"she should have been more careful"

To the OP

I know how you feel, I felt similarly disgusted when once overheard a relative of mine having a conversation with a Norwegian-Asian taxi driver where she agreed with him that the few rapes that happened in Oslo were because women were walking around late at night and the attackers couldn't help themselves.

But wouldn't your mum have made the same comment if the victim had been male and murdered?

I don't agree with the concept that we ought to treat one another with suspicion and assume criminal motives, or that we are being criminally negligent if we don't do this. I particularly don't agree that sex and sexual attack should be conflated. I think that makes for a sad society where we are being held to ransom by criminals. But there is also an argument that we must bear personal responsibility for our safety and not rely on the state to protect us, and so we should take common sense measures like not going to secluded places with complete strangers.

Your mother might therefore mean that the victim does not bear any responsibility for being raped, rather she bears some responsibility for being victimised.

I think the rapist should have been more careful and not raped her.

There is no defense against those who chose to use their masculinity to abuse females!! Apart from realising that in advance and making sure you always have others with you.
I have a friend who was raped many years ago, she was walking home from a night out in town, wearing a mini skirt and on her own.
Should she have been more careful?

And as for the burgalry theory.

My neighbour and I live next door to each other, we have basically the same kinds of contents.

He locks all his doors and windows, I cba.

Guess who got burgled?

Not me.

I dated a rapist, I had a drink with him, at night, in a pub, with a dark alley nearby.

He wasn't interested in raping me then, he wanted a specific fantasy he created, then raped me.

The only protection I could have had was being inside his brain to see what he was thinking.

However, according to most people, I did something wrong, I was stupid or I lacked self protection.

No, I met a rapist.

All these people who say "it's not victim-blaming to say take precautions" and it's just like locking your front door are victim-blaming though. Because we know that most rapists know their victims, avoiding dark alleys or drunkenness, while continuing to associate with men at all, is not like locking your front door.It's like locking the windows on the fourth floor, where most burglars aren't going to enter the house, while leaving the front door wide open.

There aren't many people advising women to give up associating with men altogether, which is the only effective precaution a woman can take against rape.

That would be the equivalent of locking your front door but you would be considered hysterical, extremist and un reasonable to advise it.

Valpolicella, that's quite a surprising answer from a feminist!! Honestly, I was raped by my ex and we had met online... 7 months earlier though!

I guess the whole "let's blame it on the victim" issue is still quite popular :( So many years spent by the feminists groups to try and change things and you can still heat this kind of stuff around... Shocked.

I don't think anyone is taking ultimate responsibility away from the perpetrator but you lock your doors at night to prevent burglars. Taking precautions is not a bad thing.

That is disgusting, Krumbum. And how weird, really, when you come to think of it, that her behaviour can be questioned, but there is no equivalent comment of, "Was the oral not good enough for him?" I mean, you're given a gift - the normal response is to enjoy it, isn't it? Not say, "Thanks, and I'll take this too." But the man's behaviour is completely ignored - like it can't be changed.

Rape myths or not, I am still going to tell my teenage daughter that getting very drunk, going into private places with men you don't know very well, and walking alone through lonely areas late at night are ways of making yourself vulnerable to predators.

It doesn't mean I think it is her fault if she does one of the above, and gets raped. And I know she may well be raped by a man she knows well. But it's about risk reduction. And seeing that rape victims carry the scars for the rest of their lives, I will do and say anything I can to reduce that risk for her.

It's so disgusting, my boyfriends mum was talking about a rape case where the women had consensually performed oral sex but then the man vaginally raped her. And my bf's mums response was 'well if she was gonna put it in her mouth then she might as well have it in her vagina'. She didn't see any problem with saying this at all.

This is why juries acquit on seemingly straightforward cases.

Educating on rape myths and encouraging the slight shift in thinking that means that the focus is on the rapist not the victim is always a good thing because you never know who is going to get called for jury service.

I'm with Thumbwitch, there's a distinction between the awful "what kind of girl is out at 2am?"/"well she probably led him on"/"did you see what she was wearing" classic victim blaming, where the victim is seen to have literally created the rape and the "mum's eye view" which is that evil rapist bastards, like drink drivers and dogs with rabies on holiday, are inevitable facts of life which you need to be aware of when deciding whether to, eg jump in a random "minicab" at the end of the night. Maybe they won't always be facts of life, maybe they'll be eliminated along with rabies, but I plan to warn my DD that such things exist.

OP's mum was BVU, because for all she knows the victims could have taken all reasonable precautions.

"If there was any connection to being raped and getting drunk, women would be raped by every man they came into contact with when drunk."

Sorry, but that is illogical bullshit.

There is a connection between being drunk and getting a hangover, but that doesn't mean that any time someone gets drunk they will definitely get a hangover.

People who are drunk are more vulnerable. That's why some would-be rapists try to get women (or young girls) pissed before they take advantage of them.

The problem with the "she was stupid" response is not that there is never any truth in it, but that it is the first thing many (good, decent, thinking) people think or say when they hear about a rape.

The first response is to think about how the woman could have avoided being raped, rather than to feel sympathy with her ordeal, or anger at her attacker.

The cultural assumption that it is up to women to stop men raping them is still very much alive and well, even in people who think they know better.

I had this argument with DH last night. He tried to insist that it wasn't victim blaming to think it was silly of a young girl to go to a "party"'with a man she knew only vaguely.

But it was - she did what plenty of young people do every weekend. She wasn't being stupid, just naive and young and trusting.

I agree wamster, absolutely. Also and without any reference to the case Val's mother commented on, how a person chooses to 'take sensible precautions' is an entirely personal decision.

As women we can make our own decisions about how we behave, I have never had a one night stand but a great friend has had plenty. By definition she usually would meet the man, hang out and if she wanted to would go to his house and have sex. This is almost certainly 'riskier' than my take out on the sofa but both are equally valid decisions that doesn't make either of us culpable should either of our evenings end in rape. She enjoys the benefits of the no strings sex, takes her phone, doesn't get too drunk and would consider her own safe guards adequate. I enjoy the benefits of a fine curry and open my front door to a transient member of staff, paid cash in hand and possibly with no legal right to be here (they have had their kitchen staff depleted after a few raids) and I don't think either of us is likely to meet a rapist and if we do isn't because of a lack of self care.

It is victim blaming to even explore whether it was the victim's stupidity that caused the rape. Progress was made when it became legally explicit that husbands can rape, that children can be raped, that prostitutes can be raped, that drunk women can be raped and that clothing is irrelevant. These principles aren't assured either in prosecution or public support but they should be as rapists rape and believing that you can or anyone can prevent your own rape by sensible decision making is naive. I think Krittiq makes a good point on this up thread.

I've considered this a lot and the conclusion I have reached is this:
It doesn't make much difference what women do to protect themselves from rapists. If there was any connection to being raped and getting drunk, women would be raped by every man they came into contact with when drunk. Most men don't rape a drunk woman because they are not rapists. Yet women who go out covered in head to foot still get raped.
This may sound fatalistic, but it is the truth: the situations may vary, but it is the rapist who will find a way to rape whatever the situation and circumstance.

The 'what was she thinking?!' argument needs to be knocked down whenever it is said/implied. Because I don't care what anybody says about this, it is victim-blaming to say such things.

I think that there is a difference between taking a sensible amount of care for one's own personal safety (regardless of gender), and victim blaming. For example, I have told my boys that excessive alchohol consumption can lead to you making bad decisions, and sometimes those can cause you harm or cause someone else harm. So it is sensible to moderate your alchohol intake, so you can make safer decisions. But if someone who is very drunk is attacked by someone else, it is still the attacker who is at fault, not the victim.

I used to be part of the fetish community, and members from that community used to meet up with people who they'd met online, for sexual/fetish 'play' sessions - and the website I belonged to was red hot on informing people how to be as safe as possible when meeting someone who was, essentially, a stranger, one-to-one. The advice was to let someone else know where you are going, who you are meeting etc, to meet for the first time in a public place, and with no expectation of 'play' happening at that first meeting, and to set up a 'safe call' - so at a particular time you had to ring the friend and let them know you were OK. This advice wasn't aimed at women in particular - it was aimed at anyone who was meeting a stranger with the intention, eventually, of being in a very intimate situation with them - and the basis of the advice was caution - and I think that that is spot on.

Everyone should take sensible precautions to care for their own safety - we owe that to ourselves.

No it wouldn't, it is irrelevant.

telling someone where you are doesnt keep yopu safe in it'self but it would help a criminal case.

Telling someone where you are does nothing to keep you safe other than in cases of moutainering, orienteering etc.

Right. So I am most likely to be raped by someone I know. What steps would you like me to take to keep me safe? Logically that would involve not spending too much time with people I know. Or maybe I could wear some kind of chastity belt.

That is why such advice is victim blaming nonsense. And why an analogy to burglary is pointless.

it's an incredibly sensitive situation, as soon as anyone suggests any steps women can take to avoid rape the ritious army wade in with accusations of victim blaming.
if you dont fit better locks on your house and you get burgled, if the police suggest that you do indeed fit better locks you wouldnt assume the police thought you had it comming.

rapists dont have 'rapist' tatooed on their foreheads we dont know who they are, only that we dont want the women close to us to get raped by one ( or any women for that matter).

"One way or another we spend our lives meeting strangers. I have met, dated, got drunk with, gone home with, shared beds with, got naked with strange men and haven't in these circumstances been raped or assaulted. It wasn't luck. Normal men don't do this, their behaviour doesn't change when faced with a woman alone, naked or drunk."

this is what having a bath said, i agree with this also, when i think back to 'one night stands' i had when i was young, the girls were taking a hell of a risk really, i mean they diddnt really know who i was. but in that heady hormone fulled world of teenage and 20's dateing girls and boys will end up in the same place some nights, so risks will be taken.
it is something of a minefield, dateing, and so on, a woman shouldnt have to email a freind to tell them where there going and with who, if say it's a first date, but unfortunatly thats the world we live in, probobly better to stay safe.

as for "what kind of girl is out at 2am" this is incredible, as though if your out late you deserve to be raped, most good parties dont finish until much later than 2 am, when your young anyway. of course young people will be walking home after that.

rape victims are never to blame.

I battle with this. Because while I don't in any way condone victim blaming, and fully understand that the only one to blame for rape is the rapist, there is enough info out there that gives you hints on how to try to keep yourself safe.
And yes, none of this would be a problem if there weren't predatory men out there - but there are and it's futile to pretend (or even hope) otherwise.
So - accepting that they exist, and that there is a chance you might be unlucky enough to meet one, it makes sense to let someone know when you're meeting an unknown quantity, doesn't it?
That still doesn't guarantee your safety, of course not - but it might help if something did go wrong.

I Agree with beansmum, the internet age has created another way for people with poor instincts and low protection to lured to meet predators.

and Val am sorry your mother articulates this:( Mine probably would too, I think she believes that 'good' girs can keep themselves safe. Grrrrrr