Rape blame

Ok can a girl be partially blamed for rape? Yes, but only through deliberetly placing herself in that sitatuion, so in other words if she choses to increase the chances of it happening by ignoring the measures to decrease or prevent it happening.

Heres an analogy. I buy a brand new convertivle Mercedes and drive it around a very rough area which i know has a high grand theft auto rate. So I park it in a very shady back alley and leave it unlocked with the keys inside. If I return later and its been stolen am I not partially responabile for my car being stolen?

However if I was driving the same car. Parked it anywhere and it got stolen I wouldnt be partially to blame. Its bad luck.


Now lets put this idea to females.

If a girl is walking home late and just gets raped shes not to partially blame I say. its bad luck.

But take this ACTUAL EXAMPLE OF A GIRL IN MY SCHOOL.

The woods near our school were off limits. Recently a man in a white van was seen approaching girls and a rape happened in these woods round about the same time. The warnings could not be made clearer and were practically drilled into every students heads. DON'T GO IN THE WOODS BY YOURSELF! RAPES HAPPEN THERE!

A girl walks through the woods by herself late one evening after school. It is winter and is dark. I wont tell you what happened to her, but in this circumstance where she has deliberetly gone against warnings and if she did get raped is she not to partially blame?

Saying girls cannot be partially blamed for rapes when they chose to ignore warnings is like saying drivers cant be partially blamed for killing themselves if they ignore the "DANGER BRIDGE OUT" signs.

The girl isnt any more to blame than the person would be for leaving their car there. Is it a bad idea? Yup. But just because they do it doesnt give you the right to rape/steal. The person still makes the choice to rape/steal, and hence the blame is theirs. Blaming the victim is completely retarded.

Thats different. Mines dont choose to be stepped on. A person can just say "oh man she's hot. I need to go fap" He doesnt HAVE to rape her. A mine, however, will blow up. Thats what mines do.

Your argument is bs.

No. If you stick it in her vagina without her consenting to you doing so, it's rape, you freakin' moron.

What the hell are you talking about? When did I say its not?

You're saying it's her fault for having someone force this act upon her. No, it's not. A woman is just as free as a man to dress how she wishes, and go where she pleases, even if it is obviously not such a great idea. It doesn't matter. If she doesn't want to have sex, it is in no way her fault at all that some mother****er when and did so anyway.

You're a stupid, sexist peice of ****, because you suggest that women don't have an equal right to a) wear what they want or b) go where they want if they don't want to be blamed for rape. This would have been locked already if I was moderating.

GTFO.

[QUOTE=mis0viet]You're saying it's her fault for having someone force this act upon her.

Where have I said this?

[quote]No, it's not. A woman is just as free as a man to dress how she wishes, and go where she pleases, even if it is obviously not such a great idea. It doesn't matter. If she doesn't want to have sex, it is in no way her fault at all that some mother****er when and did so anyway.

Which I beleive. I beleive people should be allowed to have their rights, and walk where they want and so forth without fear of harm. However I think in som extreme conditions that it is possible for a victime to be partially resposnabile. That doesnt mean half the blame, that doesnt mean all the blame, or a third or a quatre. Its different with every case, as youve stated. 99% a victime in a rape would not have any blame.

[quote]You're a stupid, sexist peice of ****, because you suggest that women don't have an equal right to a) wear what they want or b) go where they want if they don't want to be blamed for rape.

I've got no real problem with what women wear and I havent said that if a women dresses down shes partial to being blames. And I do beleive women have equal right to go where they want. But Im saying if a women, or a man (because men get raped too) allows themself to get into ANY dangerous situation by chosing to ignore warnings and rules they have to be prepared for the worst.

Its the same if I trespass on a farmers land for whatever reason. If I chose to ignore warnings I have to be prepared to suffer what ever happen.

[quote=Spam]Wow, you cant even follow your own analogy. Woman=guy in minefeild. Rapist=mine. Both the girl and the minfeild guy took a risk. The difference is that if you step on a mine, it blows up, whereas showing some clevage isnt an invitation for a bit of the ol' in-out-in-out.

I wish I could sage this thread.

I'm not saying the women is the man, or the mine is the rapist you utter cretin. I'm saying there are both examples of where a victim can be blamed for chosing to ignore warnings. Where have i stated either that women showing clevage is an example where blame can be shared?

Your own logic doesnt work though. Suppose a female bartender has to work in a bad neighborhood, and needs to dress a little flirty to make money. Knowing the area sucks, she carries a switch and mace with her, but someone sneaks up on her on the way to her car. OH MAN SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT TEH DUMB WHORE.

Its retarded. Even if you ARE prepared, things can still go wrong. The bottom line is that the person who does the raping still makes a choice to rape, and it is therefore THAT PERSONS fault. No amount of "oh but the girl did this which helped" is going to ease that. Following your logic, the girls parents were to blame too. I mean, who the hell has a daughter? THATS JUST ASKING FOR YOUR KID TO GET RAPED AMIRITE?

I have seen bovine feces that contained less bull**** than bebops argument.

[QUOTE=Lenin of Spam]Your own logic doesnt work though. Suppose a female bartender has to work in a bad neighborhood, and needs to dress a little flirty to make money. Knowing the area sucks, she carries a switch and mace with her, but someone sneaks up on her on the way to her car. OH MAN SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT TEH DUMB WHORE.

Disagree. This is a case where I do not think blame can be shared. Why is it you think I beleive every rape victim gets blame? Its case sensitive but ignoring of rule is the only generalisztion I can give wihtout typing out every possible rape secanrio ever.

[quote]Its retarded. Even if you ARE prepared, things can still go wrong.
No way. i would never have guessed.

[quote]The bottom line is that the person who does the raping still makes a choice to rape, and it is therefore THAT PERSONS fault. No amount of "oh but the girl did this which helped" is going to ease that. Following your logic, the girls parents were to blame too. I mean, who the hell has a daughter? THATS JUST ASKING FOR YOUR KID TO GET RAPED AMIRITE?

The actual rapist is more to blame than anyone. And you're clearly not following by logic. My logic is that in extreme circumstances a victim CAN BE to have SOME blame. My logic is not everyone is to blame. The only example I can think of where blame could be shared with the victime and rapist is the girl at my school example. Of course I've mentioned this before, just like when Ive mentioned it will ultimately be the rapists fault.

[quote]No rape victim is ever to blame for being forced into lewd sexual acts.
Disagree. But Ive already explained that I think it only applies on extreme circumstances. However despite how many times I repeat this your argument against is simply I DISAGREE. Oh snap.

[quote]Your stupid analogies don't apply to rape. yes, blah, tresspassing can get you shot. That's because it's illegal to tresspass.

Unfortunately its the only analaogies I can give at this time to back up my point.

[quote] Dressing in a subjectively "provocative" manner is not. Idiot.

I swear I asked you before you point out where I said women dressing down is enough reason for partial blame. Both you and Spam seem to think I've said this so I MUST HAVE right? Please point it out to me.

Which has NOTHING to do with the idiocy bebop is spewing.

Granted, the rape laws ARE tilted rediculously towards women. Its pretty much the only thing in america where you are ALWAYS guilty until proven innocent.

edit: ninjas!

And bebop, there arent and "signs" of rape other than f a guy comes up to you and says "i'm going to rape you." Just being in a "bad area" doesnt mean that you will get raped; there has to be a PERSON there to MAKE THE CHOICE to RAPE. Your argument is still retarded.

Rape can happen anywhere, and not many precautions are going to actually help some one. I'm pretty sure a woman in a tube top isn't much more likely to be raped than a woman in a parka. As for being aware of the chances of being raped, there's not many resources that can be used besides searching through the newspaper or internet for rapists/rape locations, which would be a large waste of time if it's not somewhere you frequently visit.

The only circumstance I can think of in which the victim is partially at fault is if he or she leads a rapist on.

Rather than arguing, why don't we all carry mace? :)

Warnings are not legal barriers to doing something. If it were illegal for her to go in the forest, then she would be partially to blame. But because she legally had the right to be there, she shouldn't be responsible for anything.

Obviously you didn't learn much in law. Implications are everything, and by implying that although she commited no crime, she was technically to blame, that is a very slippery legal slope. If you can't just accept the fact that you're totally wrong, well, you're even more of an idiot than I first thought.

Edit: ninja'd.

Let's take it even further, and all carry automatic small arms, Iris. :)

Actually there is some what a resource availble to women for rape.

Its like a big condom that they put inside which clamps down onto a penis with metal like teeth. its true! Ill try to find the site.

[quote] Warnings are not legal barriers to doing something. If it were illegal for her to go in the forest, then she would be partially to blame. But because she legally had the right to be there, she shouldn't be responsible for anything.

However anyone who received there types of warnings and the amount of them should be intelligent enough to understand them.
What I dont get is how you say it can never be a victims fault UNLESS they break the law? Explain please

[quote]Obviously you didn't learn much in law. Implications are everything, and by implying that although she commited no crime, she was technically to blame, that is a very slippery legal slope. If you can't just accept the fact that you're totally wrong, well, you're even more of an idiot than I first thought.

I didnt learn much. I was there for a week or so. Hardly enough time to learn about British law or how British court cases operate. However slippery this slope may be I think its possible a lawyer has been able to argee my point about being partially balmed as is a lawyer more than likely to do the same for your point. Every rape case is different, as are its court cases including the judges and lawyers. So you cant simply say "your reason is wrong because it wouldnt be able to hold its on in a court room".

Wow, are you actually suggesting that women are going to be open to taking some blame if they dont carry bear traps in their vaginas? ARE YOU EVEN READING THE BS YOU'RE POSTING?

As hilarious as that sounds, it may not be very effective. A lot of times rape isn't vaginal, and buying a product to prevent it from happening is silly. Not only may it not be available to everyone, but more issues may arise from doing such.

Remember the story about the crook who broke into some one's garage and was locked in? He had to eat dog food and such to keep him from starving to death because he couldn't get out. The owners of the garage were fined and the thief didn't have to do serve time or anything. Now, let's say the thief and garage are male and female genitals. :(

Edit: Stop posting so fast! :mad:

HEY WATCH OUT THERES A BEAR TRAP IN MY VAGINA

I must say, miscocksony is doing a fantastic job of pretending to be an oversensitive feminazi. Good show, old chap.

Women getting raped after not thinking about defending themselves (through avoiding conflict) are just as much to blame as a man dying in a car crash after being hit by a drunk driver because he decided not to wear his seat belt that day.

Blame is different to responsibility. If a woman were to walk home by herself late at night through dark alleys then that is her decision to put herself at a massive risk. Whether she gets raped or not is ultimately down to the rapist, just as the man's death in the car crash is ultimately down to the person deciding to drive over the limit, but they both take on some responsibility when they decide to be fucking idiots. This isn't sexist, this is common sense. Thinking otherwise is completely naive.

Blame isn't different than responsibility. If people are free, then it is ultimately the rapist who is both responsibile and to blame for any rape. You know why? because, say you were near an occring rape, but you didn't help stop it. That slippery slope of placing the blame on the victim, not the perp, could also allow the blame to be placed on you.

Once again, though, they never jumped up and down and said RAPE ME RAPE ME . People have a legal resonable expectation of safety, no matter where they are. Just because an area is "bad" doesnt mean that she somehow gains part of the blame. Should she have taken a different route to reduce risk? Yes. Does that mean that she somehow CHOSE to be raped? No. It means that she increased the risk. That being said, however, she still didnt cause it. The person who raped her caused it. He made the choice to do it, and hence it is his fault, and his fault alone.

I'll say this again. If you're going to open up blame to everyone who contributed, then the property owner is to blame for not lighting the area well and supervising it. The government is to blame for not providing adeqyate police presence, etc etc. You cant try that sort of idiocy, becuase its... well, idiotic. the simple fact is that someone decided to rape someone else, and they get the blame.

[quote] Blame isn't different than responsibility. If people are free, then it is ultimately the rapist who is both responsibile and to blame for any rape. You know why? because, say you were near an occring rape, but you didn't help stop it. That slippery slope of placing the blame on the victim, not the perp, could also allow the blame to be placed on you.

Well I guess so, if you chose not to stop it. Just like if a dying person needs you to phone an ambulance and you chose not to, you would still be responsible to some degree for their death not matter what the circumstances that lead up to that persons condition were.

You're really good at comparing apples to oranges.

So, grandma can't stop burly lumberjack from raping innocent pre-teen girl, so it's grandma's fault?

"I swear I said in my earlier posts that chosing to increase risk is where partial blame can be introduced."

In that case, if you're sitting at a stop light in your car, seat belts buckled, following all traffic laws etc, and someone in a truck rear ends you at 100mph and kills you, it was partially your fault. I mean, you should have KNOWN that driving was risky, so OBVIOUSLY you're to blame (partially).

You can talk about how the girl increases her risk all you want, but the fact remains that the person who does the raping is still the person who makes the choice. The girl just chooses her location. its the person raping that chooses to break the law.

[quote=mis0viet]Blame isn't different than responsibility. If people are free, then it is ultimately the rapist who is both responsibile and to blame for any rape.

Yes, you are exactly right. Well, except for one small thing.


THAT ONLY APPLIES IN AN IDEAL WORLD.

Wake up! Life isn't like that! Our reasonable expectation of how safe we should be is absolutely nowhere near what it's really like! There are killers, muggers, con artists, rapists, thugs, gangsters and theives all over this filthy planet. If you don't wake up to the fact that not everything is going to be peaches and cream all your life then you are partially responsible for anything bad that happens purely because of your naivety.

It's not nice, it's not fair, it's certainly not safe. Accepting the fact that you are responsible for your own well-being is completely different to accepting to being partially responsible for your rape in a court of law. I'd be willing to bet that Bebop is trying to stress the former and you're just misunderstanding.

If you really do think that you shouldn't ever worry about yourself because any harm that comes to you is absolutely not your fault, then I fear you have a heck of a lot of growing up to do.

Well thats a tricky one. Although driving can be dangerous apparntly in this example I had taken lots of precautions to protect my safety and it was just my bad luck I died. So in this case Im not partially to blame.
However if I had no seat belt on or anything and the truck still hit me I could still have no partial blame. If I would have died with protection than not having it would make no differance.

The point was that if you step out of your door, you take risks. That doesnt always mean that you are to blame for them.

I havent argued against thi fact. I have stated many times that the fate of the crime is enteriely on the rapists hands and ultimately the blame will rest with him, EXPCET IN THE RARE EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT CAN BE SOMEWHAT SHARED.

Do you realize that you bascially jsut said "I agree except that I disagree"? Face it, the girl didnt contribute to the rape in any significant sense. All she did was walk by. Its the person who did the raping that deserves the blame.

"It's not nice, it's not fair, it's certainly not safe. Accepting the fact that you are responsible for your own well-being is completely different to accepting to being partially responsible for your rape in a court of law. I'd be willing to bet that Bebop is trying to stress the former and you're just misunderstanding. "

In that case, if you're always to blame for anything that you dont forsee. Get jumped by 50 guys? Why werent you expecting that? TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY LOL. If you say that someone is taking a risk, thats one thing, but saying that its their fault is going too far.

[QUOTE=Lenin of Spam]
The point was that if you step out of your door, you take risks. That doesnt always mean that you are to blame for them.

Yes I know. Whats your point?

[quote]Do you realize that you bascially jsut said "I agree except that I disagree"? Face it, the girl didnt contribute to the rape in any significant sense. All she did was walk by. Its the person who did the raping that deserves the blame.

How have I said that? And my point is she did contrbuite to it when she could have not done. Point is she effectveily chose to contribuite to it.

By ignoring warnings she raised the chance of being raped right? Correct. This is my point. If you CHOSE to raise risks against your own well being than some of that outcome has the possibility of being yours.

mis0viet, you never answered my question. Where you said if a girl broke the law to allow herself to get raped its partially her fault, yet if she didnt break the law its not.

I want to know why, after all this, youll admit blame can somewhat be shared BUT ONLY if the victime break the law.

Perfect example: Some guy gets hammered for 9 hours in a bar. Bartender keeps serving up drinks. The bartender closes the bar and asks the drunk to leave. The drunk tries driving home and dies in a car crash. Now, is it not partially the bartender's fault that he died? He let him drive home drunk rather than calling him a cab.

[QUOTE=Bebop]How can I try to debate with someone when they keep putting words in my mouth.

I never said I dont know what a rape is nor did I define it as anything other than it is
I never said people ALLOW themselves to be raped, just some people chose to increase that chance
I never said its a persons fault for not fighting off their assilant. I have never addressed this becasue this is not where I think blame can come in. I have stated I think blames comes from before the situation, not during or after.

Stop making up things, claiming I said them and aruging against them.
You're implying all of these factors by making such broad (and stupid) arguments, idiot. It's what you've failed to define that is biting you in the ***, and it's entirely your fault. You're right about not being able to debate, but it's because you don't know how, not because I'm making things up.

That's why I mentioned legalities, and why I encouraged you to study up on them. US law is based more on what is unwritten yet implied, rather than what is written. Why? Because crime usually falls into a grey area, it's not black and white. They argue the implications of laws to determine who gets to blame and who was responsible, and then sentence them. It works this way in pretty much every other civilized nation, too.

[quote]Seriously, I might just rape you out of spite. Enjoy a few years in prison and a gunshot wound to the face. :)

[quote]US law is based more on what is unwritten yet implied, rather than what is written. Why? Because crime usually falls into a grey area, it's not black and white.
I believe that kind of applies to what Bebop was trying to say. It's not against the law to go into the woods but it's implied that you shouldn't go in there, since you risk putting yourself in danger of rape/theft/murder/etc...

"!=" is different than "=" I forgot how, but it is.

Basically you are doing the "no, it's not all black and white, but a lot of grey area" thing. Instead of just saying "It's the rapists' fault no matter what for committing the act(which is LoS' stance- and mine)," you are saying, "well, there are CERTAIN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES that merit the blame be shared between the perp and the victim."

So I will say; It's always the rapists fault for committing the act," and kindly ask that you show me these extreme circumstances. Because if you don't give me exact circumstances to think about, then we could each have a different idea of the extremes and might as well be debating two different things.

I use debating because what you're doing with LoS and mis0 is arguing. Let's debate.

OK, so you guys are all arguing as though the correlations with rape occurrences are causes of rape. Have any of you offered any evidence that how a girl dresses and where she goes changes her likelihood of being raped to any great extent? You're all acting like "girl walking alone in the woods" is THE ONLY TYPE OF RAPE.

Let's say this very clearly: The vast majority of rape occurs where people already know the victim. Date rape, spousal rape, rape by various responsible "elders" and such. Bebop's fantasy of a silly little slut wandering through a bad neighbourhood and being grabbed from the bushes is not a representation of rape as a whole. Statistically, this girl is probably actually SAFER walking home through a bad suburb than she is on a date with a coworker or out having a night on the town. She might well be safer walking that taking a taxi.

Secondly, there's a multitude of rape risk factors, of which "being in a bad place" is just one. Being female is a risk factor. Being native American or aboriginal Australian is a risk factor. Drinking is a risk factor. Being young is a risk factor. Being around men is a risk factor. Living in certain suburbs is a risk factor. Blaming people for putting themselves "at risk" is absurd and ignores the fact that you can't help most of these risk factors, the risk factors a person can control are far outweighed by the ones they can't.

Bebop's assertions of controllable risk fall down UTTERLY in the face of the fact that a girl is more likely to be raped elsewhere, despite precautions, even if she never puts herself in a supposedly "extreme" situation. He can't even prove that these stereotypical "extreme situations" ARE A GREATER SOURCE OF RISK.

And even then, since these controllable risk-factors are just one aspect of risk of rape, and they're not the biggest one, I can't see how you could possibly pin blame on a victim in this manner, short of lecturing them for going out or living in certain neighbourhoods at all. Misoxeny's right, this is tantamount to insisting that women can't be equal, can't enjoy themselves, and do all the things men do. This is, essentially, expecting women to hide and be fearful instead of, you know, BLAMING THE RAPIST.

Random anonymous rape attacks are simply not the primary type of rape, and focussing on them in a discussion of rape is disingenious and undermines attempts to stamp out the "blame the victim" mentality that still exists. What's the point of arguing that these marginal controllable changes in risk factors are significant? Why the focus on imaginary "extreme scenarios"? What is the motivation for arguing this line? That's what I'd like to know from Bebop.

The problem with saying "yeah, maybe they've increased their risks and maybe that makes them to blame" is that this attitude does real and verifyable damage to rape victims. First and foremost, you're taking someone who's just been through one of the most horrendous experiences possible, and adding to their humiliation and loss of power and control by telling them that they bought it on themselves. These fussy distinctions between "legal responsibility" and "blame" are meaningless... you're telling rape victims they bought it on themselves.

I'm not sure if Bebop and others are fully aware of the extent to which blaming the victim can and DOES occur, and how detrimental this is to justice, let alone the psychology of the victim. Your average rape trial is a harrowing experience that essentially a cross-examination of the victim's character. Things such as "being drunk" or "dressing slutty" CAN BE, AND ARE, used as defences to lessen the responsibility of rapists. This isn't just an idle theoretical exercise, these attitudes and the stigmas attached to them can and do help rapists beat the system. Sure, this sort of cross-examination might be *technically* disallowed in some places, but this is still basically how trials go. Several thousand years worth of racial memory and prejudice and stereotype are hard to break, after all. We've been saying rape victims bought it on themselves for as long as we've been civilised enough to know better.

And that's what this boils down to. Old, old attitudes that need to be stamped out in a civilised society that pays anything more than lip-service to sexual equality. Bebop may not be intending to, but he's expressing an old attitude that very much enables these sorts of things to go on. He's expressing the residual effects of several thousand years' worth of mysogynist, woman-blaming attitudes to rape. And that's not good.

[quote=Arwon]OK, so you guys are all arguing as though the correlations with rape occurrences are causes of rape. Have any of you offered any evidence that how a girl dresses and where she goes changes her likelihood of being raped to any great extent? You're all acting like "girl walking alone in the woods" is THE ONLY TYPE OF RAPE.

Let's say this very clearly: The vast majority of rape occurs where people already know the victim. Date rape, spousal rape, rape by various responsible "elders" and such. Bebop's fantasy of a silly little slut wandering through a bad neighbourhood and being grabbed from the bushes is not a representation of rape as a whole. Statistically, this girl is probably actually SAFER walking home through a bad suburb than she is on a date with a coworker or out having a night on the town. She might well be safer walking that taking a taxi.

Secondly, there's a multitude of rape risk factors, of which "being in a bad place" is just one. Being female is a risk factor. Being native American or aboriginal Australian is a risk factor. Drinking is a risk factor. Being young is a risk factor. Being around men is a risk factor. Living in certain suburbs is a risk factor. Blaming people for putting themselves "at risk" is absurd and ignores the fact that you can't help most of these risk factors, the risk factors a person can control are far outweighed by the ones they can't.

Bebop's assertions of controllable risk fall down UTTERLY in the face of the fact that a girl is more likely to be raped elsewhere, despite precautions, even if she never puts herself in a supposedly "extreme" situation. He can't even prove that these stereotypical "extreme situations" ARE A GREATER SOURCE OF RISK.

And even then, since these controllable risk-factors are just one aspect of risk of rape, and they're not the biggest one, I can't see how you could possibly pin blame on a victim in this manner, short of lecturing them for going out or living in certain neighbourhoods at all. Misoxeny's right, this is tantamount to insisting that women can't be equal, can't enjoy themselves, and do all the things men do. This is, essentially, expecting women to hide and be fearful instead of, you know, BLAMING THE RAPIST.

Random anonymous rape attacks are simply not the primary type of rape, and focussing on them in a discussion of rape is disingenious and undermines attempts to stamp out the "blame the victim" mentality that still exists. What's the point of arguing that these marginal controllable changes in risk factors are significant? Why the focus on imaginary "extreme scenarios"? What is the motivation for arguing this line? That's what I'd like to know from Bebop.

The problem with saying "yeah, maybe they've increased their risks and maybe that makes them to blame" is that this attitude does real and verifyable damage to rape victims. First and foremost, you're taking someone who's just been through one of the most horrendous experiences possible, and adding to their humiliation and loss of power and control by telling them that they bought it on themselves. These fussy distinctions between "legal responsibility" and "blame" are meaningless... you're telling rape victims they bought it on themselves.

I'm not sure if Bebop and others are fully aware of the extent to which blaming the victim can and DOES occur, and how detrimental this is to justice, let alone the psychology of the victim. Your average rape trial is a harrowing experience that essentially a cross-examination of the victim's character. Things such as "being drunk" or "dressing slutty" CAN BE, AND ARE, used as defences to lessen the responsibility of rapists. This isn't just an idle theoretical exercise, these attitudes and the stigmas attached to them can and do help rapists beat the system. Sure, this sort of cross-examination might be *technically* disallowed in some places, but this is still basically how trials go. Several thousand years worth of racial memory and prejudice and stereotype are hard to break, after all. We've been saying rape victims bought it on themselves for as long as we've been civilised enough to know better.

And that's what this boils down to. Old, old attitudes that need to be stamped out in a civilised society that pays anything more than lip-service to sexual equality. Bebop may not be intending to, but he's expressing an old attitude that very much enables these sorts of things to go on. He's expressing the residual effects of several thousand years' worth of mysogynist, woman-blaming attitudes to rape. And that's not good.

Correct, however irrelevent.

Bebop asked if a girl could ever be blamed for rape, he's not stating that most rape comes under the circumstances where the woman could shoulder some responsibility. In fact, I don't think anyone here ever implied that the most common form of rape is by a stranger in the dead of the night.

Im arguing that in some cirucmstances a victim of an event can be somewhat responsible/blamed for the events outcome inclduing rape.

Everyoen else seems to be saying the same, as with all the examples, excpet saying rape doesnt apply. Why?

If I can give the most extreme example of when blame could clearly be shared, and you agree with the example than you are agreeing with me.

Again, legally, yes, he's responsible. At that point he should have tried to stop the guy, but it still really isnt his fault. And even if I said "yeah he's to blame" you cant really use this as a corrolary to rape, since walking in a dark area doesnt mean that you're going to get raped. Hell, I've been wandering around downtown at night numerous times, and I've yet to be violated.

Your arguments dont work, as numerous people have pointed out, Stop trying.

I wasnt the one who came up with the example you know? I never used it as an analogy to rape. i simply answered it. I didnt even get who the rapist was represented by.

As far as dark areas are concerned, since this seems to be ther ape example used, it depends on whether someone knew a rapist was in there. Idiot.

And for ***s sake stop making up crap. I never said walking around dark areas means your going to get raped or thats where rapists hang out. It origintaed from a simple example I gave. Man please dont have kids. If you do grab their ankles and smack their heads over desks to give them a happy life.

A GIRL AT MY SCHOOL WENT TO AN AREA WHERE SOMEONE ELSE GOT RAPED MAN SHE SO DESERVED IT LOL

You dont ever KNOW where a rapist is until you're being raped. Anyone can rape anyone else. And as arwon said, the people most likely to rape are people you know. So once again, by your idiotic logic, if you associate with people you know and get raped, its your own fault, since you KNEW that you're more likely to get raped by them but hung out with them anyway.

Face it, your argument is bs.

Your arguement is that under certain circumstances, a victim cn be partially at fault/share blame/however you want to put it. Any way you say it, its bs. When I said "retarded and unlikely" what I meant was "this is one of those things that sounds like it might happen but never will." This is like me wondering what I'd do if Bill Gates put me in his will and then commited suicide. Fun to think about, but pointless.

The bottom line is that you cant give the victim blame, since they didnt CHOOSE to get raped. Its impossible. If they chose it, it would be consenual, and hence not rape. The only guilt lies in the party that chooses to rape them. Since a girl (or guy) that is being raped isnt the one that made the choice, it isnt their fault.

They might not exactly be to blame, but there certainly is more that can be done to prevent it. It's kind of like if a jeweler were to place his jewels out in the open, then leave them unattended. He's not exactly to blame for the theft, but there's something about his actions that just seems like he should have expected it. It's far too tempting.

Of course, this doesn't apply to all situations.

She isnt faultless for putting herself in danger. Its like people whining about soldiers dying. They chose to put themselves in a position where they may end up dead. Although I will admit, the army is a much higher risk factor. If this forest is that bad, that a public warning to stay out is made, people should respect that warning and stay out.

Lets use a 10 point must system though. Rapist is still 100% at fault, but she is still around 2% for being stupid.

You are responsible for your actions. They shouldnt have to make it a law and illegal too go into the woods just because someone thinks warnings mean nothing and you are a free individual. There are already laws against rape; it still happens. Making a law against getting raped or wtf is a waste of time at best, intrusive and controlling at worst. It is your responsibility to protect yourself.

You have rights yes, but don't go around like you own the place. There are some places you can't go because they are hazardous. ACCEPT THIS FACT. I don't think bebop was saying the rapist is not to blame, all he is trying to say is she is at fault too for putting herself in an unecessary and avoidable risk.

Lets change the story from rape to kill. Try walking down the darkest ghetto in LA with the wrong colours on. Are you ****ing stupid for doing it? hell ya. Do you deserve to get gunned down? Probably not, but it could happen. Accept this. Deal with it. Don't taunt the animals. Tempt not thy fate. You cant have mommy and daddy nerf the world of its dangers and you shouldnt have Big Brother watching over 24/7 to control all aspects of life either.


[quote]"!=" is different than "=" I forgot how, but it is.
! is the not sign in some programming languages(c/c++ for example). "!=" literally means "not equal".

In conclusion, rapist is still 100% to blame, foolish victim 2-5% for not using common sense. If she didnt go in the woods, as she was warned not too, she would have been safe and unraped. Thats my reasoning. If there was no warning, then 0%. Walking on the street 0%. If there was anything you can do, within reason, to prevent it from happening, then you are partially at fault.

But the point is that the women-folk are in more bloody danger in other circumstances than ones being presented here. That they're NOT placing themselves at increased risk of rape in these situations. Specifically, I mean they're placing themselves at greater risk when they're around PEOPLE THEY KNOW.

By this logic, a woman is more blamable if she's date-raped than if she's wandering in a bad area and assaulted by a stranger, since she's more likely to be raped in the former circumstance than the latter. Higher risk situation = she should have known better, surely?

The basic suggestion being made here, and I can summarise 4 pages worth of posts in a sentence for you all so you can just copy and paste next time: "knowingly placing yourself in a situation of increased risk situation means you must bear some blame for the consequences". Maybe this is a valid general argument, maybe not. Analogies to other crimes don't work because quite frankly rape isn't like other crimes. I've already argued that the consequences of applying this argument to rape is extremely problematic and damaging to actual rape victims both psychologically and judicially... but the implicit sexism and historically misogynistic cultural basis of the argument is actually beside the point here.

The point is that the argument being made again and again rests on silly stereotypical hypotheticals and isn't supported by actual statistics or the reality of rape. The argument that women can be blamed for putting themselves at increased risk of rape falls completely and utterly flat when you look at what ACTUALLY CONSTITUTES "INCREASED RISK OF RAPE" and that the circumstances are totally and utterly different from what's being presented here.

The crux of it is, unless you're arguing that the silly little sluts shouldn't go out on dates or go out partying or get drunk at all, you CANNOT argue that women bear blame for putting themselves at increased risk of rape, since those are the sorts of higher-risk situations that actually exist.

I will personally rape every chick at VGChat.

If a chick is drunk and her breasts are half hanging out of her shirt and she's trying to go home through a dark alley she knows is a shortcut to it and she gets raped, her personal situation does not matter. She was raped. Rape blame. Psh. What a dumb subject. Whoever does the act against someone's will is to be blamed.

However, I do not approve of girls wanting to have sex, copping out at the very last second as they are being penetrated, the guy pulls out, and she claims rape later.

Rape the *****. She deserves it if shes that stupid or drunk.[IMG]http://vgchat.com/images/icons/jesse-smith.gif[/IMG]

I don't think the victims should be at legal fault at any time, however they're partially to blame if they enable it to happen in certain scenarios. Never should a rapist get away with it by saying "she should've expected it, she got drunk on our date," or such, however the victim should have enough common sense to not let that happen so she may prevent it. Although the victim is free to take risks, she's is foolish if she thinks that there won't ever be consequences.

Of course, it's subjective who you think did something wrong. Most will think it's the rapist, some may think it's the ditz who allowed herself to get drunk, a few might even blame the victim's guardian for letting her go outside. However, no one can know for sure if rape will occur, and it's ultimately up to the rapist. Only a rapist should be at legal fault since only they can make it happen. Different levels of stupidity can certainly raise the chances for it to occur though.

Oh naturally legal fault is entirely given to the rapist as the criminal. But people seem to think that just because someone doesnt have legal fault they are not responsible (fully or partially) or an idiot. This applies to everything, not just crimes. Thats what I'm saying.

Personally, i don't know whos side to lean on because it depends what type of rape it is, because if its armed rape or someone slipped something into your drink, then its the sexual preditors fualt, but if the victim is just a stupid a** then they sure have got balls to go to the police and complain over something they" might" have had controll over. Some of you might say what if it's 2 against one, or what if the sexual preditor is just stronge? Then in this case it is completely the attackers fault. The solution is simple, carry your beverages around at all time, don't drink to much alc., carry around some sort of communication device (i.e cell phone), and have some sort of none-deadly wepon on you (pepper spray). If all else fails make sure you always carry around rubbers. :cookie:

Do you think rape has ever turned consentual during the process?

*oscar*

No. Rape, is rape.

What? That doesnt answer my question.

Oh sorry i thought you said something else.

Umm I think that if rape turned consentual, then it would be totaly legal. But there still is the issue that he/she never wanted it to begin with.

Of course rape can turn consentual during the process, but that could just be because they're intoxicated, or "it feels good," or maybe because they think their rapist is attractive. Either way, if it turns consentual, or the victim doesn't want to consider it rape, or the victim just doesn't care enough that it happened to contact any authority, they could just be acting naive about the situation and are trying to deny it. It's just as possible as giving consent before sex, not saying anything during, and accusing the person of rape afterwards.

Of course you cant blame the victim for the action the aggressor committed. You're all so dense. The argument isnt whether you blame the victim for the action itself. But if she dresses like a whore and walks around by herself in the woods in the middle of the night after being warned not to go there, what the hell is expected? Thats what you call asking for it.

*claps* :cookie:

All I can say is I hope they never let Bebop on a rape jury...

Bebop, I don't care for the distinction you're making between "blame" and "reduced legal culpability" because in reality there is no distinction. I get that you're not arguing if a girl put herself at risk the rapist is less guilty, but the thing is, the distinction doesn't matter. You're still effectively blaming rape victims for being raped and that's just not on. Lack of a sense of common sense or self preservation is very very different from being blamable.

You can't isolate one risk factor, "being in the wrong place", and lay blame in that situation, without this flowing into blame for other risk factors, be they "being drunk" or "going around unescorted" or "dressing sexy" or "not being at home reading the bible". It's meaningless and spurious to focus so narrowly on a few hyoptheticals involving a lack of common sense and pretend these arguments don't have broader implications. We've SEEN the broader implications of the idea that rape victims can be held responsible for being raped, we see it everytime a rapist escapes justice because a girl was drunk or "a slut", or dressed provocatively, or "led him on" or any of the other character-assassination-based defences that get used.

You are blaming rape victims for being raped, and this isn't the sort of position that contains nuance and subtelty. Rape is rape, and this attitude that a victim must expect to be held responsible for their traumatic experience is damaging and backwards, and it's something society has taken a long time to move away from. You CANNOT isolate this "girls can be blamed for rape" argument to circumstances that you see fit to pick and choose at will, without your arguments being naturally extended more broadly to other controllable risk factors, and this is why people are finding your arguments so repellant. Unless you're willing to straightout say "girls can be blamed for getting raped if they've been dressing slutty or drinking or going out alone" and whathaveyou, your position is utterly untenable.

Again I ask, why are you so fixated on proving that girls can be blamed for being raped? What possible motivation can there be to this?

I swear to ***, Bebop, if you're blaming me for wearing shorts and a tank top around the horrible men from my youth and saying that I invited their actions I hope you die a miserable death.

The example you gave from Man A and Man B is called "manslaughter". Man B would get time, but not much. It's murder because in the end he still didn't restrain himself enough to keep the man alive during or after the fight.

I can see what you're trying to say, but it seems as if you are ill-advised on this topic. A girl, a boy,-- anyone-- can place themselves in any position they see fit. It doesn't matter. If some black guy walks into a KKK meeting and starts saying "**** you guys i dare you to shoot me" and someone shoots him, it doesn't matter how he got shot, the fact is that he was. Rape is rape.

If Man B didn't instigate the fight, his intentions after it started wouldn't really matter.

For the black guy, if I was listening to that in the news, I probably would've said "that ****** probably deserved it" and carried on. But if I was on a jury and had to think of this carefully, I'd think otherwise.

[quote]Partially blamed. As a more respected and intelligent member on these boards you should be able to understand the differnce between "blame" and "parital blame", especially whens it made such an appearnance on this thread

Dude, this is RAPE. It ain't subtle, nuanced or theoretical. There's a time for respect and intelligence to be considerate, polite, analytical and restrained, and there's a time for it to say "that's not on". Nowhere do these "respect" and "intelligent" words imply that one must be balanced in the face of dumb arguments. I've already stated that "blame and partial blame" have no distinction as far as the victim is concerned and you've presented no counterargument as to why what you're saying is any different to full-on blaming a victim for being raped.

Stop drawing stupid analogies. I've, so far, counted nearly half a dozen of the... but really, rape is particularly harrowing and praticularly severe and you need to address it on its own merits instead of drawing these dumb analogies. Mugging? Suicide? F*ck the f*ck off. A mugging victim has no relationship to a rape victim. Different orders of magnitude of suffering. And the suicide point was just silly flailing.

You've utterly ignored my point that your argument can and will be extended to other controllable factors of rape and so I repeat: "You CANNOT isolate this "girls can be blamed for rape" argument to circumstances that you see fit to pick and choose at will, without your arguments being naturally extended more broadly to other controllable risk factors, and this is why people are finding your arguments so repellant. Unless you're willing to straightout say "girls can be blamed for getting raped if they've been dressing slutty or drinking or going out alone" and whathaveyou, your position is utterly untenable"

You've yet to provide one valid reason why your argument about controllable risks must be limited to the factors you choose, or an argument why all these factors are blamable. No-one's saying you're saying every rape victim is blamable, that's just retarded on your part and frankly a sign of desperation. What we're saying is that your arguments are hurtful to rape victims and range far wider than the circumstances you choose, based on arbitrary criteria, rooted in nothing as far as I can see save your vestigal sense of "political correctness" in not extending these to their logical conlusion.

Sh*t or get off the pot, Bebop. Either dressing slutty, drinking, and going out alone is blamable, or your extreme circumstances are not. It's all controllable risk, after all.

The reason my argument is limited to the factors I have chosen is becuase these are the few ones I'd allow to be used for sharing blame. As stated in my earliest posts only in extreme circumstances should rape blame possibly be allowed to be shared and those extreme circumstances are going to need extreme factors. Thats why. I thought I had made that clear. There going to have to be specific enough otherwise it wont work.

As for analogies I have to use them and compare them to otehr crimes becuase my first woods example wich was a real case sitn really convincing people (*** knows why when thats the purest example I could ever think of rape blame being blame). I've had to come at it from and other angle.

[quote]No-one's saying you're saying every rape victim is blamable,
Spam's post of this thread is an example.

I see everything as a result from something and the bigger the event the more things to look at. With events betwwen 2 people I have to look at each side of it. As rape is a 2 side thing I cant just assume its the complete result of one indivdual without looking at the other side too. that would be unfair adn a bias approach, even if it turns out the victim has nothing to do with it. The process leads to the outcome and solely focusing on one is wrong.

Actually, what I was getting ay was that if you follow your logic, every one is blameable.

Maybe you missed the part where Arwon pointed out that EVEN IF YOU WERE RIGHT it wouldnt mean anything, since it would be used to stretch things too far. So maybe you should reread his arguments, since you dont get it.

what if a woman tied a man to a chair and sat on his lap a man cant force himself not got get a boner and if he was ties up if could not b his fault

Women can rape men, tard. And assuming that happened, then, yes, it would be the womans fault.

When its bondage i know its consentual or else shed say the safe word "lemon"

How anyone can disagree with Bebop's original post at least is truly beyond me. I can't be bothered to see how you're doing it, but his initial post's scenario is pretty much a no-brainer.

His scenario makes perfect sense, seeing as how the girl was an idiot. But idiocy does not excuse the act of rape upon her!

Well, when her rape could've been easily avoided and she has full knowledge of this, she bears significant responsibility. Of course, the rapist could've not raped her as well, but that's why it's clearly being stated as partial blame.

Just 'cause it could've been avoided doesn't excuse the fact that the rape actually occurred. Just sayin'.

It's not meant to excuse it, that's not the argument.

The problem with that argument, soul, is that it allows essentially anyone to be blamed for the rape from a legal standpoint. Grandma can be to blame because she couldn't fight off the perp, a little kid could be blamed for not dialing to police fast enough, etc. Even though that's not what you're specifically saying, allowing blame to fall on the victims opens up the possibility of allowing anyone else to be held partially responsible for a crime.

And besides, they're called victims for a reason - a crime was commited against them; regardless of how preventable it may have been, the perpitrator is at complete fault, no blame should fall on the victim.

YO MORON, BLAME IS WHAT DETERMINES WHO GOES TO JAIL. THAT'S WHY YOU FAIL.

Its not about legal blame. If it was this thread wouldnt exist. Im sure that was demonstrated in the first post.

I think "blame" is more of a poor choice of words, then.

I meant seperation as in removing legal fault from the rapist and sharing the legal fault with the victim. I dont mean seperating legal blame. Thats what I thougt you meant.

Yes of course it does. But people seem to be freaking out that if someone has say 1% of blame people are going to be locking them up, hanging them or throwing tomatoes at them. For that reason people stop looking at reality and become selective when it comes to responsibilties among parties, such as rape.

In cases like frivilous lawsuits, there may be a distinction in blame, but there isn't in cases of rape, ****wit. THE RAPIST TOOK HER AGAINST HER WILL AND PENETRATED HER. He's entirely to blame.

How you can argue otherwise, I wish I could understand. What, do you want to go around a rape people or something? Is that it?

[quote=Misoxeny]In cases like frivilous lawsuits, there may be a distinction in blame, but there isn't in cases of rape, ****wit. THE RAPIST TOOK HER AGAINST HER WILL AND PENETRATED HER. He's entirely to blame.

How you can argue otherwise, I wish I could understand. What, do you want to go around a rape people or something? Is that it?
Ugh. They're trying to say, in extreme cases when certain rape risks can be totally avoided, such as getting drunk on a blind date, going somewhere dark and far from public view, or just leading some one on, the victim is partially to blame. Not so much to blame that they should get any punishment. Maybe just strongly advised and kept from letting those risks be taken again.

It's like if you aggravate someone enough until they punch you in the face. Yes, they punched you in the face, but they punched you in the face because you purposely ****ed them off. They should have restraint, but you took the risk putting part of the blame on yourself.

You're comparing apples and oranges, though. It shouldn't really matter what the victim does to arouse the rapist, unless she basically says it was rape after the fact out of shame or something. You rape someone, you're to blame entirely.

So, you're saying a victim has the right to remain ignorant on what risk he or she had taken and not be kept from taking them again? The whole purpose of giving them a bit of fault is to keep them from having it happen to them again. If some stupid broad allows herself to get raped because she's drunk and asks and wants a ride home, you're not going to tell her she's a fool and she shouldn't have put herself in that scenario? Of couse you're still going to punish the rapist, but the victim needs to learn where she was wrong as well, rather than just being a medium for imprisoning rapists.

And don't go and say she wasn't stupid for getting drunk and hitching a ride with a stranger. I'm perfectly aware it's the aggressor's choice to rape some one, but placing yourself in that situation is irresponsible.

[quote=Misoxeny]You're comparing apples and oranges, though. It shouldn't really matter what the victim does to arouse the rapist, unless she basically says it was rape after the fact out of shame or something. You rape someone, you're to blame entirely.That is legal blame vs real blame. In the case you refer to (post ex facto), the guy CAN STILL be charged. If a girl drinks a bit too much by her own free will and the guy bangs her, and then she feels bad, the guy can be convicted even if the girl said yes. Legally, the guy raped her, even though we all know he didn't.

Victim/attacker is not a black and white thing. In your example with the BMW, if you left the key inside with the windows down and the car running in the middle of Compton, you WOULD be at fault for it getting stolen. They would be at fault for stealing it, but while you weren't at legal fault, you were at realistic fault in a sense that you could have prevented it happening. If I wear a Rolex and a massive gold chain and an Armani suit into the ghetto, I'd expect to be robbed, and it would be my fault if I did get robbed. I would have brought it upon myself.

[quote="Vampiro"]It's like if you aggravate someone enough until they punch you in the face. Yes, they punched you in the face, but they punched you in the face because you purposely ****ed them off. They should have restraint, but you took the risk putting part of the blame on yourself.

The only reason this analogy doesn't work is because you forget to factor in the concept of social norms. Aggravating someone intentionally is your fault, you basically asked for it because you made the decision to do it. Now by saying that a woman dresses provokatively means she's asking for it cannot be held to the same standard because the women are not intentionally doing anything caustic nor are they doing anything abnormal. Women in all of the first world socieites are taught to be sexy and provokative, this has become a part of who they are. For this reason, it is slightly different than intentionally aggravating someone because you have the conscious choice to do it or not. Women on the other hand are not all conscious of their choices(The same can be said for men in different situations.).

And that has relevance how? Idiots are idiots, no matter where you go. Rape is not about sexuality, it's about power. So in essense, yes by them dominating you in a conversation, you may act out of frustration and excersize your power over her. In essense, an ironic situation for the person who was turned down at first. However that is a very specific example.

I was speaking on a social level, women are taught to do that - it is not something that they have full awareness of unless they make a point to have full control over that portion of their mind. And because of this, it is not the same as consciously aggravating someone in order to goad them into striking you.

Lunairetic: It was a loose analogy. Basically, get all up in someone's grill and walking around drunk, dressed slutty, and being flirty is not much different. You know you shouldn't aggravate someone to the point of snapping and the girl knows not to get drunk as hell, dress like a slut, and flirt with strange men.

What Vampiro is getting at is rape can be the price you pay for ignorance and naivety, as ruthlessly unfair as it is. From a moral standpoints women should get absolutely no blame whatsoever, but as I've said before, the real world is far from ideal.

This is totally off-topic (well, maybe not totally), but women who dress like sluts, in my opinion, deserve to be thought of as them. You don't have to pay attention to magazines and TV, you don't have to conform. This is why I have much more respect for women than the average male, because I am capable of disagreeing with the way women are objectified.

Any rape victim is NOT TO BLAME FOR WHAT HAPPENED!! No matter what CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT THE GIRL'S FAULT! Idiots like you don't even need to breed, Bebop, get the **** out of here! If the person says no, then THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!!!!

There's nothing cold-hearted about it. Of course, you're not going to blame all victims, since there are those times where there's just nothing they could have done to prevent it. But we're talking about instances where the girl did so much wrong that you almost can't help but blame her. Things she knows she shouldn't do. The blame however, is very small. So there's nothing cold-hearted at all. it's just more of a fact.

I can totally see myself placing blame on some really, really stupid people. Their stupidity seems to blind people from remembering that in the end, they're still victims of a crime that shouldn't have happened regardless of the circumstances.

I completely concur. It should have never happened and there's no doubt that they're victims. But that doesn't make them completely innocent.

Can I just ask what people hink of the woods example in the first post?This example is completely true. A girl did really do that.

[quote=Ladydragonrider]Any rape victim is NOT TO BLAME FOR WHAT HAPPENED!! No matter what CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT THE GIRL'S FAULT! Idiots like you don't even need to breed, Bebop, get the **** out of here! If the person says no, then THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!!!!

1)Capitals are shouting and it hurts my tiny internet ears
2)Lots of exclamation marks means lots of shouting, so combined with your capitals it is a deadly combination. I have contacted the authorities.*
3)Swearing is bad. Swearing is also a crime in the UK, and punishable by forced sex.
4)You are a sexist pig. One day you'll realize men do more for you than you could possibly imagine.
5)The mixture of shouting (upper case) and talking (lower case) suggest you may have terretes. However seeing as this is a message board it is more likely you are retarded.

As far as this "you're comparing apples and oranges thing goes", acknowledge there are more similarites than differences between these two small, brightly colourd, spherical, delicious, healty, juicy fruits. ;)

Can I just ask what people hink of the woods example in the first post?This example is completely true. A girl did really do that.

The girl did make the decision to go into an area were rapists are. But it is still not her fault for being raped she is just an idiot and it is people like her that are supposed to made examples of . bad things happen to stupid people for a reason. It is because they are STUPID ,and dont listen to warnings,
but it is not her fault she was raped. None of the blame should be placed on her. She simply had it coming for not listening to warrnings.

There's a lack of precise information about why she braved these woods. I mean, for example, most people get attacked close to their home, because their guard is down because they "know the area".There's an assumption that she did in fact know and remember all the stories. There's too many examples of totally false and paranoid beliefs about certain areas being "dangerous" for anyone to put stock in every last one of them.

There's too many examples of people with no common sense, especially teenagers with their underdeveloped brains and skewed risk assessment abilities, to go so far as to blame a rape victim for being raped in such circumstances. It smacks too much of lessening the severity of the crime, and especially of residual cultural mysogyny.

Beyond the issues of lack of detail and "playground story" type ring of the example, the upshot is that it's still blaming a girl for rape. Still sounds like a variation on the old-as-civilisation-itself "she bought it on herself" argument that people are rightly trying to stamp out. The key issue, for mine, is the seeming obsession with proving that girls can be blamed for rape strikes me as just plain odd. I can't see for what ends that argument is made, except for reading it as jumping at an excuse to go "hah, serves you right, dumb slut". It's really not far removed at all from blaming girls for dressing slutty or getting drunk.

You probably don't mean it like that, hell maybe you're not even aware of the extent to which such "she had it coming" perceptions still exist and mess up the justice system and rape victims... but that's the cultural background and why people are so sensitive to anything that smacks of girls being blamed for being raped. They've been being unjustly blamed for rape thousands of years... is it any wonder people are a little leery of it now that we've begun to know better?

Jumping on the example of one teenager who is raped after a very teenage absence of common sense and going "see girls can be blamed for being raped" is not a good position to take.

i see that you have your mantra in your sig there.

yeah guys, the real way to keep rape rates down in this country is to force women to cover all visible skin at all times! they should also stay indoors unless they can be accompanied by their husband or other male family member. because you know, rape happens because women are TOTALLY ASKING FOR IT when they go WANDERING NEAR MY YARD (a dedicated RAPE ZONE) in their BLUE JEANS and TEE SHIRTS.