Support NeoGAF

[DY_nasty]

It's not loaded at all. Neither remembers anything. She wakes up with a guy she doesn't recognize and remembers nothing. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption. My question is about after that, in a case of he said she said who do you believe? Not in any situation but in that situation.

There is never an easy answer to a situation like that, but at the same time immediately dismissing a claim of that nature does what?

 

[grumble]

Victims can make mistakes and Criminals can make choices. Trying to weigh them against each other like "well this case was 15% her fault for walking out at night and 85% his fault for putting on a mask but THIS case was 45% her fault because they were both drunk and cmon! its a party" is just ridiculous.

What? It's always 100% the rapist's fault.

Any preventative measures the victims might have taken might have let them dodge the bullet in some cases, but it in no way makes it their fault.

 

[Baconsammy]

There is never an easy answer to a situation like that, but at the same time immediately dismissing a claim of that nature does what?

Getting a prosecutor to even take that to court is a near impossible sell, especially since they know there aren't many juries that would convict the guy, which obviously further victimizes the woman (or man in the case of homosexual encounters).

 

[Future]

Victims can make mistakes and Criminals can make choices. Trying to weigh them against each other like "well this case was 15% her fault for walking out at night and 85% his fault for putting on a mask but THIS case was 45% her fault because they were both drunk and cmon! its a party" is just ridiculous.

The only person mentioning equating the two or assigning percentages of guilt is you. The victim is always, plain and simple, a victim. But the hounds shouldn't come out and trample anyone that suggests that the victim made some mistakes that should be avoided in the future. People should be encouraged to take preventative measures when it comes to any crime, rape included. Suggesting this shouldnt be seen as condoning the crime in any way shape or form.

Now of course you could take that to the extreme and mention things like "women shouldn't go out at all??" or some shit. That's not what id consider common sense.

I probably feel so strongly about this because I feel potential victims NEED to be thinking about this shit. I have a little sister, and I hope I didn't sound like I was empowering fucking rapists when I mentioned shit like don't get shit faced drunk around people you don't know or trust, be weary of your surroundings, blah blah.

 

[DY_nasty]

What? It's always 100% the rapist's fault.

Any preventative measures the victims might have taken might have let them dodge the bullet in some cases, but it in no way makes it their fault.

Yeah... that's kinda what I'm saying. That's the point he is trying to make.

Hence the " " and the is ridiculous part.

 

[SapientWolf]

Victims can make mistakes and Criminals can make choices. Trying to weigh them against each other like "well this case was 15% her fault for walking out at night and 85% his fault for putting on a mask but THIS case was 45% her fault because they were both drunk and cmon! its a party" is just ridiculous.

The goal is that no one will be raped. That that goal is achieved is more important than how that goal is achieved. If a rape happens and we're arguing fault then we're discussing failure, which is not what we want. Everyone should take the actions that will minimize the chances of a rape occurring. Not solely men or women or authority figures.

And perpetrators of rape need to be punished for their actions because the blame falls on them. That goes without saying.

 

[DY_nasty]

The only person mentioning equating the two or assigning percentages of guilt is you. The victim is always, plain and simple, a victim. But the hounds shouldn't come out and trample anyone that suggests that the victim made some mistakes that should be avoided in the future. People should be encouraged to take preventative measures when it comes to any crime, rape included. Suggesting this shouldnt be seen as condoning the crime in any way shape or form.

Now of course you could take that to the extreme and mention things like "women shouldn't go out at all??" or some shit. That's not what id consider common sense.

I probably feel so strongly about this because I feel potential victims NEED to be thinking about this shit. I have a little sister, and I hope I didn't sound like I was empowering fucking rapists when I mentioned shit like don't get shit faced drunk around people you don't know or trust, be weary of your surroundings, blah blah.

You're the one that came out and said For some reason it's hard for people to accept a middle ground: you should be able to mention the victim made some mistakes that led to disaster, while also feeling sorry for the victim and condemning rapists as a whole

Those two things aren't remotely on the same level. Its ridiculous. There is no middle ground.

 

[tearsofash]

I'm not sure I understand.

All of the time "no means no" and "it doesn't matter what you wear." In this city, it's different? Or is it not different, but everyone in the city is trying to deny it?

 

[Pollux]

There is never an easy answer to a situation like that, but at the same time immediately dismissing a claim of that nature does what?

I'm not advocating dismissing it. I'm asking how would you attempt to determine what actually happened in that situation. That's why there's no right answer...thus the reason it was an exam question.

 

[toxicgonzo]

So, what did Devolu get banned for?

Was wondering the same thing...

 

[DY_nasty]

I'm not advocating dismissing it. I'm asking how would you attempt to determine what actually happened in that situation. That's why there's no right answer...thus the reason it was an exam question.

The "assumes" bit is a huge problem in that question though. Maybe the wording of the question overall is different, but that changes everything about it.

 

[Baconsammy]

I'm not advocating dismissing it. I'm asking how would you attempt to determine what actually happened in that situation. That's why there's no right answer...thus the reason it was an exam question.

What was the question? If a drunk woman never explicitly says yes or no, goes to a drunk guys room and they have sex? Is the question: "Is that rape?"

 

[Slavik81]

If you're so far removed from the threat of rape that all you have are stupid ass comparisons to property theft there is nothing to discuss.

Unfortunately, I think if you want to convince igorant people to support your position, you may need to address the arguments that come from ignorance. Future made his case very clearly, and showed that he could be reasonable. Giving up on him as hopeless means you're also giving up on almost everyone else who doesn't immediately understand.

I've heard decent agruments as to why it's a poor comparison, rooted in misunderstanding. There is a case to be made and it's worth making, though I'm certainly not the right person to do it.

Not that I don't agree with Future that the quality of the discussion is usually terrible. People on all sides often fail to make a coherent argument, and misrepresent the things said by their opponents. I respect a person who makes a good argument. An ordered chain of thought, even if it arrives at the wrong answer, is better in the long term than just being right by happenstance.

 

[Pollux]

The "assumes" bit is a huge problem in that question though. Maybe the wording of the question overall is different, but that changes everything about it.

The fact pattern was 1.5 pages long I summarized it. Not very well apparently.

What was the question? If a drunk woman never explicitly says yes or no, goes to a drunk guys room and they have sex? Is the question: "Is that rape?"

Her room, and pretty much.

 

[Baconsammy]

Was wondering the same thing...

Possibly for constantly insulting other people that are expressing their own opinions? Assuming if it was generated from this thread. Could quite possibly be from somewhere else. It's definitely hard to create a dialogue in a thread like this one if civility goes out the window. Happened yesterday too (I was part of that unfortunately).

The fact pattern was 1.5 pages long I summarized it. Not very well apparently.

Her room, and pretty much.

In many states it's rape if the man was sober enough to understand that the woman was too incapacitated to make an informed decision herself. If not, it will never go to court. The biggest problem in that scenario is proving just how drunk he/she was.

 

[Future]

You're the one that came out and said For some reason it's hard for people to accept a middle ground: you should be able to mention the victim made some mistakes that led to disaster, while also feeling sorry for the victim and condemning rapists as a whole

Those two things aren't remotely on the same level. Its ridiculous. There is no middle ground.

What I meant by middle ground was not that they were equally at fault. The victim isn't EVER at fault. Even in the robbery example, you wouldn't be at fault if you left all doors unlocked and got robbed. The guilty party is always the person that committed the crime.

The middle ground was allowed acceptance of the discussion that the victim did in fact make some bad decisions.. Saying this, as I believe has been mentioned in almost every one of my posts, should not be seen as empowering the crime itself.

 

[DY_nasty]

What I meant by middle ground was not that they were equally at fault. The victim isn't EVER at fault. Even in the robbery example, you wouldn't be at fault if you left all doors unlocked and got robbed. The guilty party is always the person that committed the crime.

The middle ground was allowed acceptance of the discussion that the victim did in fact make some bad decisions.. Saying this, as I believe has been mentioned in almost every one of my posts, should not be seen as empowering the crime itself.

And its completely off to use the term "middle ground" to describe that.

 

[Karkador]

What I meant by middle ground was not that they were equally at fault. The victim isn't EVER at fault. Even in the robbery example, you wouldn't be at fault if you left all doors unlocked and got robbed. The guilty party is always the person that committed the crime.

Using your same example: Just because you're not calling it "blame" or "fault" doesn't mean it doesn't feel that way when you tell people to "lock their fucking doors" if they get robbed.

 

[Shouta]

The problem with mentioning mistakes right now is that it's heavily linked to the blame argument when the intent is usually as a separate. It's almost unavoidable, in fact. It's very hard to express the idea that a mistake that one makes is not their fault because of this. I believe this is in part due to the approach in thinking and the analogies used. I don't think most examples that have been used express the same situational details that occur as a part of rape cases. As such, the argument doesn't really portray the issue properly and as result, gets brushed off.

 

[Gaborn]

What I meant by middle ground was not that they were equally at fault. The victim isn't EVER at fault. Even in the robbery example, you wouldn't be at fault if you left all doors unlocked and got robbed. The guilty party is always the person that committed the crime.

The middle ground was allowed acceptance of the discussion that the victim did in fact make some bad decisions.. Saying this, as I believe has been mentioned in almost every one of my posts, should not be seen as empowering the crime itself.

the problem is that in discussions like this so much attention is paid to the victim that the victimizer often gets over looked. Frankly I find it odd that people seem focused on the victims "mistakes" rather than the person that raped and why they did so and what can be done to reduce it that would affect the rapist rather than their victim.

Edit: Shouta beat me to it.

 

[Baconsammy]

1. B and G go to a party. B's with his friends, and G is with her friends. They both get black out drunk. On the way into the dorm building they both inhabit they bump into each other and G drunkenly invites B back to her room. They have sex. They wake up the next morning and neither remembers anything. G assumes she's been raped. Has a rape occurred? (Question on my midterm last semester)

The question is not remotely loaded and is addressed in many states' rape statutes. After reading some state's statutes, my answer is that it's not a rape if they're both black-out drunk. And oddly enough there's instances noted where the male in that scenario was sure he was the victim. What was the answer given by your professor?

 

[DY_nasty]

The question is not remotely loaded and is addressed in many states' rape statutes. After reading some state's statutes, my answer is that it's not a rape if they're both black-out drunk. And oddly enough there's instances noted where the male in that scenario was sure he was the victim. What was the answer given by your professor?

Its loaded with "assume"

As in "not a claim"

If the question was 1.5 pages long, then I'm sure its a lot more specific than that.

 

[Vermillion]

Using your same example: Just because you're not calling it "blame" or "fault" doesn't mean it doesn't feel that way when you tell people to "lock their fucking doors" if they get robbed.

It's telling them prior to them getting robbed, not after.

EDIT:
I'm sure we've agreed that there are preventative measures that one can take to avoid bodily harm already. But that we shouldn't increase the teaching of preventative measures, and instead focus on getting people to stop raping.

 

[Baconsammy]

Its loaded with "assume"

As in "not a claim"

If the question was 1.5 pages long, then I'm sure its a lot more specific than that.

If she can't remember anything (and he can't either) all she can do is assume what happened, and if her intent that night was to never have sex, the logical assumption is she was raped. The problem is that he can make the same assumption himself, but neither have a chance in court since they were both (in this example) black-out drunk/incapacitated, and thus couldn't judge the other's intent/consent.

I want to know what the answer on the test was now. Come back.

 

[Pollux]

The question is not remotely loaded and is addressed in many states' rape statutes. After reading some state's statutes, my answer is that it's not a rape if they're both black-out drunk. And oddly enough there's instances noted where the male in that scenario was sure he was the victim. What was the answer given by your professor?

We had to apply a state statute and the model penal code. With the MPC it wasn't rape, and I forget which state statute she gave us but that one was more ambiguous and could go either way.

Best part of the question, on a side note, was when G started freaking out upon waking up, B woke up and hastily got dressed and ran out of the room b/c she was freaking out. On the way out he busts into the stairwell, knocks down G's grandmother who just reached the top of the stairs causing her to fall and die. Needless to say G had a very 24 hours.

Edit: I'll try and find the answer she actually gave out.

Its loaded with "assume"

As in "not a claim"

If the question was 1.5 pages long, then I'm sure its a lot more specific than that.

That was only part of the question, there was other crazy ass shit going on as well...like B killing G's grandmother.

 

[DY_nasty]

If she can't remember anything (and he can't either) all she can do is assume what happened, and if her intent that night was to never have sex, the logical assumption is she was raped. The problem is that he can make the same assumption himself, but neither have a chance in court since they were both (in this example) black-out drunk/incapacitated, and thus couldn't judge the other's intent/consent.

I want to know what the answer on the test was now. Come back.

Now you're just assuming that he correctly summarized a page and a half into 3 lines - even after he said that he didn't include all the details.

But sure. Keep going.

 

[Baconsammy]

Now you're just assuming that he correctly summarized a page and a half into 3 lines - even after he said that he didn't include all the details.

But sure. Keep going.

I'm going with what he gave us. I could choose to be belligerent or I could engage him and his question in a civil manner. I chose to be civil.

As for the 2nd part of the question, knocking down the grandmother. Well, you lost me there. That just makes the entire scenario seem rather silly.

 

[DY_nasty]

I'm going with what he gave us. I could choose to be belligerent or I could engage him and his question in a civil manner. I chose to be civil.

As for the 2nd part of the question, knocking down the grandmother. Well, you lost me there. That just makes the entire scenario seem rather silly.

belligerent over what?

 

[Mumei]

I think a lot of guys honestly, truly overestimate how many situations feel "comfortable" for many women, especially those who have a history of abuse (of themselves or people they knew growing up.) I've known more than one woman who (quite reasonably, frankly) found almost any social situation with multiple men, men they didn't know, alcohol, socialization at night, socialization in public, etc. uncomfortable in exactly this fashion because of their own history with sexual assault or abuse. "Don't participate in situations that make you uncomfortable" often means "don't go out with friends, don't date, don't stay late at work, don't walk in your own neighborhood, etc."

I was thinking about this while mowing, and it reminded me of a passage I read. So just by way of illustration on the subject of not being able to see a situation from someone else's perspective:

Another study of third to fifth grade students found that the majority of both boys and girls had equally experienced sexual harassment. After viewing twelve different vignettes, the girls were more likely to perceive some of the sexual harassment in the vignettes as frightening, yet fewer than 20 percent of the boys indicated they felt the victim in the vignette would be afraid. Girls' self-esteem lowered in response to watching the vignettes - but boys' did not. Though none of the vignettes included explicit verbal or physical threats, the girls tacitly understood that the boys in the vignette were more powerful and might harm the girls. Even at this young age, girls recognized the power differential due to gender.​

And while it might be comforting to think, "Well they are elementary school students; of course they have trouble with that," I think that if you read, say, this topic, you'll see the same essential lack of empathy or inability to see things from someone else's perspective in many of the adult men posting on NeoGAF as you see in the 9 - 11 year old boys in that study.

Then I can guarantee you are not in a position to need to be vigilant in the fashion or to the degree that we are discussing here.

Definitely.

On a somewhat related note, I remember when I first came out and realized just how much of my time had been spent obsessing over people not finding out. I hadn't realized how all-consuming it was in terms of being a part of my inner mental life and how free I felt after shedding it - and how I can feel myself moving back into that mental space when I am around people who I am unsure about. I can't imagine what it's like for people in this documentary or in a similar small town who have to live with that for so much of their lives.

And to an even greater extent, I can't imagine being a racial minority or a woman and having to maintain that sort of hyper-vigilance for years longer than I ever had to. I don't think anyone who claims that they maintain constant vigilance and don't feel exhausted and drained by it know what it's like.

When asked, rapists could define rape in a way that conveniently excludes them, not necessarily because they're ignorant of the harm they've caused but because they don't want to feel guilty about it or acquire a bad reputation.

Also, in my post, I was mainly discussing rapists who deny that it's rape to have sex with a woman who's denied them consent or hasn't physically put up "much" of a fight or who is drunk/passed out and can't give consent.

I don't think that's it. When you have 16 - 20 percent willing to rape if they could get away with it, but 36 percent to 44 percent willing to "force a woman to have sex" if they could get away with it, that suggests to me that understanding the meaning of terms is a problem. If simply educating more men that "rape = forcing someone to have sex" could mean that a significant chunk of that 36 - 44 percent goes away, that's a huge improvement.

It might be possible that some of this is just post-hoc definitions that exclude themselves, but I think it's more likely that they actually don't think of these things as rape and that is why they are doing them.

 

[Pollux]

I'm going with what he gave us. I could choose to be belligerent or I could engage him and his question in a civil manner. I chose to be civil.

As for the 2nd part of the question, knocking down the grandmother. Well, you lost me there. That just makes the entire scenario seem rather silly.

Which is the point of law school exams, every single one I've taken has the most absurd fact patterns I have ever heard.

For example, this one has rape so it's mildly applicable to the thread:

Two police officers, Alan Key and Bernie Stone, have served as partners in the City Police Department (CPD) for 10 years. They have often been tempted by offers from various criminals to pay them off for their silence or their willingness to overlook certain criminal activities, but have always stood firm. Finally, one day when Officer Key is especially stressed over the sudden jump in his mortgage payment, Lou Slivin offers him $ 10,000 to “protect” Lou’s prostitution operation in Downtown City. Key says he will consider the offer. But, he says, “I don’t do anything without my partner – if Bernie’s in, I’m in and if Bernie’s out, no deal.” Lou says he will give Key a day to think about it. The next day, Key and Stone turn up at Lou’s table at the Downtown Diner and Key says, “We’ll take the money.” Lou gives Key an envelope containing $ 10,000 and the two officers leave the diner.
The next day, Lou grabs a young woman, Wanda, who is standing in front of the bus station late one night wearing a short silver skirt and high heeled boots, and pulls her into his car. He says to her, “You look like you have nowhere to go and I have somewhere for you to earn me and you some money.” She says, “I’m not interested and I can look after myself, thanks,” and gives him a shove. Lou slaps her hard in the face and she slumps back in the seat, resigned to the situation. Lou takes her back to the Diner, where she sits in a booth adjacent to his. When Carl comes in and sits at Lou’s table, Lou says, “I got someone for you – it’ll be $ 100.” Carl pays Lou and leaves, with Wanda following behind him. They go to an apartment above the diner, where they begin to engage in sexual intercourse. They do not know that a taxi driver named Travis has been watching Lou for some time and is disgusted by his treatment of young women like Wanda. Travis, himself a victim of child abuse, has been following Lou for weeks, imagining how he will take revenge for all the young women he has exploited and hurt. He has also followed Wanda and Carl to the apartment and while they are busy, he loads a gun and puts on a bulletproof vest. Suddenly, he bursts into the room and yells, “You are an animal!” He aims his gun and fires, killing Carl. Wanda runs from the room and frantically dials 911, reporting the circumstances. Then she runs down to the Diner to tell Lou.

In response to the 911 call, a police car arrives at the Diner, and at the very same moment, Travis bursts in, panting and with eyes bulging maniacally. He points his gun at Lou and says, “You deserve to die, you pig!” Lou dives under the table and pulls out a weapon of his own. With his arm trembling, he aims at Travis but the shot goes wide and hits a customer, Earl, killing him. Just then, Officer Stone says, “Freeze!” and Travis replies, in a confrontational tone, “Are you talking to me?” Officer Stone fires at Travis and the bullet enters a barely perceptible gap in the Kevlar material of his bulletproof vest, killing him. Lou seizes the opportunity to run, calling out “Thanks, boys!” to the two officers. He jumps in his car and speeds away, but the officers, afraid of their scheme becoming public, decide to chase him. As Lou turns the corner at a busy intersection, going perhaps 50 MPH, the officers in pursuit lose control of the police cruiser and it skids onto the sidewalk, killing a pedestrian, Pierre.
City is in State, and State has a law that provides “Whoever manufactures or distributes defective bulletproof vests [defined elsewhere in the State Penal Code as “garments designed primarily to protect the wearer from injury by gunfire”] shall be punishable by a term of 1 year in prison.”
OF WHAT OFFENSES IS EACH OF THE ACTORS GUILTY?
HOW WOULD YOUR ANALYSIS DIFFER IF THIS WERE A MODEL PENAL CODE JURISDICTION?

One of her exams from a few years ago.

 

[Baconsammy]

The non-lawyer in me tells me the story sucks because Wanda would never run to the guy that just kidnapped her for help. But I get why your test questions are so messed up. Because messed up stuff is going to happen.

 

[Pollux]

The non-lawyer in me tells me the story sucks because Wanda would never run to the guy that just kidnapped her for help.

Well it's not supposed to be a good story, it's just there so the Prof. can shoehorn as many random ass crimes and events-that-might-be-crimes-but-really-aren't-so-she-can-trick-you into a couple page long story. Makes the exam less stressful when you can start off by chuckling at the absurdity of the situation.

 

[Mumei]

The analogy was ANY crime. The victims can make mistakes that lead to crimes being committed against them. Saying so should not empower the comitter of the crime. Saying so should not diminish the severity of the crime. I suppose this is the cold reality that some people have a hard time accepting, which I'd say is pretty damn unfortunate.

The analogy towards any crime does not work because "any crime" does not have the same history of blaming victim for what happened to them. When the author of that passage I quoted said "What's wrong with the date-rape debate is that until recently men were not included in the discussion," he could have simply said "What's wrong with the rape debate is that until recently men were not included in the discussion."

We have literally had decades upon decades (and before that, no discussion at all) of the discussion being exclusively about what women can do to protect themselves, combined with a cultural narrative about rape that explicitly blamed women for what happened to them and viewed the rape as something that was a shameful event for her. These same things that are used as "tips for prevention" are the same things that were used to explicitly blame women for mistakes that got them raped.

So when we have a topic that has an OP that is literally filled to the brim with examples of rape myths and rape culture and gives a prime opportunity for talking about the attitudes that make people excuse rape, refuse to identify certain things as rape, explicitly blame the victim, make them seemingly incapable of of recognizing rape, or place concerns about the impact of a rape charge on the accused above justice for the victim, and some people's first impulse is to try to start a discussion about how women need to be more responsible? I think that's offensive. Even if you mean it with the very best of intentions, it feeds into a cultural narrative that has been going on since long since any of us were alive about rape being a shameful event that the woman is responsible for whether you mean it like that or not.

And despite that history, despite the fact that we're in a topic that could hardly be more tailor-made for a discussion about larger cultural and social narratives and attiudes, we cannot even have a discussion about those subjects last a full page before the prevention people are back trying to make the conversation about where women need to be better again. That's what's frustrating about this topic.

Alternatively, here's how the discussion appears to me (long-term):

forever and ever: no discussion about rape
recently: "Rape is horrible, but also shameful for the victim and reflects badly on her.

now:

"Well maybe we should talk about men"

"Okay, rape is bad - now here is how women can protect themselves!"

"Yeah but shouldn't we talk about why men think this is okay"

"We all know rape is bad, let's talk about how women can protect themselves"

"Well we've done that for decades now, so I think we've pretty much run the meter out on that conversation..."

"Yeah, but women shouldn't be walking home with strangers or getting drunk!"

"Okay but even if women are saint-like in their devotion to personal safety, they'll still be vulnerable many times in their lives"

"Women should also make sure they aren't jogging alone or drinking with people they don't trust!"

"Well that won't protect women against the vast majority of rapes..."

Etc.

There seems to be a concerted effort to keep the subject about where women can do better, and if it isn't intentional it certainly looks like it.

 

[Arment]

There seems to be a concerted effort to keep the subject about where women can do better, and if it isn't intentional it certainly looks like it.

On the other side of the coin you have what looks to be a "educate the potential rapists!" scenario. As if people who are raping other people don't realize it's wrong. What possible constructive conversation could we have about that? It's like telling a thief that stealing is bad. Another bad analogy probably, but it's the best I can come up with.

 

[Timedog]

If we really want to protect women, we could just create a map and pass it around of places women shouldn't go at night. There's probably places they shouldn't go during the day too. Also places they are allowed to go as long as they have a male bodyguard err, chaperone with them. And you know what, if we REALLY wanted to protect them than (much like the seatbelt and helmet law comparisons made in this thread) we'd create a legal framework that punished them for disobeying. Women that don't have any guy friends? Not allowed to leave the house. It's for their own good!

You want to move to a new city to advance your career? Not if you have to be outside your apartment at any time after dusk. If you have to catch the train ride home at night, hey, you made a "poor decision". I mean, it's cool that you want to do something different or experience something new, but it's only allowed if you have a boyfriend to watch over you any time you leave the house. Only a "stupid idiot" would do differently.

Let's be realistic here, women aren't aware of these preventative measures already because they haven't been discussed and passed around and also used to victim blame since the dawn of time. Regardless of whether we choose to ban "stupid idiot" behavior from women, or just make them feel bad for putting themselves in any sort of situation where they could ever be victimized, women just don't know the dangers of real life! They don't know that it's dangerous to walk alone at night, or that its possible for someone to slip something into their drink, or that they could be raped by men they do or do not know, or that pepper spray could possibly stop an attacker. Us men are the experts on these preventative measures, if only someone would finally tell women about them! If only they knew!

If only they knew...then we could finally have a dialogue about the people actually doing something wrong.

 

[Mumei]

On the other side of the coin you have what looks to be a "educate the men!" scenario. As if people who are raping other people don't realize it's wrong. What possible constructive conversation could we have about that? It's like telling a thief that stealing is bad. Another bad analogy probably, but it's the best I can come up with.

Well, if you read my other posts about precisely this subject on this page, perhaps you will see!

Edit!

In particular, 517, 522, and 579.

 

[Arment]

Well, if you read my other posts about precisely this subject on this page, perhaps you will see!

I'm coming in on the tail end, sorry :|

I edited my post to be neutral, because a pet peeve I have is that rape is almost solely always considered a man on woman thing. It might be disproportionate to that sub-group, but it seems insensitive nonetheless.

 

[Mumei]

I'm coming in on the tail end, sorry :|

No worries~

I edited my post to be neutral, because another pet peeve I have is that rape is almost solely always considered a man on woman thing.

It almost always is - outside of the context of prison rape, which deserves its own topic - an issue of men raping women, and historically that's where the problem has been. Women raping men is just as bad, but I don't think that the issues are quite the same as far as history and narratives go.

 

[staticneuron]

We have literally had decades upon decades (and before that, no discussion at all) of the discussion being exclusively about what women can do to protect themselves, combined with a cultural narrative about rape that explicitly blamed women for what happened to them and viewed the rape as something that was a shameful event for her. These same things that are used as "tips for prevention" are the same things that were used to explicitly blame women for mistakes that got them raped.

So when we have a topic that has an OP that is literally filled to the brim with examples of rape myths and rape culture and gives a prime opportunity for talking about the attitudes that make people excuse rape, refuse to identify certain things as rape, explicitly blame the victim, make them seemingly incapable of of recognizing rape, or place concerns about the impact of a rape charge on the accused above justice for the victim, and some people's first impulse is to try to start a discussion about how women need to be more responsible? I think that's offensive. Even if you mean it with the very best of intentions, it feeds into a cultural narrative that has been going on since long since any of us were alive about rape being a shameful event that the woman is responsible for whether you mean it like that or not.

And despite that history, despite the fact that we're in a topic that could hardly be more tailor-made for a discussion about larger cultural and social narratives and attiudes, we cannot even have a discussion about those subjects last a full page before the prevention people are back trying to make the conversation about where women need to be better again. That's what's frustrating about this topic.

I think that it normally boils down to the situation. An attack is an attack and no one can really defend the attacker or blame the victim.

What gets people in a tizzy are those gray situations in which the encounter seems "almost" mutual but turns out it really isn't.

Because rape has VERY serious consequences in the legal sense, it always gets discussed about at what point a misinterpretation of intent becomes a willful act.

 

[Gaborn]

I think that it normally boils down to the situation. An attack is an attack and no one can really defend the attacker or blame the victim.

What gets people in a tizzy are those gray situations in which the encounter seems "almost" mutual but turns out it really isn't.

Because rape has VERY serious consequences in the legal sense, it always gets discussed about at what point a misinterpretation of intent becomes a willful act.

the problem it seems to me though is that the "misinterpretation" always is perceived as coming from something the woman DID or WORE or SAID. It's on the woman essentially to prove she didn't "deserve" it judging from some people's reactions.

 

[Karkador]

If we really want to protect women, we could just create a map and pass it around of places women shouldn't go at night. There's probably places they shouldn't go during the day too. Also places they are allowed to go as long as they have a male bodyguard err, chaperone with them. And you know what, if we REALLY wanted to protect them than (much like the seatbelt and helmet law comparisons made in this thread) we'd create a legal framework that punished them for disobeying. Women that don't have any guy friends? Not allowed to leave the house. It's for their own good!

You want to move to a new city to advance your career? Not if you have to be outside your apartment at any time after dusk. If you have to catch the train ride home at night, hey, you made a "poor decision". I mean, it's cool that you want to do something different or experience something new, but it's only allowed if you have a boyfriend to watch over you any time you leave the house. Only a "stupid idiot" would do differently.

Let's be realistic here, women aren't aware of these preventative measures already because they haven't been discussed and passed around and also used to victim blame since the dawn of time. Regardless of whether we choose to ban "stupid idiot" behavior from women, or just make them feel bad for putting themselves in any sort of situation where they could ever be victimized, women just don't know the dangers of real life! They don't know that it's dangerous to walk alone at night, or that its possible for someone to slip something into their drink, or that they could be raped by men they do or do not know, or that pepper spray could possibly stop an attacker. Us men are the experts on these preventative measures, if only someone would finally tell women about them! If only they knew!

If only they knew...then we could finally have a dialogue about the people actually doing something wrong.

Quoted because it bears repeating

 

[Redford]

Sorry, can someone give me a summary of the main arguments that are clashing here? Still reading through this.

 

[Pollux]

If we really want to protect women, we could just create a map and pass it around of places women shouldn't go at night. There's probably places they shouldn't go during the day too. Also places they are allowed to go as long as they have a male bodyguard err, chaperone with them. And you know what, if we REALLY wanted to protect them than (much like the seatbelt and helmet law comparisons made in this thread) we'd create a legal framework that punished them for disobeying. Women that don't have any guy friends? Not allowed to leave the house. It's for their own good!

You want to move to a new city to advance your career? Not if you have to be outside your apartment at any time after dusk. If you have to catch the train ride home at night, hey, you made a "poor decision". I mean, it's cool that you want to do something different or experience something new, but it's only allowed if you have a boyfriend to watch over you any time you leave the house. Only a "stupid idiot" would do differently.

Let's be realistic here, women aren't aware of these preventative measures already because they haven't been discussed and passed around and also used to victim blame since the dawn of time. Regardless of whether we choose to ban "stupid idiot" behavior from women, or just make them feel bad for putting themselves in any sort of situation where they could ever be victimized, women just don't know the dangers of real life! They don't know that it's dangerous to walk alone at night, or that its possible for someone to slip something into their drink, or that they could be raped by men they do or do not know, or that pepper spray could possibly stop an attacker. Us men are the experts on these preventative measures, if only someone would finally tell women about them! If only they knew!

If only they knew...then we could finally have a dialogue about the people actually doing something wrong.

Here's a wonderful case study to see how this works in the real world.

 

[Dead Man]

I was thinking about this while mowing, and it reminded me of a passage I read. So just by way of illustration on the subject of not being able to see a situation from someone else's perspective:

Another study of third to fifth grade students found that the majority of both boys and girls had equally experienced sexual harassment. After viewing twelve different vignettes, the girls were more likely to perceive some of the sexual harassment in the vignettes as frightening, yet fewer than 20 percent of the boys indicated they felt the victim in the vignette would be afraid. Girls' self-esteem lowered in response to watching the vignettes - but boys' did not. Though none of the vignettes included explicit verbal or physical threats, the girls tacitly understood that the boys in the vignette were more powerful and might harm the girls. Even at this young age, girls recognized the power differential due to gender.​

And while it might be comforting to think, "Well they are elementary school students; of course they have trouble with that," I think that if you read, say, this topic, you'll see the same essential lack of empathy or inability to see things from someone else's perspective in many of the adult men posting on NeoGAF as you see in the 9 - 11 year old boys in that study.

When I figured out how threatening I am to my sister just becuase I am a male it was one of the most depressing days of my life. I think a lot of men don't get that difference that is described in the study there, or if they do they get offended by it and angry.

 

[grumble]

the problem it seems to me though is that the "misinterpretation" always is perceived as coming from something the woman DID or WORE or SAID. It's on the woman essentially to prove she didn't "deserve" it judging from some people's reactions.

Do you mean deserve as in was the cause of forced sexual intercourse? Or to prove that the intercourse was non consensual?

We like in a positive proof legal system. If someone is accused of a crime, they need to be shown to have done it, not the other way around. I understand the difficulties around proving that.

 

[Gaborn]

Do you mean deserve as in was the cause of forced sexual intercourse? Or to prove that the intercourse was non consensual?

We like in a positive proof legal system. If someone is accused of a crime, they need to be shown to have done it, not the other way around. I understand the difficulties around proving that.

what I mean is that the "misinterpretations" are always the result of the woman's actions etc. and that there seems to be a default assumption that if these characteristics are present it lessens the man's responsibility for the rape. That in some way it would be "relevant" what a woman was wearing or... really anything that "contributed" to the rape as perceived from the victim's characteristics.

Read staticneuron's post again:

I think that it normally boils down to the situation. An attack is an attack and no one can really defend the attacker or blame the victim.

What gets people in a tizzy are those gray situations in which the encounter seems "almost" mutual but turns out it really isn't.

Because rape has VERY serious consequences in the legal sense, it always gets discussed about at what point a misinterpretation of intent becomes a willful act.

At what point in his post is the issue what the rapist did rather than the victim?

 

[PairOfFilthySocks]

When the criminal is being prosecuted, what the victim did when the crime was committed should only be relevant for one thing; to let the judge find out just what the fuck happened. Claiming the victim's actions as 'wrong' or 'foolish' is total bullshit at that time since it implies fault on the part of the victim. I know people want folks to be aware of the danger, but a rape case shouldn't be used as a pedestal to use the victim as an example of using poor judgement. Yet whenever a rape case comes along, people are so damn quick to analyze what the victim did. The criminal is the one being prosecuted after all.

Basically, what I'm saying is, save the "what could the victim have done" stuff for awareness campaigns and whatnot, instead of swaying opinions at the time of prosecution.

 

[Redford]

When the criminal is being prosecuted, what the victim did when the crime was committed should only be relevant for one thing; to let the judge find out just what the fuck happened. Claiming the victim's actions as 'wrong' or 'foolish' is total bullshit at that time since it implies fault on the part of the victim. I know people want folks to be aware of the danger, but a rape case shouldn't be used as a pedestal to use the victim as an example of using poor judgement. Yet whenever a rape case comes along, people are so damn quick to analyze what the victim did. The criminal is the one being prosecuted after all.

It seems to me that people view rape as an unstoppable phenomena committed by faceless criminals, which isn't necessarily the case in the former and certainly not the latter. That seems to have been the idea behind a bunch of posts earlier in this thread; that rape is inevitable and something that should just be coped with precaution. (which is not at all sufficient)

Personally, I don't think the victim should be at all responsible. It will colour my opinion on them if it is clear they were being careless, but obviously that should not deserve a life-shattering experience, nor especially legal chastising.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Let's just make a list of what preventive measures that individual women can take and get it over with.

Once we've listed all that, we can move onto the more interesting topic of what else can be done to lower rape rates.

 

[filler]

If we really want to protect women, we could just create a map and pass it around of places women shouldn't go at night. There's probably places they shouldn't go during the day too. Also places they are allowed to go as long as they have a male bodyguard err, chaperone with them. And you know what, if we REALLY wanted to protect them than (much like the seatbelt and helmet law comparisons made in this thread) we'd create a legal framework that punished them for disobeying. Women that don't have any guy friends? Not allowed to leave the house. It's for their own good!

You want to move to a new city to advance your career? Not if you have to be outside your apartment at any time after dusk. If you have to catch the train ride home at night, hey, you made a "poor decision". I mean, it's cool that you want to do something different or experience something new, but it's only allowed if you have a boyfriend to watch over you any time you leave the house. Only a "stupid idiot" would do differently.

Let's be realistic here, women aren't aware of these preventative measures already because they haven't been discussed and passed around and also used to victim blame since the dawn of time. Regardless of whether we choose to ban "stupid idiot" behavior from women, or just make them feel bad for putting themselves in any sort of situation where they could ever be victimized, women just don't know the dangers of real life! They don't know that it's dangerous to walk alone at night, or that its possible for someone to slip something into their drink, or that they could be raped by men they do or do not know, or that pepper spray could possibly stop an attacker. Us men are the experts on these preventative measures, if only someone would finally tell women about them! If only they knew!

If only they knew...then we could finally have a dialogue about the people actually doing something wrong.

Hi Devolution!