Or is this victim blaming?

I agree with those saying risk taking and blame are two different issues that easily get conflated so that what should be seen as choice regarding level of risk is instead viewed as a responsibility to avoid risk. It then becomes difficult to advise our daughters how to avoid risk if they choose to without it sounding like we blame them if they don't. My way of looking at this is to recognise that women, like men, differ in how risk averse vs sensation seeking we are. That's why the OP finds it difficult to understand why other women take risks she wouldn't. But women have the same rights as men to choose to take risks with their safety eg going off with drunk strangers if they think that will be enjoyable. Women are not responsible for modifying situations so that there is less chance of men behaving criminally. However, they might choose to do so in order to reduce risk. Women also might choose to learn self defense. That doesn't mean we think women have a responsibility to do so in order to help men not to attack them.

Looks like Ian Winter is on MN drumming up support, OP - I blame women for putting themselves in dangerous situations, also OP - Could this possibly be victim blaming 🙄

This is victim blaming 101.

You can be drunk and consent to going to a room with a man you fancy to kiss, you might also be totally up for going further but you absolutely don't want anal sex or sex without a condom or rough sex or vaginal sex, whatever, that person is absolutely allowed to be clear about what they're comfortable to do and the moment the other person forces things further, or ignores them that's a completely non-consensual situation. It doesn't matter that she's been drinking and wants to kiss or be intimate in any way, it still is rape if he does anything further than she wants to do.

Come on. Thats not victim blaming. Thats literally a question about the psychology of the individual.

Some people do take more risks than others.

That doesn't mean they are more to blame. It just means they are slightly more likely to find themselves in a risky situation. I'm one of these people btw. I know for example getting on a plane by myself to some countries carries significantly more risk of violent crime than having a quiet spa weekend in Bath with a friend. I do it because the calculated benefit of seeing this place outweighs the risk. I take what precautions I can. If something bad happens to me I both know it wasn't my fault and that it would have been less likely to happen at home. ( non zero though! )

We risk not being able to speak in facts if we can't admit that some behaviors are riskier than others.

If you can carry out a thought experiment where a man was robbed of his £5,000 Rolex, and the defence lawyer for the people accused put forward the idea to the jury that

"We have to ask ourselves why the victim chose to wear such a valuable item out in public"

And think that's a fair question, then you really need to tell me what the law is for ?

Yes, you are victim blaming. Massively.

A man can walk anywhere at any time of day or night, in any state, and be ok. He is arguably safER if a woman is around, because should he find himself so incapacitated he can't care for himself, we are likely to help rather than assault him.

The fact a woman cannot do the same is not her fault. It is the man's fault. ALWAYS. There are no mitigations. She should have known better, she should have dressed differently, she shouldn't have had a drink with him if she wasn't going to fuck him... Consent is not a grey area.

This is the way you lived your youth.

Some women however do walk home alone after dark and walk around lonely parts, they do trust some men, wear revealing clothing, go to a hotel room and / or get drunk with a man they aren’t in a relationship with.

Heck, they might even sleep in a bed with a man they aren’t in a relationship with. But they still get to use their consent.

They still don’t deserve to be raped, and I think this is where we agree.

But living a sheltered and careful life isn’t for everyone! Most young women want some degree of fun and freedom, no?

So women should be able to go around freely without being assaulted.

I think I understand where you're coming from, OP. It seems you are asking a question - 'why do young women put themselves in situations that are potentially dangerous?', rather than suggesting they are somehow to blame.

I do wonder if we afford famous people a greater degree of a trust, simply because they are a public figure? Do we, however sub-consciously, think that famous men are probably 'safe' - we feel like we know them, because they are in the public eye?

I did question, with the young woman who was in a hotel room with Brand, if she would have felt safe to do that with a complete stranger she had met that evening? Again, this isn't victim blaming at all - just a question into the psychology of how we respond to fame - and if it gives us a false sense of security?

I don’t think it would make her more likely to be raped. But I think a portion of men may believe she would be more up for sex? And therefore would treat her in a more sexual way?

Then we educate the men - although why they should need this in this day and age is ridiculous - not tell women to limit or control the way they behave just in case the men attack them. Ffs, it’s not difficult.

Are you actually suggesting I recite your opening post back to you!? 🤔 or the numerous ones that have quoted it?

This. Sums it up perfectly. It all seems perfectly reasonable until we get to a situation where the fact that a woman has done anything perceived as risky is used in mitigation.

???

It doesn't mean its his fault the watch was stolen.

But it's still true to say if he had left his watch at home this wouldn't have happened.

His choice is to have the higher risk of having the watch stolen and enjoy the rewards of people admiring him for it, or on the other hand leave it at home in the drawer with less risk of getting nicked but less pleasure in showing it off.

Personal responsibility is a matter of actual real life fact.

Blame is different and always lies with the offender.

Well for a start, a man is statistically at more risk of being physically attacked if walking by himself (not raped but beaten up or stabbed) so that is not true.

No it's not a woman's fault but what good is blame if it's already happened? The woman will already have to live with having been attacked. It's like the Yorkshire Ripper when he was active in Leeds. They told women not to go out. Victim-blaming? Does blame matter when, if you did end up one of his victims when walking alone, you end up dead? It's about keeping safe.

OK, fair enough then.

Let's move from the law protecting everyone equally (not that it does) to the law only protecting those that can protect themselves.

Which isn't really a change is it ? Not quite sure how it could sustain a 200+ post thread really.

Where did anyone say that??

If your house gets burgled after you go out for the day leaving all your doors unlocked, people might say you were unwise to take that risk, even though you have a right not to be burgled. Why is it that people are happy to take precautions that will protect mere property, houses, cars, and suchlike, but will take risks with their lives? Yes, you're right, you shouldn't have been raped, and the rapist is to blame, and you shouldn't have been murdered, and the murderer is to blame, but your DEAD! Even though you win the semantic argument FFS

But OP you say yourself. Women should be able to do all these things without fear of being attacked. The victims are just that, victims. What they did or didn't do is irrelevent.
Nobody should be blamed for doing anything just because it precedes getting attacked. Trying to make what they did or didn't do part of the equation is quite simply victim blaming.

Human beings are allowed to be stupid and not be raped by other human beings.

Because men like this lie and charm there way into tricking women into these situations and a lot of the time the rapist knows the victim so there is a level of trust already.

That’s it. I’m out. I thought we moved away from this kind of ‘she was asking for it m’lud’ kind of shit years ago.