AIBU with this perspective on rape?

[TheOnlyWayThrough]

Rape is vile and awful and always the rapists fault in its entirety. Of course it is, you'd be mad to disagree.

The bit I don't really get is the argument that women shouldn't need to take any responsibly for keeping themselves safe. The idea that women (and sometimes men) wouldn't be vulnerable if rapists didn't rape.

Well of course that is true, but that would be in an ideal world. And this certainly isn't one, so the point is moot surely? That principle could be applied to all walks of life where some people do inexplicably nasty things to others... which is basically ALL THE TIME. Some things are obviously worse than others, and rape is up there with the most obscene. It's not the only awful thing though.

You don't hear people saying that elderly people shouldn't need to have chains on their door for their own protection. And if someone forced their way into the home of someone elderly without a chain, I wouldn't for a second blame them/say they were asking for it. It's just that that a chain might have kept them a bit safer; that's why we have them.

A friend of mine was mugged walking home from work one night recently (it was about midnight). She wasn't hurt, but was of course shaken up and felt horribly violated. She won't be walking home again like that as it clearly isn't as safe as she thought. And I think that's sensible. But I don't feel that makes me a 'mugging apologist'. My friend wasn't at fault for the scummy thing that happened to her, but she DID put herself in a situation which wasn't very safe... and she got stung.

When I was burgled whilst sleeping I wished I'd have put the burglar alarm on as it might have stopped it from happening. I put it on every night now, rather than saying "I shouldn't have to; it's the burglars that shouldn't burgle".

Why is saying that it's a good idea to keep ourselves safe somehow misconstrued as mitigating rape in a way that doesn't seem to with other crimes? It's not intended that way, and it's not judging or blaming anyone who has been raped. It doesn't matter if you were drunk, half-naked, whatever - the crime was the rape and the victim did nothing wrong.

So is it unreasonable to think that in some situations, some ladies have put themselves in situations which weren't at all sensible and made them prey to scummy behaviour? And to think that that isn't the same thing as saying they are to blame or deserving of rape in any way?

(Just to add, this isn't about the Ched Evans case any more than any other particular case. And to anyone who has been a rape victim, I hope nothing I've said offends you, it certainly wasn't meant to. And I hope those who hurt you receive justice)

I also don't like the "I got my dad or brother" to drive me home thing.

What if you haven't got a dad or a brother to drive you home?
What if you don't want to be ferried around, what if you want to have the freedom to travel when you want?

I think that people should do what they feel comfortable doing. But I don't think that giving out prescriptive lists of behaviour to women and girls only, which many of them are never going to meet all the time, helps anyone.

Like, don't walk by yourself after dark.

Well, some women have to. Some women choose to. So they have broken this edict and if they get raped well they weren't looking after themselves properly were they.

Interestingly a woman who is raped on her way home from work after dark will be treated differently to a woman who is raped on her way home from meeting friends and had a glass of wine. The press will report the woman on the way home from work as being more of an "innocent victim" than the woman who had a glass of wine. Even if it's the same time, even if it's the same route. And the reason for that is that a lot of this is to do with judging whether the victims were deserving of rape or not. All of this focus on victim behaviour has many negative consequences 1. taking focus away from the rapist 2. judging how "severe" a rape is on the basis of how much the victim was "asking for it" 3. putting forward the idea that it is a reasonable proposition in the fight against the crime of rape to get the rapist away from one victim and onto another more vulnerable one 4. restricting the freedom of women and/or making them feel perpetually that they are at risk while hiding the fact that the situations where they have been made to feel most afraid are not in fact the situations where they are most at risk

This whole conversation pisses me off.

In my own life, I enjoyed a huge amount of freedom, met loads of random people who I had stacks of fun with in all sorts of different situations and levels of intoxication. And it was fine because most men are not rapists. I could have done none of that, missed all of that fun and excitement and for what? It wouldn't have stopped any of the times I have been assaulted which were invariably in situations / with people where these ridiculous rules would have deemed me "safe".

All of this is down to disapproval of women and girls behaving in certain ways. Nothing more, nothing less.

Agree completely Omni, very articulately put.

Yy Omni

I don't have a dad

I do have a brother, he lives in New Zealand. I'm pretty sure if he lived next door he would soon get pissed off with being my personal taxi service. Anyway, why should I have my brother knowing where I'm going and and what time and with who?

Can you imagine the AIBU?

"AIBU to think that SIL should just get a taxi home rather than expecting DH to pick her up at God knows what time?"

This ignores that fact that people are raped by their brothers and fathers. It ignores the fact that most rapists are someone's brother or someone's father.

I wonder if men should get their sisters to pick them up so they can avoid the unnamed badness that's 'out there'.

maddening a woman can be convicted of a joint enterprise rape, for example where she held the victim down for a male to commit the full offence.

Your example would be assault by penetration which carries a life sentence but not the same stigma imo

Weather, in some cases, fighting back will make the situation worse. Each victim can only follow her instincts in that moment. Like Jeanne, I think I would be more likely to dissociate and try and get through it than fight back and risk further violence (as the rape itself is already very much violence)

Truffle, that's interesting about stigma. Why do you think it's different - STI/pregnancy risk?

Good point about where's the evidence for minicabs vs regular taxis. Hadn't considered it might not be an actual increased risk and could be more about not pumping money into a black market. I guess a licensed one is theoretically traceable whilst the other can just disappear. But that doesn't help anyone if victims aren't feeling able to report rape in the first place due to victim blaming.

I disagree that campaigns aimed at men to stop them raping would get anywhere - surely bad people who rape are just bad. They know it's bad, and choose to do it anyway. Just as murders and muggers do. I guess that's where the personal safety campaigns have come from - the idea that the perpetrators of such crimes are basically unreachable due to having no morals anyway, so let's reach out to potential victims instead and show them how to avoid being victimised. It just doesn't translate to working to prevent rape in practice (partly because the proposed prevention tactics don't apply to most rapes, partly because it's making victims feel like they're being blamed).

Big yes to raising our children to think it's not ok to assault one another. This can't just be down to parents though, because abusive parents (and those that just don't understand) aren't going to be in any position to pass on the right message to their kids. So it's not an easy task...

On the subject of taxis when I phone my local black cab company or private cab company they both send a text to me with the driver's registration on it. I presume this measure is to make the passenger feel safer as if you go missing the first thing the police will do is access your phone history.

Of course it's different if you hail a cab on the street.

Is it many do you think? It would be interesting to know what percentage of rapists genuinely don't believe they did anything wrong (as opposed to just professing innocence). It's probably impossible to figure out, but still.

surely bad people who rape are just bad

If the Ched Evans case has taught us anything, its taught us the sheer numbers of men out there who genuinely don't understand consent. There are a lot of rapists who don't consider themselves to be rapists at all, they just don't see women as people and they don't see female bodily autonomy as a thing that actually exists. They think the real rapists are the dark alley ones, or the ones who rape old women in their homes, or maybe child rapists if the child is under about 10/11. They divide women up into 'nice' ones who follow the rules, and 'slutty' ones who are up for it anyway and consent by their very existence. 'Rape prevention' advice targeted at women reinforces this.

I don't understand the OP's argument. I'm about to walk home from a cafe, it's 1.30 in the afternoon but I'll walk down some streets with big houses and drives with trees at the bottom. It's a ten minute walk home and there could easily be a few minutes where I'm the only one on the street so someone bigger and stronger than me or with a weapon could easily grab me and pull me into the trees to attach me. They don't seem to be creepy streets but this could happen.

In this situation, would I have made myself vulnerable? If not, why not? What if I am wearing headphones? Make it dark, is it then my fault? It would be useful to know at what point I need to start taking some responsibility for someone else's decision to attack me.

Children leading them on?? Ugh.

I just wonder how much we can change these attitudes and beliefs regarding consent etc into adulthood. Not that that means don't bother trying, more that the focus needs to be youngsters.

At no point EddieStobbart are you responsible for their attack, I didn't mean that at all.

I think that in society generally there is still an idea that women and girls are the gatekeepers of sex, as something that they "have" and "give up". Men and boys are placed in the role of perpetually up for it. And the whole thing is then set as it's males job to persuade reluctant females to give them sex. Persuasion / light coercion is seen as an acceptable means to get stuff from people generally and this extends to sex. Where it becomes problematical is when it crosses from persuasion to coercion, or when the goal of getting sex becomes so key that the person trying to get it forgets or overlooks that it is an actual person they are trying to get it from. And so starts ignoring / over-riding cues, signals, actions and statements that this is not wanted.

There is a big bit in the middle between persuasion and rape with attendant extreme violence where the woman is saying no quite clearly and the man has simply decided not to hear it.

The other problem that comes out of the women as gatekeepers of sex thing is the idea that if they are not being a good gatekeeper then surely they mustn't be surprised or upset if someone has sex on them (rape). Clear examples of this are when it was considered not possible to rape a prostitute or your spouse. This is the sort of thinking with CE victim. Well she was drunk, on a night out, had a short skirt on, maybe wanted to pull, she was "up for it" and thus her gate was open for any passing male who fancied a bit.

Bit garbled there, but there's a lot of insidious thinking around all of this about women and their roles and how it their morals are "loose" then they get what's coming to them and why would they even complain... It's all very Victorian thinking really.

Oh yes and of course the point that most people on seeing scantily clad pissed young women on nights out think wow how is she not cold in that get-up, and if she is so intoxicated that she doesn't know what's going on "I hope she's OK" and if she doesn't have anyone looking after her, maybe to help in some way. Same for pissed up young men really.

The idea that it is quite normal and understandable when on coming across a pissed young women to sexually violate her is just really fucked-up, quite frankly. And yet this is the approach we are supposed to take as reasonable and understandable from many commentators.

If I came across a drunk young man unconscious on the ground on a cold night, I'd get some help, rather than disrobing him and anally raping him with an object. You know, OBVIOUSLY, ffs.

Only, I'd be interested to hear what you think about my riding a motorbike with no brlmet/getting stabbed scenario - vulnerable situation or not?

triflehunter You are right and not just in theory. I chaired a mags' court in a case involving Stephen Seventeen, Frances Fifteen, and Nelly Nine; all lived on the same estate, all knew each other. Stephen and Frances cooked up a plan, by text, which involved them meeting and Frances then texted Nellie asking her to join them.

Which she did; and Stephen grabbed her, took her into the dustbin shed, and raped her while Frances leant against the door and covered the screaming with her boom box. It took her a week to find the courage to speak.

I only saw Frances on a bail application and I have no idea what happened to her or to Stephen in the end. But it's one of the few cases I have ever sat on which gave me nightmares. Why does Fifteen do that, ffs, why?