Feminist fury over rape warning

[Segus1992]

That's the thing, we all know this is what you likely shouldn't do and be more cautious of, so why the focus on rape victims? Why are they needing more reminding?

Does it really matter? Because rape victims are almost exclusively women? Because it's a crime worse than most? A combination of the two? Why does a warning and advice to protect yourself from horrible people turn into an offensive statement? Does that not seem utterly ridiculous to you?

- - - Updated - - -

Blaming. Not shaming.

Depends on how you say it. If you imply that getting raped is your own fault, then yes it is victim blaming. What's crazy about that?

- - - Updated - - -



And what part of being raped is my own actions?

Fill me in on where said victim blaming happened in this thread and I'll gladly step down.

[Deleted]

Does it really matter? Because rape victims are almost exclusively women? Because it's a crime worse than most? A combination of the two? Why does a warning and advice to protect yourself from horrible people turn into an offensive statement? Does that not seem utterly ridiculous to you?

> 35% of rape victims are men

That you think rape victims are almost exclusively women (which is what most people think) is a clue to the real issue

This isn't about rape warnings, or what the judge said, or even about keeping women safe, which is why this whole debate appears so unreasonable and weird when approached common-sensically

This is about feminists using rape as an emotional issue to justify continued hatred of men

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Exactly the judge gave no good advice at all and just enraged internet idiots on both sides. Those that are offended by what she said. And then those which are massively abundant here who are offended that other people are offended. The second lot are far more pathetic than the first lot.

No, the "first lot" are being illogical and essentially making shit up. The "second lot" are just pointing that out.

[Deleted]

And what part of being raped is my own actions?

Every part where you put yourself in a situation where someone can take advantage of you.

Mind you I am not talking about giving blame to children whom are the victims of predators, they aren't developed and can't be reasoned to make good and healthy decisions about where they put themselves or avoid being manipulated by adults.

If you disarm yourself before a stranger, you are to blame for giving a predator a window of attack, if this makes you feel bad it's honestly irrelevant in the goal to combating rape in society, because for some reason it's become OK to not prepare yourself for the worst.

[Viconia]

Punishing criminals for performing a crime is the duty of the justice system, but crime prevention rests largely on the potential victim. If there are law enforcement officers present, of course they will intervene on what they perceive a criminal action, but it's impossible for them to always be there for everyone. Vigilance and taking measures to protect oneself is still the best defence to preserve one's bodily integrity.

So when rape happens, the justice system will punish the rapist, but it can't un-rape the victim. The victim remains violated. That's why the judge in this case highlighted what makes a highly potential victim of rape, so that people will take it into consideration before getting piss drunk. It's not victim blaming, but a reminder that we live in a dangerous world. You can't leave your safety entirely to the system.

[Deleted]

Because rape victims are almost exclusively women?

That's not true. There's just a massive amount of stigma on male rape that they never come out to talk about it.

Fill me in on where said victim blaming happened in this thread and I'll gladly step down.

Eugh, I need to quote all the people who think that blame for a rape falls in part on the rape victim? Because there's been a few. I've adressed some of them myself.

The judge phrased herself pretty well to be honest. I'm more upset about the things posters here say, because it can get really absurd.

[Segus1992]

I question her motives for saying it. As said before, is it actual concern over women - because she's a women herself, etc - or is it because she'd rather put more fault on the victim because she's seen too many cases of rape during her time on the bench? Why is she more compelled to point out all the things rape victims could have done differently? Why that specific group of victims?

Didn't I just answer that? As for whether she cares or if she's fed up, who cares? The results are the same: less being drunk on your own in shady places = less rape. It's a way to protect yourself, regardless of her reason to say it.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I question her motives for saying it. As said before, is it actual concern over women - because she's a women herself, etc - or is it because she'd rather put more fault on the victim because she's seen too many cases of rape during her time on the bench? Why is she more compelled to point out all the things rape victims could have done differently? Why that specific group of victims?

Maybe because it was in response to a rape case she was working on, and practically speaking, she knows we can't stop crime, but being cautious is surely better than nothing.

I work around machinery and equipment all the time. We are told not to wear jewelry around the machinery as to avoid injury. You know - this isn't victim blaming, this is just making aware ways we can avoid injury.

[Zeek Daniels]

No, been drunk does not make you partially to blame.

You are drunk there for you are responsible for any and all actions you take while impaired. Drunk drivers dont get away with manslaughter do they?

If you can choose to drive a vehicle after drinking you can certainly choose to have sex or not. If your forced to have sex you can choose to resist. Resistance to rape with show evidence of rape. Choosing not to resist shows complience provided your not passed out. But you cant prove you were passed out. So again, you chose to drink and impair your normal judgement. Your impaired judgement said it was ok to drive or ok to have sex. You dont wake up in a jail cell the next morning after manslaughter and say to the judge he didnt ask to walk infront of my vehicle as i was driving on the sidewalk.

[Deleted]

Punishing criminals for performing a crime is the duty of the justice system, but crime prevention rests largely on the potential victim. If there are law enforcement officers present, of course they will intervene on what they perceive a criminal action, but it's impossible for them to always be there for everyone. Vigilance and taking measures to protect oneself is still the best defence to preserve one's bodily integrity.

So when rape happens, the justice system will punish the rapist, but it can't un-rape the victim. The victim remains violated. That's why the judge in this case highlighted what makes a highly potential victim of rape, so that people will take it into consideration before getting piss drunk. It's not victim blaming, but a reminder that we live in a dangerous world. You can't leave your safety entirely to the system.

This is the kind of phrasing I'm okay with.
Though technically, it is victim blaming

[Segus1992]

That's not true. There's just a massive amount of stigma on male rape that they never come out to talk about it.




Eugh, I need to quote all the people who think that blame for a rape falls in part on the rape victim? Because there's been a few. I've adressed some of them myself.

The judge phrased herself pretty well to be honest. I'm more upset about the things posters here say, because it can get really absurd.

Fair enough, men get raped too. Nobody's really saying anything about that one way or another though. So that's besides the point.

I haven't seen any posts with obvious victim blaming here, but maybe I'm either not as vigilant in my quest to whine, or I just happened to miss those posts. An example would be grand.

[Wildtree]

This is the kind of phrasing I'm okay with.
Though technically, it is victim blaming

No it isn't.
There cannot be victim blaming for as long as there's no victim.
You have to have a crime first, in order to do so.

[Zindai]

Rapist are magically going to stop cause very woman in the world never got drunk know again.

As opposed to stopping because we tell people not to rape?

New humans are born every day, and unfortunately we can't micromanage everyone's upbringing to the point where rape is never going to happen, even though that would be great. I think TipTopPoet said it pretty well with this:

Your analogy isn't quite in line with what the judge said. It's more along the lines of, don't leave your wallet and laptop on your passenger side carseat with the window open while popping into the shop. No one is supposed to steal your belongings, but there are ways to make it easier for the kind of person who doesn't care about the law. It's not your fault that they break the law and you become a victim of a crime, but you can make it harder or easier depending on your own behaviour.

If you go swimming with a seal costume in the ocean, don't be surprised if a shark tries to eat you. It's not victim blaming, it's being aware of your environment and the way the world functions (even if the way it works isn't right) and not acting in a way that makes it easier for bad things to happen to you.

I live in South Africa where crime is rampant and there's still a pretty big racial divide. No matter how non racist you are, I know that I'll probably get mugged or murdered if I as a caucasian person goes wandering around the informal settlements late at night where gang violence is rampant. If I do that and something happens to make me a victim it's not my fault that someone else commiting the crime, but I made it easier for them by doing something that I know makes me a target. So that's why I don't do it.

(Not aimed at you, TipTopPoet)

There's a barely visible but important difference between "to reduce the risk of __ happening to you, you shouldn't do __" and "to avoid __ happening to you, you shouldn't do __". I agree very much that the latter is victim blaming, but the first one? It's simply about trying keeping yourself alive and well given the circumstances, it doesn't mean I think the victim is the reason it happened.

[Cronovey]

I don't want to get dragged into this nonsense but feel it must be said; I think this is really just a case of "good idea, poor execution".

Spreading information in an effort to protect people (which is what the judge was attempting to do) is not a bad thing, and is something to be encouraged. You help people by spreading knowledge and informing them of risks/dangers ahead. I think the biggest issue is just the timing of the warning. If this information had been spoken after retirement in an announcement via a Tweet, email, or other form of media completely outside of the case in question, it would have just been a warning and information. Poor timing in choosing to make this informative speech right after a rape case is honestly what caused the entire issue.

Good idea from the judge to try and raise awareness, but poor timing on making the little announcement. As someone said before, police send out warnings like "Buckle up!" or "Don't forget to lock your doors!" and things like that regularly. However, having a police officer say "Don't forget to lock up tonight!" a couple days after someone breaks into your home because you forgot to lock the door for that 5 minute trip to the grocery store would be the same thing; good intent, poor timing. It's all a matter of timing, and unfortunately for her this judge doesn't have it.

[Deleted]

Every part where you put yourself in a situation where someone can take advantage of you.

Mind you I am not talking about giving blame to children whom are the victims of predators, they aren't developed and can't be reasoned to make good and healthy decisions about where they put themselves or avoid being manipulated by adults.

If you disarm yourself before a stranger, you are to blame for giving a predator a window of attack, if this makes you feel bad it's honestly irrelevant in the goal to combating rape in society, because for some reason it's become OK to not prepare yourself for the worst.

I dont disagree that you should be careful with whom you trust and what you do or say with people you dont know.

But drunk people, much like how you describe children, don't always make good and healthy decisions.

- - - Updated - - -

No it isn't.
There cannot be victim blaming for as long as there's no victim.
You have to have a crime first, in order to do so.

Now you're just going really deep. You know what I meant.

[Kolvarg]

Does she also offer the same advice to victims of muggings, who may or may not have been intoxicated? Maybe they were in the wrong place at night, or shouldn't have been out at all, right?

That analogy isn't really very direct, imho.

Although personally I've seen far more actual victim blaming (on a social/personal level; on a court/law level I've never seen it for either) for robberies or falling into scams that I've seen for sexual assault. The thing about true victim blaming is that it actually places actual blame. ("Oh you carried your laptop around into that area? You idiot, you had it coming."; "You believed that woman really needed you to lend her 40€ to pay for her daughter's urgent paperwork? You naive fool, you got what you deserved!")

Saying someone can and should protect themselves does not directly translate into "if it ever happens to you and you haven't taken those measures, then it's your fault". That's reading into it and putting meaning into it that simply isn't there.

Perhaps, instead of judging and trying to shame people who try to get women to be wary and protect themselves (like everyone should try to do to the best of their ability), we could just try to make those women (who you say might not report because of such comments) understand that they can and should report any crime agaisnt them regardless of how much they did to try and prevent it?


You see, that narrative (blame the criminal, not the victim) seems to be based on the understanding that criminals are not "blamed" or don't face any consequence for their actions in our society. Which is complete bullshit, considering they will very clearly be punished by law if proven guilty. If a man rapes a woman and there's evidence of it, he will be put in jail, regardless of what she was wearing, what she tried to do to prevent or stop the rape, or how much alchool she had. Although, alchool can actually make it a lot harder to provide evidence.

I completly agree, a woman should be able to walk around naked and completly drunk and even then not be raped or sexually assaulted by anyone. Just like anyone should be able to leave their belongings wherever they want without someone taking them. Just like anyone should be able to have their front doors unlocked 24/7 without anyone going in or taking anything without permission.

But we don't live in a perfect world, and some people will do bad things and disregard others' rights, regardless of how much or less they are punished by the law. So while even if it's not your fault you got robbed when you keep the door unlocked, it's still a generally a good advice for people to keep their doors locked. Not because you are responsible for whatever happens if you don't, but because if you do you greatly reduce the chance of getting robbed, and likely help decrease the overall number of robberies.


To me, that narrative of "Don't tell women to protect themselves, or they might feel responsible for being raped" is equivalent to saying "Don't tell children not to talk to strangers, or they might feel responsible for being kidnapped". Does that sound reasonable to you?

[Deleted]

Your analogy isn't quite in line with what the judge said. It's more along the lines of, don't leave your wallet and laptop on your passenger side carseat with the window open while popping into the shop. No one is supposed to steal your belongings, but there are ways to make it easier for the kind of person who doesn't care about the law. It's not your fault that they break the law and you become a victim of a crime, but you can make it harder or easier depending on your own behaviour.

If you go swimming with a seal costume in the ocean, don't be surprised if a shark tries to eat you. It's not victim blaming, it's being aware of your environment and the way the world functions (even if the way it works isn't right) and not acting in a way that makes it easier for bad things to happen to you.

I live in South Africa where crime is rampant and there's still a pretty big racial divide. No matter how non racist you are, I know that I'll probably get mugged or murdered if I as a caucasian person goes wandering around the informal settlements late at night where gang violence is rampant. If I do that and something happens to make me a victim it's not my fault that someone else commiting the crime, but I made it easier for them by doing something that I know makes me a target. So that's why I don't do it.

This is not the same. You compare property (=senseless, mindless object, replacable) which belongs to you, but is not part of you, to the own body of a person (=sensitive object, not replacable). Rape and general assault are worse crimes, and I never heard of people who would invite others to assault or rape them except in specific BDSM contextes (where "rape" and "assault" are mutually agreed on, thus are more of a roleplay than an actual event of such kind).

There is NO INVITATION for rape, in any case, period. That criminal people have an easier way with a drunk and passed out person is true, but it does not change the fact that sex without concent is rape, and the victim is never to blame.

I wish more drunk men would get raped as there would be no tomorrow, maybe then the perception on the crime would change. :/

Edit: BTW, I am a responsible person and I hate getting drunk, anyways - so this is not a case where I feel a personal attack, I probably will never get in a situation where I get raped because I passed out on too much alcohol. Still, as long as alcohol is readily available everywhere and many people are actively pushed into get drunk for whatever reasons - often peer pressure, it is quite stupid to put the blame on people who get drunk. And sometimes, you can never know if not some drugs were put into the drink, either.

It seems to me very unfair that some people can enjoy the night life to the fullest, and others have to be "responsible" because of some arbitrary world view.

[Deleted]

I dont disagree that you should be careful with whom you trust and what you do or say with people you dont know.

But drunk people, much like how you describe children, don't always make good and healthy decisions.

Definately so I think a good solution is to work at the problem from both ends, just because we can teach women (or potential victims) to avoid hazards, such as getting too drunk etcetera, we can also improve upon the whole "teach rapists not to rape" thing that seems to have gone on for a while now.

I'm mostly just interested in reducing rape and sexual assault, not about peoples' feelings.

[Wildtree]

That's the thing, we all know this is what you likely shouldn't do and be more cautious of, so why the focus on rape victims? Why are they needing more reminding?

They need more protection, I think.
Bad things can happen when drunk to the boot. We all - supposedly - know that.
But, apparently people do get wasted.
Some events receive more reminders, based on the severity of the event.
Don't forget how we have TV ads that address intoxicated driving too. Right there, severity is the key.
We obviously also know - again supposedly - how drunk driving is bad. And yet, there's a need to remind us through all sorts of means.

No one triggered a warning campaign ever about a possible hangover we might suffer from drinking. Or how we might have balance issues and fall on our ass while drunk.. That's rather harmless effects.
Putting things into perspective and issue warnings where they can save just one person, that's a good thing.

[Elim Garak]

This is a very good point. Her timing was bad, which caused people (like me) to question her motives for saying it.

No, that's not the reason. Look inward.