Post by: ninwa on February 16, 2010, 01:13:59 pm
http://www.news.com.au/world/uk-women-say-rape-blame-lies-with-victim/story-e6frfkyi-1225830709276
Quote
The Wake up to Rape report showed that 54 per cent of women thought rape victims should be held accountable for their role in the crime
Post by: the.watchman on February 16, 2010, 02:22:27 pm
Post by: QuantumJG on February 16, 2010, 02:31:51 pm
Post by: the.watchman on February 16, 2010, 02:50:08 pm
I remember this being discussed in a criminology lecture when we were looking at sexual assault.
What was the general consensus?
Can't be >50% :P
...only in Great Britain...
Post by: Fyrefly on February 16, 2010, 03:25:51 pm
*Sigh*
Only in Ameri- wait, wut?
Fail.
Post by: Mao on February 16, 2010, 03:58:19 pm
It's like dangling a KFC bucket in front of a starving lion, then suing the zoo for losing your arm.
This does not generalize to all incidents of rape, but I can understand where these figures are coming from. They are not as ridiculous as it seems.
Post by: the.watchman on February 16, 2010, 04:09:09 pm
I again find myself against the status quo of the forum community. The stories I've heard and things I've witnessed cannot be shared here, but sometimes rape is not something as straight-forward as a guy knocking out a girl and sticking it in, it usually involves some kind of cocktease and a lot of alcohol, and a complete lack of sensibility.
It's like dangling a KFC bucket in front of a starving lion, then suing the zoo for losing your arm.
This does not generalize to all incidents of rape, but I can understand where these figures are coming from. They are not as ridiculous as it seems.
Hmmm ... I suppose the victims may put themselves in such a position.
However, while they may be wrong, I reckon the offender is more to blame, because he makes the 'conscious' decision to offend.
Post by: ninwa on February 16, 2010, 04:41:35 pm
I again find myself against the status quo of the forum community. The stories I've heard and things I've witnessed cannot be shared here, but sometimes rape is not something as straight-forward as a guy knocking out a girl and sticking it in, it usually involves some kind of cocktease and a lot of alcohol, and a complete lack of sensibility.
It's like dangling a KFC bucket in front of a starving lion, then suing the zoo for losing your arm.
This does not generalize to all incidents of rape, but I can understand where these figures are coming from. They are not as ridiculous as it seems.
The difference is, we humans are (or at least like to think we are) more intelligent than animals. We should be more capable of rational behaviour than "oooh hot chick, sparse clothes, mine mine mine". Theoretically.
Being a "cocktease" does not excuse criminal behaviour, for similar reasons as to why provocation is no longer a valid defence to murder/assault/manslaughter.
The only area in which I may be tempted to agree with these women is in those cases where a woman decides the morning after that no she didn't really consent, when really it is just a manifestation of "buyer's remorse".
Post by: QuantumJG on February 16, 2010, 04:51:41 pm
I remember this being discussed in a criminology lecture when we were looking at sexual assault.
What was the general consensus?
Can't be >50% :P
...only in Great Britain...
It actually is the general consensus that rape victims felt 'responsible' for this happening. The other thing is that rape isn't about sex but power and humiliation (quoted from my criminology lecture). Another horrible thing is that some lawyers of the defendant will end up humilliating the plaintiff in order to win the case.
After reading the main part of the thread, this is different to women thinking that victims should actually be blamed for being raped. As I stated above it's not related to sex but actually belittling the victim, so the article's consensus is something I disagree with.
Post by: periwinkle on February 16, 2010, 11:20:20 pm
I again find myself against the status quo of the forum community. The stories I've heard and things I've witnessed cannot be shared here, but sometimes rape is not something as straight-forward as a guy knocking out a girl and sticking it in, it usually involves some kind of cocktease and a lot of alcohol, and a complete lack of sensibility.Doing something to 'invite' a crime doesn't make the crime any more permissible. Consider a)somebody leaving a laptop on a seat of their car, plain for anyone to see and b)leaving said gadget in the boot. Both are stolen. I don't think the stupidity evident in case a) would be a major factor in the courtroom (maybe the judge would make a passing remark about it.)
It's like dangling a KFC bucket in front of a starving lion, then suing the zoo for losing your arm.
This does not generalize to all incidents of rape, but I can understand where these figures are coming from. They are not as ridiculous as it seems.
It's like in the Roman Polanski case, a well-respected historian on tv here tried to draw attention to the fact that his victim didn't have a chaperone. Utterly irrelevant.
Post by: Mao on February 17, 2010, 12:09:16 am
I again find myself against the status quo of the forum community. The stories I've heard and things I've witnessed cannot be shared here, but sometimes rape is not something as straight-forward as a guy knocking out a girl and sticking it in, it usually involves some kind of cocktease and a lot of alcohol, and a complete lack of sensibility.Doing something to 'invite' a crime doesn't make the crime any more permissible. Consider a)somebody leaving a laptop on a seat of their car, plain for anyone to see and b)leaving said gadget in the boot. Both are stolen. I don't think the stupidity evident in case a) would be a major factor in the courtroom (maybe the judge would make a passing remark about it.)
It's like dangling a KFC bucket in front of a starving lion, then suing the zoo for losing your arm.
This does not generalize to all incidents of rape, but I can understand where these figures are coming from. They are not as ridiculous as it seems.
It's like in the Roman Polanski case, a well-respected historian on tv here tried to draw attention to the fact that his victim didn't have a chaperone. Utterly irrelevant.
Well said, we have given the two extremes of possible analogies.
The crime is despicable, and we "should" have the rationality to refrain from this. Rape should not be condoned because of possible provocation, but the fault does not lie entirely with the rapist.
There is a generalization that a rapist is always a ruthless soulless bastard who did it for humiliating the girl. There is also the other end of the spectrum that the victim is an absolute manipulative bitch, and especially attractive, and after the guy has been played and realised he's been played, he fucking loses it.
Post by: enwiabe on February 17, 2010, 12:55:18 am
It is precisely the human difference; sentient thought and human compassion, which makes rape an unforgiveable crime in ANY context. Being drunk isn't an excuse. Being teased is not an excuse. Nobody has the right, anywhere, anytime, to do that sort of harm to a human being.
There is no justification. The perpetrator had a choice. And they made the wrong one. No excuses.
Post by: Mao on February 17, 2010, 02:14:09 am
Mao, you cannot make an analogue between a lion and a human being.
It is precisely the human difference; sentient thought and human compassion, which makes rape an unforgiveable crime in ANY context. Being drunk isn't an excuse. Being teased is not an excuse. Nobody has the right, anywhere, anytime, to do that sort of harm to a human being.
There is no justification. The perpetrator had a choice. And they made the wrong one. No excuses.
I firstly have a problem with the presumption that everyone has sentient thought and human compassion. If that is the case, then I doubt anyone should be able to appeal for mental disabilities, or get less of a punishment.
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.
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.
But then because this view is rather controversial, very few would find it acceptable.
Post by: ninwa on February 17, 2010, 09:20:49 am
The system makes enough concessions as it is - we don't need to give them even more ways out. (This isn't the case for UK law though, AFAIK)
I firstly have a problem with the presumption that everyone has sentient thought and human compassion. If that is the case, then I doubt anyone should be able to appeal for mental disabilities, or get less of a punishment.
Within the law, there is always a presumption of sanity, and it is for the defendant to prove otherwise.
Of course not everyone is "human" in that sense - that is why the avenues of the defence of mental impairment etc exist. But it would be a dangerous thing to start creating arbitrary situations where rape would be excusable just because some people do not have the mental capability to know any better.
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.
If they "couldn't care less" that constitutes consent and therefore it is not rape...
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.
I think that's akin to saying a murder victim partially caused their own death because they had chances to avoid it - by having intruder alarms on in the house, putting padlocks on the windows, not walking on the streets at night, not working as a prostitute, not looking at that strange man in a way he found offensive, not dressing inappropriately and merely looking like a prostitute, not breaking up with a violent person, not instituting custody proceedings for children from the violent person...
Post by: QuantumJG on February 17, 2010, 02:44:18 pm
I again find myself against the status quo of the forum community. The stories I've heard and things I've witnessed cannot be shared here, but sometimes rape is not something as straight-forward as a guy knocking out a girl and sticking it in, it usually involves some kind of cocktease and a lot of alcohol, and a complete lack of sensibility.Doing something to 'invite' a crime doesn't make the crime any more permissible. Consider a)somebody leaving a laptop on a seat of their car, plain for anyone to see and b)leaving said gadget in the boot. Both are stolen. I don't think the stupidity evident in case a) would be a major factor in the courtroom (maybe the judge would make a passing remark about it.)
It's like dangling a KFC bucket in front of a starving lion, then suing the zoo for losing your arm.
This does not generalize to all incidents of rape, but I can understand where these figures are coming from. They are not as ridiculous as it seems.
It's like in the Roman Polanski case, a well-respected historian on tv here tried to draw attention to the fact that his victim didn't have a chaperone. Utterly irrelevant.
Well said, we have given the two extremes of possible analogies.
The crime is despicable, and we "should" have the rationality to refrain from this. Rape should not be condoned because of possible provocation, but the fault does not lie entirely with the rapist.
There is a generalization that a rapist is always a ruthless soulless bastard who did it for humiliating the girl. There is also the other end of the spectrum that the victim is an absolute manipulative bitch, and especially attractive, and after the guy has been played and realised he's been played, he fucking loses it.
It looks like Hollywood has warped your mind.
Mao, you cannot make an analogue between a lion and a human being.
It is precisely the human difference; sentient thought and human compassion, which makes rape an unforgiveable crime in ANY context. Being drunk isn't an excuse. Being teased is not an excuse. Nobody has the right, anywhere, anytime, to do that sort of harm to a human being.
There is no justification. The perpetrator had a choice. And they made the wrong one. No excuses.
I firstly have a problem with the presumption that everyone has sentient thought and human compassion. If that is the case, then I doubt anyone should be able to appeal for mental disabilities, or get less of a punishment.
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.
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.
But then because this view is rather controversial, very few would find it acceptable.
I don't know about victims having the opportunity to avoid this from happening as the rapist would have premeditated the act. But really as what a lot of VNers are saying, you can't say that victims are trying to be murdered, raped or stolen from. Ninwa brought up a really good point by saying 'how do victims know whether doing something will set off a predator?'
Post by: Mao on February 18, 2010, 12:55:57 am
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
Post by: herzy on February 18, 2010, 01:34:21 am
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 bitchhas 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).
Post by: Mao on February 18, 2010, 02:01:40 am
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. thefucking dumb bitchhas 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.
Post by: herzy on February 18, 2010, 02:17:50 am
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.
Post by: Glockmeister on February 18, 2010, 04:57:53 pm
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.
Post by: herzy on February 18, 2010, 05:01:31 pm
Post by: Glockmeister on February 18, 2010, 05:21:51 pm
lol i was going to cite godwin's law... but i forgot :(
sucks to be you :P
Post by: Cthulhu on February 18, 2010, 05:37:03 pm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Adolf_Hitler-1933.jpg)
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.
Post by: Glockmeister on February 18, 2010, 11:51:54 pm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Adolf_Hitler-1933.jpg)
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?
Post by: Cthulhu on February 19, 2010, 12:28:36 am
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.
Post by: QuantumJG on February 19, 2010, 12:33:03 am
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.
Post by: herzy on February 19, 2010, 10:02:20 am
Post by: Glockmeister on February 19, 2010, 08:51:22 pm
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.
Post by: herzy on February 19, 2010, 08:59:39 pm
Post by: Glockmeister on February 19, 2010, 09:26:32 pm
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.
Post by: herzy on February 19, 2010, 09:45:57 pm
to clarify obviously pursuing a potential partner is acceptable, its just when either gender takes it too far...
Post by: redmosez on February 19, 2010, 10:31:38 pm
Quote
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"
Then in an ideal world, that is rape. Problem is most people wouldn't view a female acting in that was as raping the male (esp if she is attractive)
The thing I think Mao is trying to argue is, very rarely does someone in the "heat of the moment" stop and ask permission.
Sometimes a guy and girl could be making out etc and one of them believes that this means the other wants to go further, while the other doesn't want to.
All those hormones mixed in with alcohol and perhaps drugs and soon things are going too far. And while it's easy to idealise and say that alcohol is not an excuse, sometimes things aren't so simple.
So is it the responsibility of both people to stop in the "heat of the moment" and ask permission? or is it assumed that unless one person clearly says "No stop" that it's ok?
Post by: Mao on February 20, 2010, 01:27:40 am
So is it the responsibility of both people to stop in the "heat of the moment" and ask permission? or is it assumed that unless one person clearly says "No stop" that it's ok?
What about the times when she screams 'no' but really means 'YES'? ;)
Post by: QuantumJG on February 20, 2010, 08:25:27 am
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.
Yeah ofcourse we have that liberty and the sad part is that anyone wouldn't believe a guy if they were raped. The other fact is that this only makes 2% of offences (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender?wasRedirected=true)
Post by: the.watchman on February 20, 2010, 08:33:12 am
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.
Yeah ofcourse we have that liberty and the sad part is that anyone wouldn't believe a guy if they were raped. The other fact is that this only makes 2% of offences (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender?wasRedirected=true)
Probs very true, it'd seem pretty hard to believe
Post by: herzy on February 20, 2010, 10:07:40 am
So is it the responsibility of both people to stop in the "heat of the moment" and ask permission? or is it assumed that unless one person clearly says "No stop" that it's ok?
What about the times when she screams 'no' but really means 'YES'? ;)
lol
Post by: Cthulhu on February 20, 2010, 12:30:34 pm
So is it the responsibility of both people to stop in the "heat of the moment" and ask permission? or is it assumed that unless one person clearly says "No stop" that it's ok?What about the times when she screams 'no' but really means 'YES'? ;)
I love opposite day.
Post by: Collin Li on February 20, 2010, 04:28:50 pm
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.
Yeah ofcourse we have that liberty and the sad part is that anyone wouldn't believe a guy if they were raped. The other fact is that this only makes 2% of offences (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender?wasRedirected=true)
Probs very true, it'd seem pretty hard to believe
Recent studies (no source, CBF, but Google would support me) show that women have as much sexual appetite as men -- and many also face a lack of it, while many middle aged men are not interested.
Post by: Fyrefly on February 21, 2010, 12:12:23 am
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.
Yeah ofcourse we have that liberty and the sad part is that anyone wouldn't believe a guy if they were raped. The other fact is that this only makes 2% of offences (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender?wasRedirected=true)
Probs very true, it'd seem pretty hard to believe
Recent studies (no source, CBF, but Google would support me) show that women have as much sexual appetite as men -- and many also face a lack of it, while many middle aged men are not interested.
Generally, a man's sex drive peaks at around 20 years old, while a woman's peaks when she's about 35.
Here's a pretty graph: http://genius-beauty.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-couples-conflict-about-sex.html