ideally yes, but not in practical terms.

If I run through a thunderstorm and get hit by lightning, that would be called bad luck.

If I run around in a thunderstorm with a lightning rod strapped to my head and get hit, that is not bad luck. Also, there is no perpetrator to blame. Just the laws of the world around us.

Now in that case, the laws of the world are physics, but there are equally valid sociological rules. Just as wearing a lightning rod increases the odds of a lightning strike, having your wallet peeking out of your pocket in a bad neighbourhood increases the odds of theft.

Quote:

---

It may, in fact, be a good precaution. However, there is pretty much always the possibility of a person being a victim of violent crime no matter what they do, or how they behave. Trying to find a reason for why it occurred may be comforting for some ("y would never happen to me because I do x"), but it takes the focus off of where it belongs - trying to find a way to prevent the crimes in the first place or punishing the people actually responsible.

---

And that is the key difference. If a lone individual targets another lone individual, the victim was unlucky. Wrong place, wrong time, etc. But with these cases, ignoring the basic precautions changes the dynamic. It is no longer a case of "will that guy rob me", it then becomes "if that robber doesn't target me, and if the next robber ignores me too, then the next one will rob me".

By placing yourself at risk you take it out of the hands of one individual criminal, who is impossible to predict, and place it in the hands of an entire demographic of criminals, who become statistically more predictable. It changes from a matter of individual choice from the criminal (whether to rob that particular victim or not) and makes it a sociological, statistical likelihood.

Quote:

---

Alla, the second part of your sentence directly contradicts the first. Assigning "blame" or "responsibility" to the victim of a violent crime is victim blaming.

---

That's what I get for not editing. Either way, that is just semantics. Consider your point made.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

If I run through a thunderstorm and get hit by lightning, that would be called bad luck.

If I run around in a thunderstorm with a lightning rod strapped to my head and get hit, that is not bad luck. Also, there is no perpetrator to blame. Just the laws of the world around us.

---

The bolded part is important, IMO. Nature-at least as far as we know-has no consciousness. It cannot decide 'hey, look at that moron-let's fry him!' Whereas a person committing a crime generally has to make the choice to commit said crime. It's not a good comparison.

Now, what's the difference between a woman dressing provocatively and being raped vs. a person wearing flashy jewelry and being robbed (aside from the fact I'll argue rape is a million times worse than theft)? In both cases it could be said a person is showing off the goods, and inviting someone to take them.

So why would someone showing cleavage be less guilty for their sexual assault than someone wearing three diamond rings and carrying a Coach purse would be for being robbed?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

So why would someone showing cleavage be less guilty for their sexual assault than someone wearing three diamond rings and carrying a Coach purse would be for being robbed?

---

If a woman dresses like that, is alone, and is in a bad neighbourhood, then she has put herself in harm's way.

But it's not quite so black and white. A woman, due to a number of reasons, is more likely to be the victim of assault (whether robbery, sexual or whatever) than a man is, all things being equal. That is something intrinsic, something which the woman can't switch off. And so if a woman is targeted in some way, it is less because of the choices she has made and more to do with her physiology.

The circumstances would be closer to the same if a woman could leave her feminity at home or conceal it as easily as an iPod, but as it is, women are unfairly biased towards being in danger. Therefore, as a victim a woman is less at fault. She should be aware of the danger and act appropriately but, as I said, all things being equal the risk is greater.

I think there are two aspects that you have to keep apart.
Mistakes that do not harm others do not absolve the perpetrator. A robber who robs a rich-looking person is every bit as guilty.

To a limited extent such mistakes can take away from the sympathy towards the victim. However proportionality is important. In a way the question is whether the harm is appropriate "punishment" for the victim's error. With serious crimes that's just not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

Trying to find a reason for why it occurred may be comforting for some ("y would never happen to me because I do x"), but it takes the focus off of where it belongs - trying to find a way to prevent the crimes in the first place or punishing the people actually responsible.
.

---

This. In the past five years, I've been mugged once, I've had my wallet stolen off my office desk, and I've had my car broken into and cleaned out. In each of those cases, I immediately began to wonder why did this happen to me?! I went over every little thing I did and didn't do. Was I being stupid? Did I bring it all on myself? Did I deserve to be attacked or have my shit stolen? Since I have no idea who did this to me, I pretty much have to focus on my own actions and what could have been done differently. But the fact of the matter is, I should be able to leave my purse on my desk when I'm 10 feet away from it. And I should be able to park my car in my apartment building's parking lot without fear of the window being shattered. As far as I know, the people who attacked me and stole my shit never were caught, never were punished, and don't have any good reason to stop their behavior.

I lock my car and my house because it's smart to take the proper precautions. But locking my car didn't stop somebody from smashing the windows out of it. Locking my office didn't stop somebody from stealing my wallet. Being on one of the busiest staircases in Rome didn't stop a group of 3 people from targeting me and attacking me (and no I definitely didn't have "bling". I was just an obvious American in a city where the homeless population is astronomical). But despite doing my best, I'm sure that the OP or anybody else for that matter could dissect my actions and point to the ones that might have resulted in a different outcome if I had done something differently. But we'll never know either way and it's a pretty shitty thing to do precisely because of that.

And how much responsibility do you want the victim to bear for attacks? For example, if people assume Indian students come from very affluent backgrounds, maybe they're being racially profiled by muggers and thieves, rather than simply targeted because of the "bling." Would you suggest that maybe Indians should just avoid walking alone after dark all together? After all, they know it's dangerous for people like them to be alone in certain parts of Australia. Their very presence might be seen as a temptation to great to ignore!

Has it ever been shown that the way a woman is dressed has any influence on the odds of her being victim of a sexual assault?

How would you ever be able to measure that?

I have no idea. I'm just wondering, people always seem to mention "dressing provocatively" in this kind of discussion. It makes me curious if there's any evidence of a relationship.

People mention it because rapists have historically used it as a defense, among other things. "She dresses like a whore, she had it coming." Or "She dressed like she wanted it." Which is actually just a small example of bullshit defenses. I think the "She has a history of 'promiscuity' so clearly she wants to fuck every single guy she meets thus it can't possibly be rape" is far more offensive and harmful.

One can take precautions. The entire idea of 'blame' presupposes some moral calculus that doesn't really matter when you are in the wild. Sure, the responsibility is on the predator, morally. But the prey has a responsibility, practically. I used to live in a slum, a rare white person in a black neighborhood. I had friends afraid to come to my house. I NEVER EVER got messed with in the years I lived in that neighborhood. Sure, there was a part of it that was luck. It's always POSSIBLE that someone will just single you out. But I think it was more about attitude. I looked like I knew what I was doing, and I watched people.

My house did get robbed a few times when I wasn't there though.

Can we back off of the rape thing? I know everyone likes to use rape as some sort of metaphor for awful, awful things to show how sensitive they are, but it just gets offensive when you've actually lived through it. There are some pretty specific things that go into the issue of rape and it can't just be tossed around as the generic Ultimate Bad Thing.

Being mugged != being raped.

When a rapist or lawyer would say "she was asking for it, look at how she was dressed" it didn't just mean that she was enticing him and he couldn't help himself. That was the argument to show that she really wanted to have sex and was just being a teasing whore. And because women are capable of having consensual sex, such an argument was enough to put doubts into people's minds. Mainly because people were stupid and thought things like "if a woman consented to sex once in her life, she must want it forever after".

Saying the same about someone who is mugged is entirely different, but unfortunately people have this ridiculous, kneejerk "OMG IT'S JUST LIKE BLAMING A RAPE VICTIM" reaction.

A rapist is targeting a victim for their body, which is something the victim can't help. Rapists usually aren't standing on a street corner, waiting for a victim to entice them. Seriously. Drop that image in your mind if you still have it. That's not how it usually works. In many cases, they prey on the drunk or drugged (often putting the victim into that state), they prey on the trust of others, and they prey on the weak.

A mugger is after your money. They learn who make good victims and watch for signs of affluence so they aren't wasting their time (you don't have to watch for this with a rape victim since, hey, everybody's got at least two orifices). They are waiting on street corners. They prey on anybody they can intimidate with violence (and often a weapon).

Muggers might watch the news and see that, hey, those Indians have a lot of money, they're a good bet for mugging! I doubt rapists are watching the news and seeing that, hey, those [blank] women have amazing vibrating vaginas, they're good for raping! Someone with a gold chain around his neck and diamonds in his ears who's walking around alone is going to be a bigger target for a mugging. That's a more rewarding victim. Is there even a way to make a more rewarding rape victim?

I think that these students who are being targeted should exercise more caution. I think they need to be careful about being alone and showing obvious signs of wealth. They really need to be careful about doing those things in an area where there have already been a number of muggings. These are basic precautions that everybody should take, but doubly so for them since the news has been so helpful in spreading the word that they make good victims.

Are they at fault for being attacked and robbed? Hell no. But we don't live in an ideal world and they need to protect themselves even so.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tinker

I NEVER EVER got messed with in the years I lived in that neighborhood. Sure, there was a part of it that was luck. It's always POSSIBLE that someone will just single you out. But I think it was more about attitude. I looked like I knew what I was doing, and I watched people.

---

And if you had done this and still been mugged? Would you have been responsible? Would it then have been your fault for living in a bad neighborhood? Some people would think so. Would it have been your fault for being white, something you can't change any more than the victims in the OP can change being Indian?

No matter how smart or prepared a person is, there is always some chance that someone will take advantage of them. If I am assaulted in my own home, is it my fault for not having a security system? For not owning a gun?

Whenever I see this debate the one question I have is, what are you trying to accomplish by assigning blame or responsibility to the victim? Regardless of whether the victim is at all at fault, it seems sort of pointless to me. It's one thing to counsel people on ways to avoid being victims, but after the fact you're really just saying "What a jackass you are. Guess you should have known better. Ha ha."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

Whenever I see this debate the one question I have is, what are you trying to accomplish by assigning blame or responsibility to the victim? Regardless of whether the victim is at all at fault, it seems sort of pointless to me. It's one thing to counsel people on ways to avoid being victims, but after the fact you're really just saying "What a jackass you are. Guess you should have known better. Ha ha."

---

Definitely. There are cautions that should be taken, and advice you can follow, but at the end of the day the perpetrator of the crime is the one who deserves any and all blame. On the other hand, I don't think telling people about those things they should do to protect themselves is necessarily the same as blaming them. It can be done in an actually kind and considerate way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

And if you had done this and still been mugged? Would you have been responsible? Would it then have been your fault for living in a bad neighborhood? Some people would think so. Would it have been your fault for being white, something you can't change any more than the victims in the OP can change being Indian?

---

You have a very simplistic view of personal responsibility. It's not all about apportioning blame. My friend's Father growing up used to be a race-car driver. He taught his son that every accident is avoidable if you're a good driver. So was he blaming anyone who got into an accident? Did he not believe that car 'accidents' occurred? I don't think that was his point.

Quote:

---

No matter how smart or prepared a person is, there is always some chance that someone will take advantage of them. If I am assaulted in my own home, is it my fault for not having a security system? For not owning a gun?

---

Sure, there is always some chance, but you can take precautions, and you can avoid recklessness.

Regardless of fault, you still bear the consequences. Whether or not you had the foresight to prepare for every eventuality you still must manage the fallout.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tinker

You have a very simplistic view of personal responsibility. It's not all about apportioning blame. My friend's Father growing up used to be a race-car driver. He taught his son that every accident is avoidable if you're a good driver. So was he blaming anyone who got into an accident? Did he not believe that car 'accidents' occurred? I don't think that was his point.



Sure, there is always some chance, but you can take precautions, and you can avoid recklessness.

Regardless of fault, you still bear the consequences. Whether or not you had the foresight to prepare for every eventuality you still must manage the fallout.

---

I'm going to agree with Tinker to some degree. I remember the girl that got raped by Tyson and while I think Tyson was 100% wrong and rightfully convicted, I thought she was a very foolish and irresponsible young woman who made an extremely bad judgement call.

Tyson deserved no leniency, but she probably needs to know that she put herself in a terrible situation. Hopefully she is well aware of the fact and got on with her life and was far more sensible after that.

Don't worry, What Exit. From the accounts I've heard the first person a rape victim usually blames is his/herself.

I'm reminded of a case a fellow rabbit breeder went through about 7 or 8 years ago. A neighborhood kid broke into her rabbitry and 'played with' (read: killed and maimed) most of her rabbits. We're not talking a few, we're talking over 50 animals from one of the best Satin breeders in the nation. She sued the boy's family for damages, but the judge decided the rabbits were an 'attractive nuisance'. Basically saying "If you didn't want someone to come mess with your rabbits, you shouldn't have had them" and awarded her nothing.

I guess if you don't want to be robbed, you also shouldn't have anything worth stealing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

Don't worry, What Exit. From the accounts I've heard the first person a rape victim usually blames is his/herself.

I'm reminded of a case a fellow rabbit breeder went through about 7 or 8 years ago. A neighborhood kid broke into her rabbitry and 'played with' (read: killed and maimed) most of her rabbits. We're not talking a few, we're talking over 50 animals from one of the best Satin breeders in the nation. She sued the boy's family for damages, but the judge decided the rabbits were an 'attractive nuisance'. Basically saying "If you didn't want someone to come mess with your rabbits, you shouldn't have had them" and awarded her nothing.

I guess if you don't want to be robbed, you also shouldn't have anything worth stealing.

---

That's ridiculous. I blame your associates lawyer for not being able to call bullshit on that. No one would ever say that if someone broke into Best Buy and busted up a bunch of TVs and Computers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

And how much responsibility do you want the victim to bear for attacks? For example, if people assume Indian students come from very affluent backgrounds, maybe they're being racially profiled by muggers and thieves, rather than simply targeted because of the "bling." Would you suggest that maybe Indians should just avoid walking alone after dark all together? After all, they know it's dangerous for people like them to be alone in certain parts of Australia. Their very presence might be seen as a temptation to great to ignore!

---

But here's the thing - racial profiling is done by people who are stupid, and so is fairly inaccurate. If Indians were being targeted simply for being Indians, then so would people from Sri Lanka and Pakistan, as well as Aboriginal Australians*.

The fact is, I'm still not convinced if Indians are even being assaulted more than would be statistically normal, but it does get reported more these days. But similar looking groups are not complaining of being assaulted, so there.

*This is a joke. Our former PM, a 7 million year old fossil, would often display his ignorance of othe cultures by asking Sri Lankans if they were Aboriginals, asking Caucasian Muslim women born here when they moved here and so forth. But if he could make the mistake, so could others.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

Don't worry, What Exit. From the accounts I've heard the first person a rape victim usually blames is his/herself.

I'm reminded of a case a fellow rabbit breeder went through about 7 or 8 years ago. A neighborhood kid broke into her rabbitry and 'played with' (read: killed and maimed) most of her rabbits. We're not talking a few, we're talking over 50 animals from one of the best Satin breeders in the nation. She sued the boy's family for damages, but the judge decided the rabbits were an 'attractive nuisance'. Basically saying "If you didn't want someone to come mess with your rabbits, you shouldn't have had them" and awarded her nothing.

I guess if you don't want to be robbed, you also shouldn't have anything worth stealing.

---

I know it sounds cold and I hesitated to post it, but seriously, she was a very foolish girl. I am not saying she was asking for it or that Tyson deserved any leniency, just saying she was dumb.

Is there any more to the story of your friend? I know in our wonderful court system, owning a pool is generally an 'attractive nuisance'. If a kid climbs your fence, trespassing and then gets hurt, the home owner somehow almost always loses. But a rabbit barn is nearly always enclosed. The judge must have been half crazy (or worse) to make that judgement.

One problem I see with the way many arguments above are being framed is that "blame" is being treated as a finite substance we can measure and assign to the involved parties, and then it is all used up. For example, if a person gets mugged, there are 100 "blame points" to assign. If the victim was hyper-aware of her surroundings, clutching her purse close to her in broad daylight, walking with a friend in a safe neighborhood, and got mugged anyway, we assign 100 points to the perpetrator and 0 to the victim. If she was half drunk, by herself, purse half open, walking alone in a bad neighborhood at midnight, then what -- she gets 20 blame points and the perp gets 80? Nope, the perp still gets 100 blame points. We'll just enlarge the number on offer, and give her 20 too!

I don't really like the word "blame" for the victim, however. I'm just not sure there is a good substitute term. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that aspects of people's behavior that they have control over can alter the likelihood of outcomes they experience. And on a case-by-case basis, I may be willing to fault a person for showing poor judgment and therefore putting themselves in harm's way. This in no way detracts from the perp's degree of responsibility or the punishment that should be assigned.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

One problem I see with the way many arguments above are being framed is that "blame" is being treated as a finite substance we can measure and assign to the involved parties, and then it is all used up. For example, if a person gets mugged, there are 100 "blame points" to assign. If the victim was hyper-aware of her surroundings, clutching her purse close to her in broad daylight, walking with a friend in a safe neighborhood, and got mugged anyway, we assign 100 points to the perpetrator and 0 to the victim. If she was half drunk, by herself, purse half open, walking alone in a bad neighborhood at midnight, then what -- she gets 20 blame points and the perp gets 80? Nope, the perp still gets 100 blame points. We'll just enlarge the number on offer, and give her 20 too!

---

Heh, actually being terrified and acting the part attracts villains. Evildoers smell fear. Clutch your purse to your chest and you might as well put up a neon sign that says, "Born Victim".

Quote:

---

I don't really like the word "blame" for the victim, however. I'm just not sure there is a good substitute term. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that aspects of people's behavior that they have control over can alter the likelihood of outcomes they experience. And on a case-by-case basis, I may be willing to fault a person for showing poor judgment and therefore putting themselves in harm's way. This in no way detracts from the perp's degree of responsibility or the punishment that should be assigned.

---

Almost all bad circumstances are avoidable. Sometimes our knowledge and ability are insufficient. But that's why we have the word, 'tragedy'.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

I'm going to agree with Tinker to some degree. I remember the girl that got raped by Tyson and while I think Tyson was 100% wrong and rightfully convicted, I thought she was a very foolish and irresponsible young woman who made an extremely bad judgement call.

Tyson deserved no leniency, but she probably needs to know that she put herself in a terrible situation. Hopefully she is well aware of the fact and got on with her life and was far more sensible after that.

---

My answer is probably closest to this. I don't think the behavior of the victim is useful at all in terms of determining the guilt of the perpetrator. But it's legitimate for the victim and other potential victims to learn something about making better decisions, too. Sometimes, people really do use bad judgment. Sometimes, it's not so clear cut. But in those cases where it is, it's not a bad thing to realize it and try to make smarter choices.

Okay, there are two very different matters here.

One) you can give advice to victims or potential victims in order to better protect themselves from being hurt.

Two) you can blame victims when they are hurt because they didn't protect themselves properly.

One is reasonable. Two is utter douchebaggery. Calling a rape victim stupid because for five minutes there she forgot she has a vagina and must always guard it? Utter douchebaggery. Saying mugging victims were asking for it? Douche. Bagg. Er. Y.

But saying, "Please, please, please don't do these things because they increase your chances of being victimized by the utter flaming assholes out there in the world" isn't so bad.

Ya know, in the end, I think that precautions or the lack of precautions shouldn't in any way attribute responsibility in any amount on the victim. I mean sure, dressing provocatively could incite a rapist to attack you over a more moderately dressed individual, and looking rich and walking in a shady neighborhood is asking for trouble. But the act of being mugged or raped is, after all is said and done, solely the fault of the attacker. Saying that its no surprise an obviously pampered and cashed up person wandering the streets alone is occasionally assaulted is almost removing blame from the attacker. "Well, he's a mugger, its what he does. So dress more poor, so as not to encourage him." No one wants to be attacked. And that fact doesn't change due to the area of town they were walking in, or the clothes they were wearing, I think.

An 80 year old woman in a wheelchair was raped. Was she "dressed provocatively"?

Rape is NOT about uncontrollable sexual attraction, it is about POWER.

The word "blame" assigned in any part, to any degree, to the victim of a crime is wrong. The victim is not to blame, the criminal is to blame.

But using your head for more than holding your shoulders apart makes sense. Bad stuff can happen anywhere, and it does. But if you don't want to drown, don't swim alone in the ocean at night.

You worded that a lot better than me, vison. I agree.

Are 80 year olds in wheelchairs as likely to be raped as attractive young women?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

Are 80 year olds in wheelchairs as likely to be raped as attractive young women?

---

I'm sure that someone somewhere has the data on this. But I suspect that "attractive young women" are not raped any more often than old women or small children of both sexes.

Rape is not an act of uncontrollable sexual desire. It is an act of violence springing from the desire to inflict harm on or exert power over another person. Many rapes do not involve a penis penetrating a vagina. It is called "sexual assault", of course, but I think that's a bad choice of words. It is only "sexual assault" because it may involve someone's sexual organs.

Rape is an opportunistic crime, as are most other crimes, often the result of an impulse combined with circumstances.

Many elderly women are the victims of sexual assault. Why? Because they are vulnerable, just as children are vulnerable. This is a sad fact of life for some elderly people living in care homes. Isn't that a cheering thought? Bad enough they drug you, tie you up, and feed you slop, but they rape you, too.

The aspect about "provocatively dressed or attractive young women" that troubles me is the implication that men, in general, can be subject to these uncontrollable urges when confronted with a "good target". If the only victims of sexual assault WERE, in fact, sexually desirable and attractive young people, then the argument might hold water.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nrblex

Calling a rape victim stupid because for five minutes there she forgot she has a vagina and must always guard it? Utter douchebaggery.

---

This is so excellently worded that I just want to post it again.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nrblex

Calling a rape victim stupid because for five minutes there she forgot she has a vagina and must always guard it? Utter douchebaggery.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

This is so excellently worded that I just want to post it again.

---

I remember some female comedian way back in the dark ages of the '90s talking about this sort of thing. She was saying how if a guy is afraid of getting mugged, he can leave his wallet and his watch at home. There's no such thing as "oops, I left my vagina in my other pants." The idea that a woman must walk through life, aware that the fact her body exists makes her a temptation is a horrifying one. It's one of the reasons I wince when I see people trying to make parallels between rape and crimes involving theft.

Oh snap!

You know where men get raped? In prison.

Are they to blame? Because they got convicted of a crime? Or were they just dressed too provocatively for their cell mate? Or the 12 guys in the store room.

You can't leave your ass safe at home either.

Quote:

---

You can't leave your ass safe at home either.

---

Words to live by, brother. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by F-X

You know where men get raped? In prison.

Are they to blame? Because they got convicted of a crime? Or were they just dressed too provocatively for their cell mate? Or the 12 guys in the store room.

You can't leave your ass safe at home either.

---

I was sexually abused by a teacher for 18 months in High School. People tend to rocket all the way to penetrative sexual assault as the only benchmark for rape. Get an education, people. This has moved past the mugging/ theft issue and straight into rape. Assault isn't the core issue here, is it?

Might I suggest that this is about trust ? Do you trust your surroundings? Can you intelligently work the odds so that you minimize, even slightly, the chances of being a victim? Pepperlandgirl locked her office door, yet was robbed. She went to enjoy an internationally famous spot and was mugged. Why? Because the muggers know that tourists flock to it. She believed she would be safe in a wide open public space.

Leaving your bodily orifices at home isn't really the point. It's appalling to equate dressing in anything other than layers of black burlap as dressing provocatively. A woman dressing in a mainstream dress or outfit is not leaving the house inviting sexual assault. She's leaving the house dressed the way she wishes to be that day and nothing more. If she leaves the house wearing a bikini and walks two blocks and lays down and falls asleep, is she inviting assault? Not if she's renting a beach house a two blocks from the beach at Seaside Heights, NJ. It might be considered a bit odd if she walked 2 blocks in midtown Manhattan and did the same thing, but either way it's her prerogative. The point is that we trust, and most of us deeply need to believe that the people around us can be trusted. The alternatives are sad. Really.

On a very basic level I do not trust most people. Do I think they will all be looking to sexually abuse me? No- that's absurd. Do I believe they are fundamentally untrustworthy? Yes. That is the life-long result of the abuse.

Myrnalene is correct. 100% of the blame lies with the perpetrator of crime. Being victimized is bad enough. Being blamed for being a victim drives people out of their minds and sometimes out of their lives.

Stop blaming the victim.

Cartooniverse

Deleted. Move along, nothing to see.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartooniverse

Myrnalene is correct. 100% of the blame lies with the perpetrator of crime. Being victimized is bad enough. Being blamed for being a victim drives people out of their minds and sometimes out of their lives.

---

Really well said, Cartooniverse. I don't discuss it openly, though it's something that's on my mind every single day, but I was assaulted twice. Once on a date and once in the safety of my own home. There were times when I felt so disgusted and so at fault for what happened that I woke up and the first thought on my mind was, "I should just kill myself." I've gone over every possible way I could have not been a "stupid victim", but thinking about it and having people tell me how stupid I was (for assuming other people aren't monsters? for feeling safe inside my own home?) has never done a single positive thing for me in my recovery.

And I think doubting myself and feeling that I was stupid was a really dangerous outcome, because it left me ill-equipped to protect myself in the future. Self-loathing and being called foolish does nothing to make someone feel like he or she is worthy of respect and autonomy. It does nothing to make someone trust his or her instincts to get out of bad situations.

....yeah.