The problem is that it's so easy, especially with rape cases for people to go from "it doesn't hurt to take precautions" to "It's entirely their fault because they didn't take precautions." And as you go down that slippery slope, the onus is on women to do more and more to stop themselves getting raped. Don't go down that dark alley, dress conservatively, wear this anti-rape nail polish, make sure you've got a man to chaperone you, learn judo, don't leave the house. Where does it end? What prohibitive measures do women have to take to prevent what is a somewhat remote scenario. And what happens when all that stuff isn't enough and they get raped anyway? And of course none of these things actually stop rapists. It's just a band-aid, it doesn't go to the source of the problem.
People are too passive about their lives, because it is simpler. They rather give responsibility to the government and believe it is the right thing to do. What follows are absurd laws (such as needing to have a test before you dye your hair; it saves 0.08 lives every year) and people even less willing to make decisions.
Most reported rapes are either fake, or the victim's own choice (fault), for instance.
Well, this thread has turned out to be somewhat polarizing in it's replies. I'm not too surprised if I'm honest with myself.
telling people to be careful isn't victim blaming, no, but if you say something like that to someone who has been a victim you really do have to be careful how you word it because many victims do, consciously or unconsciously, blame themselves to some degree and it's not unusual for the mind to grab hold of anything that seems to support that guilt
No, promoting caution is a show of concern. However, it isn't useful in hindsight due to the preventive nature of caution. That's where the crux is though, we'd like traumatic experiences to be prevented, so we promote caution to those whom can't be helped by it because they've already being subjected to a traumatic experience . We're barking up the wrong tree.
"Hey, don't go and jump in that volcano, that looks dangerous!"
"OMG IT'S NOT MY FAULT LAVA SHOULD LEARN NOT TO BURN ME!"
Speaking as someone who has been the victim of traumatic atrocities (and not just completely out of my ass), I highly suggest people seek out therapy if they indeed are the victim of a violent crime or something of that ilk. Unfortunately I know that not everyone has easy access to this, but I really wish everyone did. It honestly can help quite a bit in getting over the exact things you were mentioning.
This is somewhat sad because I was trying to broach the topic in a mature way when I made this thread and I think there has been some valuable discussion amidst the...less valuable posts. Specifically, the concept of timing is interesting to me and makes sense, but somewhat poses another question. Hindsight cautionary inquiries cannot change the past and thus cannot prevent anything so in many ways they same like worthless questioning at best and victim blaming at worst. That has been a point brought up in this thread. However, is it ever possible to discuss past traumatic events in any other depth than "it was horrible"? If so, what would be the right way to go about it?
Honestly, I'm trying to be as respectful as possible here.
I posed the question earlier in the thread of how dangerous or "seemingly" safe a situation needs to be before someone is considered an idiot or an innocent victim. I noticed it didn't get a reply. People don't like heap of sand problems because it infringes upon their absolutist mindsets
WHats even better is conflicting information
"Take better precautions from being raped!"
"Ok! I'll just avoid all the men I know in private settings!" (because that's most of the rapes to women)
"WTF dont judge men based on being men! Thats sexist!"
Which just leaves me so confused..
Devil's advocating, but probably (hopefully) those are 2 different people saying these sentiments. I see this a lot on these boards that people say they are bombarded with conflicting messages, but often times X poster says one thing and Y poster says another, but each poster is at least semi-consistant.
Some people will talk out of both sides of their mouth though and I totally realize this is a possibility. Still, I have said the latter statement to people in all honesty. I personally don't like being judged or treated differently because I am a man. Maybe I need to look at it in a different context, but even with an understanding of the situation I'm still going to feel untrusted and kind of shitty
Nope! I can count on a few rather extremely conservative dudes that simultaneously say both. WHich usualy ends up devolving into "Well its your fault for being a poor judge of character".
Note that I don't actually treat men different or take such silly precautions. (Although I wont accept random drinks or leave mine out in the open). Its just something I throw back in their hypocritical faces.