Victim Blaming (legal, suspected, how much, parties)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think rape is terrible and that it should never happen to anyone, but I also think that some women (OR some men, since we can be raped too) put themselves in bad predicaments leading up to the actual crime. Somehow this makes me a victim blamer. Can someone please explain this? Why is it also wrong for me to think someone is lying about being raped?
The belief that a victim may have made poor choices doesn't make you a victim blamer (or more appropriately, a 're-victimizer') so long as such a belief is not used to excuse the behavior of an offender who committed a deliberate act. Getting sufficiently intoxicated so as to pass out may be among the most poor of decisions, but it doesn't entitle another individual to, with intent, take advantage of the situation in any way.
With that being said, I do acknowledge that there exists a percentage of false-positive rape cases.
Before adding onto the above statement, it is important for all to understand that the overwhelming majority of sexual abuse goes unreported and, additionally, is committed by the family, friends, and acquaintances of the victims.
There are multiple types of false-positive rape cases and most often they involve such motivations as regret, revenge, and uncertainty of consent (usually due to prior intoxication). Those specific instances are overwhelmingly a result of selective social indoctrination; particularly that we are raised to believe that the female of our species are inherently a fragile and innocent commodity. Where the woman is presumed to always be the victim by virtue of being a perceptively weaker (and thus inferior) gender. While there can be no argument that men are physically stronger and more prone to aggression, it's simply asinine to conflate, in the blanket sense, such with automatic guilt.
People make bad decisions when they're impaired, and I don't like the idea that intoxicated persons who initiate acts of a sexual nature can later claim themselves a victim. At the same time, and what is far more common, is that I hate the idea that one person's lack of self-control can be construed as a scapegoat for another person's lack of the same (refer to the italicized portion of my post). In my opinion, this is the reason why the law ought to err on the side of the victim, because otherwise there is no expectation that my personal -- and perhaps most precious -- rights end where yours begin.
In general, it seems that people should be a bit more honest (rather than impulsive) with their analysis of any given situation.
Everyone keeps focusing on "women dressed provocatively" or getting drunk and assigning blame because she "should not have dressed that way, she should not have gotten drunk...she's partially responsible".
Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.
Will you all same the same thing when a little old lady, sitting in her apartment watching television, gets raped by the intruder who breaks in? Was that granny's fault...was her thick wool nightgown "too revealing" and the perp just could not help himself but rip it off of sexy grandma?
The ONLY person to blame when a crime happens is the criminal. If people want to talk about "taking full responsibility", then the criminal needs to take FULL responsibility for what he/she did. You don't get to pass off the fact that someone else committed a crime on to the victim, in any way, shape, or form.
I've been seeing this term get thrown around a lot with the whole Bill Cosby case going on, but it seems like either:
1. People don't know what this term means, or
2. People use it as a trump card to win a debate.
I think rape is terrible and that it should never happen to anyone, but I also think that some women (OR some men, since we can be raped too) put themselves in bad predicaments leading up to the actual crime. Somehow this makes me a victim blamer. Can someone please explain this? Why is it also wrong for me to think someone is lying about being raped?
The problem is your subjective assessment of "bad predicaments." Maybe you think it's being drunk at a party. Maybe someone else rationalizes this down to taking the bus at night.
The terrorists in Germany believed that just "being a woman" was enough reason to rape. The logic you propose takes the attention off the actual rape to unnecesarily spend mental energy to judge and shame the victim.
I drive everyday even though I know that there are always drunks on the road. Would you blame me for getting hit by a drunk driver? You'd probably not think twice about blaming the drunk who would be considered *the perpetrator.*
As for "not believing the victim," statistics alone say that something like 99.95% of reported rapes to the police actually occurred. Not even touching upon the ethics involved, it's illogic to conclude or suspect that a woman would be in that .05 percent of women.
A post above mine points out all the reasons a victim *might* lie. The reality is, this is very infrequent but the media makes it a big deal when it happens.
.
The belief that a victim may have made poor choices doesn't make you a victim blamer (or more appropriately, a 're-victimizer') so long as such a belief is not used to excuse the behavior of an offender who committed a deliberate act. Getting sufficiently intoxicated so as to pass out may be among the most poor of decisions, but it doesn't entitle another individual to, with intent, take advantage of the situation in any way.
With that being said, I do acknowledge that there exists a percentage of false-positive rape cases.
Before adding onto the above statement, it is important for all to understand that the overwhelming majority of sexual abuse goes unreported and, additionally, is committed by the family, friends, and acquaintances of the victims.
There are multiple types of false-positive rape cases and most often they involve such motivations as regret, revenge, and uncertainty of consent (usually due to prior intoxication). Those specific instances are overwhelmingly a result of selective social indoctrination; particularly that we are raised to believe that the female of our species are inherently a fragile and innocent commodity. Where the woman is presumed to always be the victim by virtue of being a perceptively weaker (and thus inferior) gender. While there can be no argument that men are physically stronger and more prone to aggression, it's simply asinine to conflate, in the blanket sense, such with automatic guilt.
People make bad decisions when they're impaired, and I don't like the idea that intoxicated persons who initiate acts of a sexual nature can later claim themselves a victim. At the same time, and what is far more common, is that I hate the idea that one person's lack of self-control can be construed as a scapegoat for another person's lack of the same (refer to the italicized portion of my post). In my opinion, this is the reason why the law ought to err on the side of the victim, because otherwise there is no expectation that my personal -- and perhaps most precious -- rights end where yours begin.
In general, it seems that people should be a bit more honest (rather than impulsive) with their analysis of any given situation.
Very well said. And I agree with everything you've stated, with the exception of the bolded. As you mentioned, women enjoy a presumption of innocence and fragility in our society. This alone tilts the scale in their favor when an accusation is made. For this reason, I think the law should err on the side of the accused.
As so many of these cases lack evidence and often come down to a he said/she said scenario, it makes it that much more important for women to avoid placing themselves in high-risk situations. That isn't "victim blaming", it's just expecting women to employ common sense.
I've been seeing this term get thrown around a lot with the whole Bill Cosby case going on, but it seems like either:
1. People don't know what this term means, or
2. People use it as a trump card to win a debate.
I think rape is terrible and that it should never happen to anyone, but I also think that some women (OR some men, since we can be raped too) put themselves in bad predicaments leading up to the actual crime. Somehow this makes me a victim blamer. Can someone please explain this? Why is it also wrong for me to think someone is lying about being raped?
I see what you are saying . When someone commits a crime against a person it is wrong. If someone wants to make themselves less likely to be a victim, then personal responsibility comes into play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
I get what you're saying OP, but here's why I don't agree.
The concept of victim blaming is overused as it's an easy argument. This is true. But victim blaming is a real problem as it overlooks the reality of the reason for what happened. It doesn't matter what the victim was wearing, if they were drunk, or where they were when it happened. The rape was done by the rapist; it was his choice.
Let's look at a Bill Cosby example. If a lady meets Bill Cosby and chooses to join him in his hotel room for a drink, is it really her fault for being raped? We can say that had she not gone up there, she wouldn't have been raped. This is technically true. However, had Mr. Cosby chosen not to rape her, she wouldn't have been raped regardless of where she was.
As a woman, if more women used commonsense, it would go a long way in preventing what is being claimed by these women where Bill Cosby was involved. Let's see, if I were a younger female and went to a hotel room to have drinks with a married man, ah, even in my young and naive days, I wouldn't have done that.
We have older people here that use cash and they will open their wallets in line to pay and you see all of these hundred dollar bills. If I follow them out and take their wallet, no it isn't there fault, I would be a criminal but if people want to help avoid being a victim, there are usually some common sense things they can do to minimize the threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevxu
For the rape victim, yes.
But it is not enough if you want to educate women about how to reduce the chance of getting raped. The example has been used of Bill Cosby meeting a woman and inviting her to his room for drink and then he rapes her. Is she the victim of rape. No question about it. And in no way should she have been.
But that means not engaging in risky behavior in the real world....even though in some ideal world a woman "should" be safe in such a situation.
If the aspect of risky behavior is brushed out of the way over and over again, then women will not be as on guard as they should be. Saying that no one should be raped regardless of this or that circumstance is pie-in-the-sky stuff and not very helpful to women in the real world.
A strange male does not invite women to his room "for a drink." There are bars and lounges for that. Every mentally capable female should know that she is there for sex, and this guy is a stranger with who knows what mental wiring or past, and there is no knowing his reaction to a "No" once in the hotel room.
Women should be teaching women, in the real world you do not ever do this...because once you are in that room the guy may not give a fart about the "shoulds" of an ideal world.
Yes, for the woman who has taken this risk and gotten raped, to throw it in her face would be an additional punishment she doesn't need. The rape victim is not going to ever make this mistake again. But if there is going to be such a thing as educating women to help themselves lessen the chances of getting raped, then it has to include: "A strange man does not invite you to his hotel room for "a drink." You are there to have sex. You are putting yourself at an elevated risk of getting raped if you take up such an invitation.
It's not about blaming women. It's living with the real life fact that some men do not care about the "shoulds." And some behaviors increase the risk of running afoul of these types.
Totally. But women ought not to be naively counting on the shoulds of an ideal world to protect them. And this means stressing that in our real world certain decisions and situations ought not to be risked.
Additionally, when you go up to a hotel room with a man, drink and maybe except pills from him and then say you were raped, don't expect to be believed by everyone either. This isn't the 1950s and I just cannot imagine that most women are not aware and men also of the dangers that are out there. The "it won't happen to me" is too often the issue.
Also, if someone is a victim of a crime, don't wait 10 or 20 years to announce it if you want it to seem creditable.
Sure, go ahead and engage in risky behavior and the person that violates you will be wrong and a criminal but you still suffer the consequences.
I would not rob someone because I am not a criminal. But I know that if I do not take precautions to protect myself, I am more likely to get robbed by a criminal. Because, be assured, criminals exist. And no way on this earth will I ever teach my children to NOT lock their doors because that's "victim blaming". That's ridiculous. I will teach them precautions to take to keep them safe. Sometimes precautions aren't enough, and people get robbed, or raped, anyway. But you make it a little less likely by taking precautions.
How does a woman invite a man to rape her? Well, as I understand it, most rape is date rape. Most rape is done by a guy who the girl knows, they go on a date, maybe have something to drink, and the girl goes upstairs with the guy either not thinking, or thinking it won't go very far, or thinking she wants it to go somewhere and then changes her mind. The guy either gets no signals, mixed signals, or gets overcome by the heat of the moment and ignores the signals. So, I think if you want to statistically lessen your chances of getting raped, then don't put yourself in this position, until you are far enough in the relationship that you are absolutely sure that you are wanting to have sex with this person.
I mean, it's pretty logical, right?
And NO WHERE did I ever say she deserved to get raped. YOU said that. No one deserves to get raped. But all girls and women everywhere deserve to receive an appropriate education on how to lessen their chances of getting raped, and how to protect themselves. And if you deny them that education for the sake of being politically correct, then YOU are causing harm.
No one deserves to get hit by a tornado. But gosh darn it you still teach everyone to get underground or away from windows, or get out of the car and into a ditch. You don't tell people "it's okay, just stand there, cause if the tornado kills you it's NOT YOUR FAULT". That's just patently stupid.
Are you seriously comparing a natural disaster to a person who decides to rape another person? You act as if these people are compelled to rape someone as if it is in their nature and can't help it. Where is their accountability and responsibility?
Everyone keeps focusing on "women dressed provocatively" or getting drunk and assigning blame because she "should not have dressed that way, she should not have gotten drunk...she's partially responsible".
Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.
Will you all same the same thing when a little old lady, sitting in her apartment watching television, gets raped by the intruder who breaks in? Was that granny's fault...was her thick wool nightgown "too revealing" and the perp just could not help himself but rip it off of sexy grandma?
The ONLY person to blame when a crime happens is the criminal. If people want to talk about "taking full responsibility", then the criminal needs to take FULL responsibility for what he/she did. You don't get to pass off the fact that someone else committed a crime on to the victim, in any way, shape, or form.
Come on now. A little old granny sitting in her apartment alone is a little different than a woman getting drunk at a pickup bar.
Very well said. And I agree with everything you've stated, with the exception of the bolded. As you mentioned, women enjoy a presumption of innocence and fragility in our society. This alone tilts the scale in their favor when an accusation is made. For this reason, I think the law should err on the side of the accused.
As so many of these cases lack evidence and often come down to a he said/she said scenario, it makes it that much more important for women to avoid placing themselves in high-risk situations. That isn't "victim blaming", it's just expecting women to employ common sense.
I think this is a very good post.
This even came up in a situation as a school principal. A boy was accused of exposing himself to a girl on a school bus on a field trip. The girl claimed that he exposed himself and left his erect penis hanging out of his pants as he walked off the bus and into the destination...even though the 3 chaperones, the bus driver, and 18 other students didn't notice it. And the school system's hearing office actually said to me, "We automatically believe the girls in such cases". Wow, that's justice!
And yes, what many of us are suggesting is what I would suggest of any person in any situation -- be wise, think ahead, take care of yourself and your own safety, and don't put yourself in (as you said) "high-risk situations".
No one is excusing a rapist or molester.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
