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.
There are times I blame the victim in that I don't have much sympathy for them. However a crime has been committed and the criminal should be punished. It should make no difference in prosecution or sentencing.
Walking down certain streets at certain times is stupid, but if you are robbed the robber should pay the penalty. I probably wouldn't feel much sympathy for the victim.
Moderator cut: Insulting If a man works the evening shift and is walking home from work at 11:30 PM and gets robbed at gunpoint, he is certainly no less deserving of sympathy for being robbed than if he worked the day shift and was walking home at 2:30 PM. It's exactly the same for rape. Time of day doesn't deflect blame from the perpetrator, not even by 0.0001%, nor does it make the victim in any way responsible for a violent attack. Anyone has the right to walk home at 2:00 AM (assuming no curfew).
Moderator cut: Insulting If a man works the evening shift and is walking home from work at 11:30 PM and gets robbed at gunpoint, he is certainly no less deserving of sympathy for being robbed than if he worked the day shift and was walking home at 2:30 PM. It's exactly the same for rape. Time of day doesn't deflect blame from the perpetrator, not even by 0.0001%, nor does it make the victim in any way responsible for a violent attack. Anyone has the right to walk home at 2:00 AM (assuming no curfew).
We're not talking about what one has the right to do. Of course everyone has the right to walk home anywhere at any time. Again, we're talking about those who place themselves in high-risk situations. Using your example, if this man walked home late through a crime-ridden neighborhood flashing a Cartier watch and a wad of cash, he certainly has the right to do that, but he's essentially asking to be victimized. And yes, I think he is less deserving of sympathy for that reason.
We're not talking about what one has the right to do. Of course everyone has the right to walk home anywhere at any time. Again, we're talking about those who place themselves in high-risk situations. Using your example, if this man walked home late through a crime-ridden neighborhood flashing a Cartier watch and a wad of cash, he certainly has the right to do that, but he's essentially asking to be victimized. And yes, I think he is less deserving of sympathy for that reason.
But what is the line that we can put blame on victim? Is it just going to a club, drinking at a club, dancing, dancing and drinking, waiting for a cab after the club, going back with a guy from the club, etc.? Then we have to not say well it depends on the case because all cases are vastly different.
There's a difference between rights and probability. The probability that harm will come to you in a crime-ridden area might be higher than in other locales. But just because you choose to walk down the street at 3am in the morning does not give someone the right to mug / rape you. Yes, it may increase the probability of it happening, but the attacker is still 100% wrong for doing so.
I don't understand why there is more vitriol towards the person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who made a poor choice, than there is towards perpetrators who actively seek to cause emotional, physical and financial damage to others.
There's a difference between rights and probability. The probability that harm will come to you in a crime-ridden area might be higher than in other locales. But just because you choose to walk down the street at 3am in the morning does not give someone the right to mug / rape you. Yes, it may increase the probability of it happening, but the attacker is still 100% wrong for doing so.
I don't understand why there is more vitriol towards the person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who made a poor choice, than there is towards perpetrators who actively seek to cause emotional, physical and financial damage to others.
Violett, there isn't more vitriol toward the person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. What there is, is people saying that the victim ought to use some common sense.
Let me give a different example.
I like to go out for walks. Let's say I was still living in the Washington, D.C. area. Would it be more sensible for me to go out for a walk in the most crime-infested part of D.C. (probably somewhere up in NW), or would it be more sensible for me to go for a walk along the National Mall?
Would it be more sensible for me to go on a vacation in Tehran or London?
Would it be more logical for me to lay down for a catnap on the grass in the park or on a railroad track?
The person most responsible for my safety is me making good decisions. If someone harms me, they're still "to blame", but my unwise actions still bring into question my common sense.
Violett, there isn't more vitriol toward the person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. What there is, is people saying that the victim ought to use some common sense.
Let me give a different example.
I like to go out for walks. Let's say I was still living in the Washington, D.C. area. Would it be more sensible for me to go out for a walk in the most crime-infested part of D.C. (probably somewhere up in NW), or would it be more sensible for me to go for a walk along the National Mall?
Would it be more sensible for me to go on a vacation in Tehran or London?
Would it be more logical for me to lay down for a catnap on the grass in the park or on a railroad track?
The person most responsible for my safety is me making good decisions. If someone harms me, they're still "to blame", but my unwise actions still bring into question my common sense.
And by that logic all women should treat every single male as a potential rapist and act accordingly. Women should go to women's only colleges from now on. Never get in a man's car alone. Ever. Never go to a man's house or invite him into your house unless you are engaged to be married (and even then, he could still be a rapist). Ever. Never have a drink in a social setting because it could be tampered with, made stronger than she is used to, or she might have one too many and need to rely on someone else to get her home. No thanks - just tepid water please. Never go on a date alone - always bring a friend for safety. Double dates only until marriage. Never go anywhere alone, even the grocery store, and even then only go during the brightest hours of sunlight. Safety first!
How does that sound to all you fellas out there? Think that might put a little twist in your dating life? Then start changing the culture, and push for stricter and harsher rape sentencing.
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?
Part of the reason it's a problem is that in hindsight, it's always easy to second-guess the victim's decisions, and ask, "Why did you do this? Why did you go there? Why did you wear that? Why did you accept a drink from a stranger?" Hindsight is always 20/20, but when you're in the middle of a situation, you don't have the benefit of hindsight. So for that reason, it's unfair to look back on all the facts of an incident and point to one or two, and say "Here! You should have foreseen this element".
Also, it deflects attention from the criminality of the perpetrator. Why are there so many rapists among college students (many of which rapists, studies have shown, act serially), or among fraternity members, or in society in general? If we blame women, then we lose the opportunity to address the roots of the problem, for example--to examine the way our society raises boys, or whatever we identify as the contributing factors.
And by that logic all women should treat every single male as a potential rapist and act accordingly. Women should go to women's only colleges from now on. Never get in a man's car alone. Ever. Never go to a man's house or invite him into your house unless you are engaged to be married (and even then, he could still be a rapist). Ever. Never have a drink in a social setting because it could be tampered with, made stronger than she is used to, or she might have one too many and need to rely on someone else to get her home. No thanks - just tepid water please. Never go on a date alone - always bring a friend for safety. Double dates only until marriage. Never go anywhere alone, even the grocery store, and even then only go during the brightest hours of sunlight. Safety first!
How does that sound to all you fellas out there? Think that might put a little twist in your dating life? Then start changing the culture, and push for stricter and harsher rape sentencing.
Then the culture and rape laws must be just fine then! No need to change anything!
You see things in life as black OR white, either/or. Things are more complex in the real world.
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.
