>50% of UK women blame rape victims

[ninwa]

=\

http://www.news.com.au/world/uk-women-say-rape-blame-lies-with-victim/story-e6frfkyi-1225830709276

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

[the.watchman]

That is obviously a serious fail...

[QuantumJG]

I remember this being discussed in a criminology lecture when we were looking at sexual assault. 

[the.watchman]

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%
...only in Great Britain...

[Fyrefly]

*Sigh*

Only in Ameri- wait, wut?

Fail.

[Mao]

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.watchman]

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.

[ninwa]

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".

[QuantumJG]

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%
...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.    

[periwinkle]

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.

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 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.

[Mao]

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.

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 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.

[enwiabe]

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.

[Mao]

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.

[ninwa]

For those who similarly feel some sympathy with certain types of rapists: I'd like to preface this by saying that under Victorian law, subjective belief in the victim's consent is a full defence to rape. In other words, as long as you can prove to the judge/jury that you "honestly" believed that the person was consenting, you cannot be held liable for rape, no matter how unreasonable that belief appears to be. (You could say something like "oh yes I know she was kicking and struggling and yelling and crying but but but 20 years ago we had sex once and she LOVED that stuff and therefore I really thought it was just part of the act 0=]" and get off.)

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...

[QuantumJG]

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.

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 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?'