[Closed] Rape

This is going to go well, isn't it.

Cougar if you think it is wrong for here please delete.

Can a womens behavior ever be seen as a mitigating factor?

No.

There, that was simple.

I think that millions of women could be asked this question and if a simple 'yes' or 'no' was requested then there will not be an absolute majority.

Edit: I read her interview in the Sunday Times.

I posted this on the 'women-only train carriages' thread the other day, and it's relevant here I think.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/women-only-train-carriages/page/3#post-7132612

[i]Victim blaming implies "it's your fault you were attacked; you deserve to be robbed; you were raped because you were asking for it" which are all bogus. No-one deserved to be beaten senseless, to be sexually harassed, everyone should be allowed to go about their business without someone else giving them a bad day.

However. We don't live in a perfect world. Whilst the onus shouldn't be on a victim to protect themselves from crime, the fact that crime is broadly carried out by criminals who care not for 'should,' it's therefore sensible to minimise that risk.

I've used this analogy before but, say I was in the pub and left my phone on the table whilst I went to the loo, and when I came out it was gone. Did I deserve to be robbed? No. Is it my fault it was stolen? No. Is there anything I could've done to mitigate risk? Wait, actually, yes there was. (Or as a more STW-friendly example; you might well have right of way but that won't do you much good when your bike's under the front wheels of a car.)

We should all be free to walk the streets, to take public transport without being harassed, whether we're female, male or anything else. But until we reach that utopia it's surely sensible to consider all options even if ultimately some of them are really poor ideas, and in the meantime take whatever steps we can to keep ourselves safe.[/i]

No.

I think what she said has some merit

Of course it does. Recognising that some situations are riskier than others isn't condoning rape.

[i]No.

There, that was simple.
[/i]

Or, yes.

Cougar speaks sense.

Cougar if you think it is wrong for here please delete.

With my <mod> hat on for a moment; I'm not one for censorship and nor is STW generally, so as far as I'm concerned the thread is fine so long as Wheaton's Law applies.

I'll go with. errrr. No!

[i] Cougar - Moderator
This is going to go well, isn't it.[/i]

Unlike the rest of us, this thread represents a yet to be determined degree of "work" for you.

But try not to be so pessimistic, have hope.
Members might just surprize us and get a good discussion going.
🙂

I was at Glasgow High Court last week as a potential juror on a rape case where the defendants special plea was "Consent by both parties".

Jury was picked and it was 13 men and 2 women. Straight away all the women in the non-selected jurors area starting quietly muttering about the fact that it was therefore biased towards the man (defendant).

I wasn't selected as a juror (thankfully) so don't know how the case turned out but i can imagine there must be loads of cases like this where proof is hard to come by and the result of the case could rest upon the split of woman/men.

Obviously there must have been some alleged proof otherwise the case wouldn't have made it to court but i still think these types of cases must be a nightmare for all (innocent) parties involved.

No. In my very own painful experience perpetrators will find any excuse be the victim woman, man or child.

The problem is blame is a percentage. In a car accident, often one person is 100% to blame. Sometimes both did something stupid that'd ordinarily not cause an accident, but combined they do, so blame is proportioned 50/50. Sometimes it's more nuanced, 70/30 or something like that. But always adds up to 100%.

When you start saying that a woman is X% responsible for what happened to her, which is what you're saying if you suggest that she shouldn't get into "risky" situations, then you automatically make the rapist less than 100% responsible for what happened.

If we're going to be all grown up:

Can a [s]womens[/s] victim's behavior ever be seen as a mitigating factor?

I think what she said has some merit but no blame should be put on [s]women[/s] the victim at all.

If what she says is true, then babies would never be raped. Old woman asleep in their nightdresses in their own home would never be raped.

She is mixing up cause with opportunity.

When you start saying that a woman is X% responsible for what happened to her, which is what you're saying if you suggest that she shouldn't get into "risky" situations, then you automatically make the rapist less than 100% responsible for what happened.

How about if they're both drunk, he invites her up to his flat, they make it to bed + no clothes + they've got started and she suddenly gets second thoughts? It's still rape, but to say she is completely blameless is not (IMO) correct.

Actually, mitigating - no - it doesn't make it less severe. Can the victims behaviour increase their chances of being raped - most definitely yes.

In her book, Hynde writes: “If I’m walking around in my underwear [b]and I’m drunk? Who else’s fault can it be?[/b] If I’m walking around and I’m very modestly dressed and I’m keeping to myself and someone attacks me, then I’d say that’s his fault. But if I’m being very lairy and putting it about and being provocative, then you are enticing someone who’s already unhinged – don’t do that. Come on! That’s just common sense. You know, if you don’t want to entice a rapist, don’t wear high heels so you can’t run from him.”

Emphasis mine for the stand out victim blame, but TBH the whole piece is so wrong, it's hard where to know to start

consent, it's like making a cup of tea...

The rapist always has to be 100% responsible, it's inconceivable for the woman to be at "fault".

I think people often get confused with the subtle difference between a woman doing something which could place part of the blame on her and taking/failing to take indirect actions which could have avoided her own rape. ie the difference between fault and mitigation of risk.

For example, a man is hiding in a bush on West Street. A woman walks past and the man rapes her. The man is of course at fault 100%.

Had the woman chosen to walk home on East Street then she would have avoided being raped. You CANNOT however suggest that she contributed to her own rape, but of course indirectly her actions led her to it, such is the randomness and complexity of life.

Now consider that West Street has a reputation for being full of rapists at night. Does her choice to walk home via West Street rather than East Street mean that she failed to fully mitigate the risk of being raped? Perhaps, but it still doesn't change where the fault lies - 100% on the rapist.

Women shouldn't be expected to fully mitigate the risk of being raped (i.e. living in a cave) and no fault should be connected to any failure to mitigate.

When you find a map clearly marking these streets that are full of rapists can I have a copy please ? If you can add a description of the rapists that would be helpful too. Thanks.

I read her comments as more being about blaming herself for what she suffered more than commenting on any other situation.

Has no one seen [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accused_%281988_film%29 ]The Accused[/url]?
It's a NO

Chrissie Hynde is wrong when she says "If I’m walking around in my underwear and I’m drunk? Who else’s fault can it be? "
The law is the law.
Violent crime is not the same as an accident.

When you find a map clearly marking these streets that are full of rapists can I have a copy please ? If you can add a description of the rapists that would be helpful too. Thanks.

It's a super easy to understand example, rather than trying to generalise every complex situation which can result in rape.

How about if they're both drunk, he invites her up to his flat, they make it to bed + no clothes + they've got started and she suddenly gets second thoughts? It's still rape, but to say she is completely blameless is not (IMO) correct.

At the point she says stop, if you don't stop, it's your fault. 100%.

That is the minimum right every human should expect from all others.

How about if they're both drunk, he invites her up to his flat, they make it to bed + no clothes + they've got started and she suddenly gets second thoughts? It's still rape, but to say she is completely blameless is not (IMO) correct.

This is absolutely insane to me. How can a man who is unwilling to stop putting himself inside you when you have said you don't want him to be any less than 100% to blame?

No.

Oldbloke beat me to it ^

Perhaps Hynde's remarks are rooted in her experience and how that has effected her for the rest of her life. I would take this into account.

NO.
Charlie Webster has it. Chrissie Hynde needs help and support to understand that she did nothing wrong and not to be lambasted for not fully understanding her position.
[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/charlie-webster/chrissie-hynde_b_8076056.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067 ]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/charlie-webster/chrissie-hynde_b_8076056.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067[/url]

In related news, I've just stumbled across this.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions/two-sisters-sentenced-rape-demand-justice-india-womens-rights

An unelected all-male village council in India has ordered that 23-year-old Meenakshi Kumari and her 15-year-old sister are raped.

The ‘sentence’ was handed down as punishment after their brother eloped with a married woman. They also ordered for the sisters to be paraded naked with blackened faces

Sometimes, I despair for humanity.

Shocking

For Gods Sake!! That can not be real??

Totally lost for words, and sickened.

The worlds got no chance really has it, when that is how some people think!! 😥

The worlds got no chance really has it, when that is how some people think!!

I wouldn't go that far. As awful as that kind of thing is I don't believe the majority find it acceptable behaviour.

Poor Chrissie Hynde. All those years blaming herself.

Poor Chrissie Hynde. All those years blaming herself.

Yup, that's what's so sad.

Rape is not an accident. If you don't wear a helmet and crash into a tree, you may well take some or all of the blame. The tree was not a fault. The bike manufacturer may be taking some blame if the bike badly setup or failed.

Rape is a crime against a person, committed by someone else. Whatever you wore, didn't wear, whether you were unconscious, infirm, frail, drunk, promiscuous, alone in the dark, etc etc etc...no. Just No.

[img] [/img]

IMO Cougars post sums it up pretty well and leading on from this:

Is hanging around with a bunch of people who wear badges saying 'I heart rape' and condoning this behaviour more likely to lead a women to possibly get raped? Yes.

Again, is dressing up in skimpy clothing, acting provocatively and getting hammered drunk in a dodgy part of town, more likely to lead a women to possibly get raped? Again sadly, yes.

No fault of anyone but the perpetrator, but the risk of said event happening is higher.

Increased risk of an event happening does not equate to a percentage of blame being passed onto the victim.

If I go skydiving without a parachute, knowing that I will die not wearing one, is it my fault? Yes, as A+B=C, no perpetrator or law (apart from gravity) involved.

What Kudos said.

Ever had a non-fault accident, on the bike or otherwise? The blame lies entirely with the other party but you still feel that if your road positioning had been better, it wouldn't have happened. It's still wrong, but I guess that's what CH was getting at?

OK ,boy meets girl at a party, both are drunk have they have sex and the next day she changes her mind and says I didn't give consent because of alcohol .
is that rape ?

kudos100 - Member
Again, is dressing up in skimpy clothing, acting provocatively and getting hammered drunk in a dodgy part of town, more likely to lead a women to possibly get raped? Again sadly, yes.

Is it really though? Any stats? Aren't the majority of rapes NOT in circumstances like that?

In any event, statements like this run the risk of being victim blaming, and take focus away from the crime itself.

I guess that's what CH was getting at?

Quite often these stories come about due to distortion in the reporting (again, see the Corbyn / trains drivel), but I think in this particular case she's just flat out wrong. Paraphrasing what she said but, "I was drunk and in my underwear, who else can I blame but myself" is just faulty thinking. It really is that simple. And if she's blaming herself for an attack, pretty tragic also.