Why is telling girls to be careful rape apologistic

[sgtkate]

You may not have been burgled if you'd locked your door; that doesn't mean you are to blame, if you are burgled (when you had your door unlocked). All it means, is there is less chance of it happening, if you do lock your door. That's all. It doesn't mean anything else.

 

The problem is, some people are extrapolating, and concluding that you are to blame because you didn't take preventative measures. The fact that it may not have happened, if you had taken preventative measures, does not equate to a placing of blame on the victim. How can people not see that?

 

Because so often with regards to rape people do blame the victim. She was drunk. She was wearing a short skirt. She was flirting with him. She's slept with half the football team etc.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

All such cases turn on evidence. Whom does the Court believe?

So what does either party- alleged culprit/ alleged victim- put in evidence if intoxication etc. blurs/blanks one's memory?

[Cyclone]

Why are we pandering to people who erroneously make a connection between 1) practical advice that may keep a person safe; and 2) placing the blame on the victim because they may not have followed that advice?

 

Is it better not to give out such advice; because some people lack the mental agility to differentiate between 1) and 2) above?

 

Because it's not erroneous, it happens in the real world and it's detrimental to women's safety and to existing victims state of mind.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 16:52 ----------

 

 

You're clothes make a statement about you- if you go out dressed like a slut...expect to be treated like one.

 

You should be arrested right now. Maybe a few years inside might straighten out your sick head.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 16:54 ----------

 

But the point is we dont just do this for rape we do this for burglery, car theft etc. The police often advise members of the public to lock the doors of their house or car etc. Its stating there are evil people out there and yes the police are doing all they can to deal with them but we still need, unfortunately, to take precautions. Yet you never have anyone criticising the Police for other crime related advice campaigns only with refernece to rape.

 

So why is it pre-victim blaming to advise to take precautions on a night out and not pre-victim blaming to ensure that one locks the house or car door?

 

We don't actually have a problem within society with victims of burglary being blamed.

There IS a real problem with the victims of sexual assault being blamed for the behaviour of the criminal.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 16:55 ----------

 

...only as much as advice telling kids not to take sweets from strangers sets them up to be blamed if they are kidnapped.

 

Do you think a campaign telling children not to take sweets from strangers is victim-blaming?

 

I don't really care one hoot about children and sweets.

 

There is a real problem with blaming the victims of sexual assaults, and campaigns like the ones I've linked to, and attitudes like the ones displayed on this thread are part of the problem.

Did you read the links I provided for you? You asked for evidence and I provided it, you're intending to just ignore it though?

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 16:57 ----------

 

Because so often with regards to rape people do blame the victim. She was drunk. She was wearing a short skirt. She was flirting with him. She's slept with half the football team etc.

 

For example;

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11411745/Judge-brands-rape-victim-foolish-for-drinking-too-much.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html

 

A third of Britons believe a woman who acts flirtatiously is partially or completely to blame for being raped, according to a new study.

More than a quarter also believe a woman is at least partly responsible for being raped if she wears sexy or revealing clothing, or is drunk, the study found.

 

It appears that the 3rd and the quarter are here on SF defending their behaviour.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 16:58 ----------

 

All such cases turn on evidence. Whom does the Court believe?

So what does either party- alleged culprit/ alleged victim- put in evidence if intoxication etc. blurs/blanks one's memory?

 

Do they really. Look at the links I posted. Judges can be misogynistic rape apologists as well, as can 1/3rd of the jury.

[Waldo]

Because it's not erroneous, it happens in the real world and it's detrimental to women's safety and to existing victims state of mind.

 

Of course it's erroneous.

 

Unless you're suggesting that it is correct to mentally make the jump from, taking precautions to ensure your safety, to 'because you didn't take precautions, it's your fault something bad happened to you'.

 

The people who are at fault (in error) are the people who make that connection.

 

Yes, it happens in the real world. Some people do make that connection. The fact that it happens in the real world, does not negate the fact that it is an erroneous extrapolation.

 

I don't understand what are you saying is detrimental to women's safety? Advising them to be more aware of their personal safety? Really? That's detrimental to their safety?

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 17:18 ----------

 

Because so often with regards to rape people do blame the victim. She was drunk. She was wearing a short skirt. She was flirting with him. She's slept with half the football team etc.

 

Yes, some people do do that. Those people need challenging.

[RootsBooster]

I don't really care one hoot about children and sweets.

So you'll willfully ignore a direct comparison rather than give an answer?

 

There is a real problem with blaming the victims of sexual assaults, and campaigns like the ones I've linked to, and attitudes like the ones displayed on this thread are part of the problem.

Did you read the links I provided for you? You asked for evidence and I provided it, you're intending to just ignore it though?

 

Of course there's a problem with victim blaming, campaigns that advise how to reduce the risks are not part of it though.

 

I didn't ignore the links, they just make no difference to your argument.

 

Did they contain wording telling people to do or not do something? Yes

Does that mean that mean that they blame victims? No, why on Earth would it?

 

There's a pattern here which you don't seem to see...

----------------------------------------------------------------

Poster reads: "Reduce the risks of a violent or sexual attack by drinking responsibly and avoiding being alone in dark alleys"

Mr.A: What do you think about that poster?

Mr.B: It's common sense and good advice, if women don't follow it then it's their own fault for being raped

 

Mr.A: What do you think about that poster?

Mr.C: Well, it does sound like common sense but I guess some people wouldn't have it in the forefront of their thoughts when enjoying a night out so it might serve a purpose in reminding people. Overall it's good advice I'd say.

 

Mr.A: What do you think about that poster?

Mr.D: It's victim-blaming

Mr.A: Why is it?

Mr.D: Because people like Mr.B use it as a told-you-so stick to beat victims with

Mr.A: That makes no sense though, that's not an explanation for why the poster is victim-blaming, that's just giving in to Mr.B's twisted perception of rape victims and his misuse of the poster

Mr.D: I don't care, it's victim-blaming and you're defending people like Mr.B

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The irony here, of course, is that while ever people like Mr.D go along with Mr.B's assumption that the poster means it's the victim's fault if they don't follow it's advice, the Mr.D's will be affirming the beliefs of all the Mr.B's out there.

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2015 at 13:17 ----------

 

Of course it's erroneous.

 

Unless you're suggesting that it is correct to mentally make the jump from, taking precautions to ensure your safety, to 'because you didn't take precautions, it's your fault something bad happened to you'.

 

The people who are at fault (in error) are the people who make that connection.

 

Yes, it happens in the real world. Some people do make that connection. The fact that it happens in the real world, does not negate the fact that it is an erroneous extrapolation.

 

I don't understand what are you saying is detrimental to women's safety? Advising them to be more aware of their personal safety? Really? That's detrimental to their safety?

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 17:18 ----------

 

 

Yes, some people do do that. Those people need challenging.

A well written post

Edited April 26, 2015 by RootsBooster

[ronthenekred]

 

Yes, it happens in the real world. Some people do make that connection. The fact that it happens in the real world, does not negate the fact that it is an erroneous extrapolation.

 

Is it erroneous if the general public use the extrapolation as evidence as a 'seemingly' given by the judiciary, police, members of parliament and the press who have great influence on how many think and act out. It's almost as though we don't need the sanction of those in authority to extrapolate, it's mainstream in certain sectors. I could site you many threads alone on here where victims are deemed culpable simply because advice wasn't heeded. "slags n tarts on West st" being one, or "why do women dress like tarts then moan when attacked" or some such combination of all. Those threads fill with misogynist's, bigots and die-hard puritans who are not alone, they are a significant non thinking Red top reading universal factor.

 

I agree with your post btw I just think it naive to think that the lines are definitive when in reality they're not, far from it.

Edited April 25, 2015 by ronthenekred

[Flanker7]

The behaviour of victims does not stop them being the victim nor does it stop the offender being the offender.

 

But, circumstances alter legal penalties.

 

Insurance payouts are less for drivers not wearing their seatbelts. Good safety advice and now a legal obligation.

 

Are you (we) really saying that the rape of a Nun at 2pm on a Sunday in a public park is the same as . . . . (add your own circumstances)?

[Cyclone]

Yes, it really is. The behaviour of the victim doesn't alter anything, the rapist holds 100% of the blame.

[RootsBooster]

The behaviour of victims does not stop them being the victim nor does it stop the offender being the offender.

 

But, circumstances alter legal penalties.

 

Insurance payouts are less for drivers not wearing their seatbelts. Good safety advice and now a legal obligation.

 

Are you (we) really saying that the rape of a Nun at 2pm on a Sunday in a public park is the same as . . . . (add your own circumstances)?

A very dumbly written post

[willman]

Yes, it really is. The behaviour of the victim doesn't alter anything, the rapist holds 100% of the blame.

 

The behaviour of a person can make them not become a victim - or do you doubt that ?

Surely the most important thing is protecting vulnerable people in any circumstance.

Edited April 25, 2015 by willman