>50% of UK women blame rape victims

[Mao]

I feel like I must clarify.

I also have a problem with that statement being universalizable. I can think of a few cases where people wouldn't mind it because they couldn't care less, but they are rather controversial.

Hands up if you would would be seriously upset if Hitler was captured, then raped. Keep your hands up if you would stand up on his behalf to argue his case.

I have another problem being interpreted as finding excuses for rape. My contention is that there is always more to the story, and the fault does not lie solely with the perpetrator. Whilst the rapist had a choice to stop, in many cases the victim would also have chances to proactively avoid it before it's too late. I can understand why many would agree the crime is partially caused by the victim, it is not completely stupid.

This is an anecdotal recount. (I did not witness this first hand, but a person who did told me the story)

At the pool are two guys sitting, with no clothes on whatsoever, both extremely drunk.
Two girls then decided it'll be a good idea to strip off into underwear and jump into the pool.

One of these girls later had to run and lock herself in the bathroom to avoid one of the guys. Had she not been switched on, guess what?

I am not generalizing that all rape is like this, but there are cases such as this that the victim was being a fucking dumb bitch. Not saying she deserves it, but she is partially at fault for bringing it upon herself. This is part of the reason why the poll shows an astounding portion of people thinks the victims are to be blamed, not because the poll-participants are silly in the head.

And yes, I would also extend this claim to murder, that the victim can be partially at fault for being fucking stupid about his/her actions.

The rapist/murderer should of course be jailed for their actions, they are without a doubt in the wrong, but the victim is not necessarily blame-free. The legal system does not recognize this, the legal system should not recognize this: your stupidity can only harm yourself, go for it, but don't cry to me about your woes and blame the world on the other person because you were being stupid.

I say this in reply to the first few posts/posters to shed light on the possible flaws in their reasoning, and give possible explanations for the poll figures. My contention seems to have been understood by the.watchman - http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,23294.msg236290.html#msg236290

[herzy]

Mao, without wanting to offend, i disagree completely with many of your comments, and feel they are potentially quite offensive.

according to both the law and my personal opinion, no matter how provocatively a female chooses to behave, she is in no way responsible for the (unwanted) advancements. as a male, although i can relate to the desire to pursue someone, i think that anyone trying to use provocation as an excuse is merely that, an excuse. the

fucking dumb bitch

has every right to strip down and jump in a pool with naked males if she wants to, with no obligation of doing anything other than that. the male has NO right to pursue her to the extent where she (feels she) has to lock him out. it is opinions like that which cause many of the rapes to occur, and perpetuate the stigmata surrounding sexual abuse against women. it is often for fear of police also harboring these views which results in (an estimated) mere 10% of sexual abuse incidents being reported.

although more or less completely irrelevant, i would defend hitler from being raped. whether or not he deserves it because of the atrocities he is responsible for, he should be tried (and punished) in the same way as anyone else. if we doctor punishments based on our human emotions, what makes us different to him (obviously, we are different, but in terms of abusing power, pursuing an eye-for-an-eye revenge mentality.... such a mentality only perpetuates the world's problems).

[Mao]

Mao, without wanting to offend, i disagree completely with many of your comments, and feel they are potentially quite offensive.

according to both the law and my personal opinion, no matter how provocatively a female chooses to behave, she is in no way responsible for the (unwanted) advancements. as a male, although i can relate to the desire to pursue someone, i think that anyone trying to use provocation as an excuse is merely that, an excuse. the

fucking dumb bitch

has every right to strip down and jump in a pool with naked males if she wants to, with no obligation of doing anything other than that. the male has NO right to pursue her to the extent where she (feels she) has to lock him out. it is opinions like that which cause many of the rapes to occur, and perpetuate the stigmata surrounding sexual abuse against women. it is often for fear of police also harboring these views which results in (an estimated) mere 10% of sexual abuse incidents being reported.

Your view is a morally valid stance, we can agree to disagree. I am aware of my comments being offensive and controversial, this was expected given the background, education and intelligence of many of the members here.

My understanding of law is limited, though I am unaware that laws pass judgements upon whose responsibility it was and who caused it. I believe punishment is passed to the defendant if he/she/they have done something defined by the law as 'wrong'. The two are very different. In any case, I disagree that the victim has no responsibility no matter the circumstances [I have already outlined my reason in previous posts].

However, I must say that your view is more or less an ideal, an ideal that I share. In reality, however, someone without sensibility (or for lack of a better word, common sense) cannot survive. Upholding the banner of sovereignty won't stop many criminals from harming you.

In my opinion, to battle the number of rapes, it is much easier to educate everyone to defend and lookout for themselves and spot danger, than to educate everyone about respecting other people's free will.

[herzy]

the law does pass judgement on who is responsible e.g. the difference between negligence (read: leaving the gate to the pool unlocked) and manslaughter (read:  9 year old dropping a baby into a pool) etc. etc.

as far as im aware (at this stage, knowledge of law is very limited) it USED to be a valid defense to argue that she was acting provocatively. that was however reformed, and now, no matter of prior actions, a woman has the complete, obligation-free right to stop at any time (and so provocation is no longer accepted as a defense).

that said, of course what you have said just now is correct and i agree wholeheartedly - while in theory one has the right to act as they choose, that doesnt do much good if you are still victimised. obviously it is much simpler to avoid potentially dangerous situations.

what i objected to was the manner in which you portrayed the victim (read 'fucking dumb bitch') and the responsibility of such victims. although it might be wise to try to avoid such situations, and not act provocatively, that does not mean that any fault lies in the victim, nor are they in any way to blame. there is a (very significant) difference.

[Glockmeister]

I feel like I must clarify.

I also have a problem with that statement being universalizable. I can think of a few cases where people wouldn't mind it because they couldn't care less, but they are rather controversial.

Hands up if you would would be seriously upset if Hitler was captured, then raped. Keep your hands up if you would stand up on his behalf to argue his case.

I'm going to go out on a limb and evoke Godwin's Law Mao. But to answer that question, yes, and yes.

[herzy]

lol i was going to cite godwin's law... but i forgot

[Glockmeister]

lol i was going to cite godwin's law... but i forgot

sucks to be you

[Cthulhu]

But seriously. I sort of agree with Mao in the sense that sometimes the victim can't say "I did nothing to make him think that I wanted to have sex with them" when they're grinding up against them and flirting with them constantly during the evening at a club or at a party somewhere. I'm not justifying rape I'm simply saying that sometimes the victim would have to have done something to lead the attacker on. Not in all cases but in some cases it applies.

[Glockmeister]

(Image removed from quote.)

But seriously. I sort of agree with Mao in the sense that sometimes the victim can't say "I did nothing to make him think that I wanted to have sex with them" when they're grinding up against them and flirting with them constantly during the evening at a club or at a party somewhere. I'm not justifying rape I'm simply saying that sometimes the victim would have to have done something to lead the attacker on. Not in all cases but in some cases it applies.

But the question remains, how would a person know what would trigger a person to rape them. Yes, your example might seem obvious. But what about a rapist justifies it by saying she was 'asking for it' because she was exposing some leg (which in Western culture, may seem to be the norm)? How far do we go because we can say, the victim had some fault in the matter?

[Cthulhu]

There is really no way to determine what would drive someone to rape another person
Obviously there are cases where idiots think that because they saw a little leg its ok to try and have sex with them. But in [rare] cases like "Oh she came and grabbed my crotch and started making out with me and then she grabbed my hands and placed them on her chest" which do happen and then the girl just walks away how can the guy not get mixed messages from this? I'm not saying the victims deserve it for the way they acted but they did have a small part in leading the guy on and if they don't know the guy he could be anyone and capable of anything.

[QuantumJG]

But seriously. I sort of agree with Mao in the sense that sometimes the victim can't say "I did nothing to make him think that I wanted to have sex with them" when they're grinding up against them and flirting with them constantly during the evening at a club or at a party somewhere. I'm not justifying rape I'm simply saying that sometimes the victim would have to have done something to lead the attacker on. Not in all cases but in some cases it applies.

Ok that kind of scenario does sound contradictory, but in most cases the victim would be drunk and in their right frame of mind probably wouldn't behave in such a provocative manner. So one must question the morality of a guy taking advantage of the girl's frame of mind, so in essence you can't say the victim is targeting that person to try and ruin their life (which is what I percieve the previous examples try to portray).

Bottom line, you can't engage in unconsentual sex with someone no matter what.

[herzy]

exactly. what im saying is that even if she grabs your crotch and puts your hand on her chest or whatever, if she walks away she walks away. that might be annoying (really annoying), but that's life. if she's walking away that means she's done all she wants, making sex after that rape.

[Glockmeister]

exactly. what im saying is that even if she grabs your crotch and puts your hand on her chest or whatever, if she walks away she walks away. that might be annoying (really annoying), but that's life. if she's walking away that means she's done all she wants, making sex after that rape.

remember though, it extends both ways. If a guy walks away, he walks away, make sex after that is rape.

[herzy]

well, yeah... I think I may've missed your point

[Glockmeister]

well, yeah... I think I may've missed your point

Basically, guys have the liberty to choose whether or not to have sex as well, not just girls.