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)

Sorry, limited, you were not subscribing to the myth that dark alleys cause rape.

Sallying - avoiding dark alleyways is like me saying that I take precautions to avoid my bicycle being stolen by locking it in my house at all times. Yes, it's very, very safe but it's a bit of a pain in the arse because I can't ever cycle anywhere and stop and come home again. So I can't ride it to work. Or to a friend's house. Or the shops. And it's not very practical to keep my bike in the house. Still, it's very, very safe.

Add message | Report | Message poster YonicSleighdriver Sat 10-Jan-15 13:05:19
Truffle, that's interesting about stigma. Why do you think it's different - STI/pregnancy risk?

I don't really know, it's just that "he's a rapist" always sounds much more serious than "he was convicted of assault by penetration", Even though the assault by penetration can be just as distressing for the victim. it's the same as the scenario in 24 hrs in police custody this week. While GBH with intent carries the same sentencing powers as attempt murder, it just doesn't feel as serious. For me it's the same with rape and abp

That's all right GallicCharlie

Oddfod,
No, avoiding dark alleys is not the same as locking up your bike. Most of the world is not dark alleys.
If you want a bike analogy it would be like avoiding those busy roundabouts in London where cyclists are so vulnerable. You are free to use them and many people do, but it is safer to find another route.

should cyclists avoid busy roads?

Despite my irritation at the fixation on dark alleys in rape discussions, Here goes again. I walk down dark alleys. (I was attacked in one, as it goes; this is just my way of dealing with things.)

The more women avoid dark alleys, the safer they become for me.
Why? Because dark alleys don't cause rape, but some rapists think they're a good place to commit their crime.
But if all the potential victims avoid alleys, they are not a good place for rapists.
They will go somewhere else to find victims.
So there will be no rapists in the dark alleys.
So you're all making it safer for me. Thank you!

It is not like cyclists avoiding Marble Arch, because heavy traffic uses big roundabouts whether or not there are cyclists.
Big roundabouts on busy roads are dangerous for cyclists.
Big roundabouts on quiet roads are not dangerous.
But the busyness of roads is not dependent on the number of cyclists.

Avoiding dark alleys is probably very sensible - you might trip over. It's unlikely to stop you getting raped though, given that most women are raped by men they know, and those rapes don't take place in dark alleys.

Yeah, Odd I carry a torch. The torch won't save me from being assaulted by someone down the community centre, though. It's not big or heavy!

`a heavy metal torch (maglite type style, biggish) is a great cosh and nobody can accuse you of carrying it as a weapon

Agree re tripping over.

An excellent reason not to wander around in unlit places.

Thing is some people have no choice but to be in unlit or poorly lit places sometimes. So what if something happens then? Well they brought it on themselves didn't they. Although again the sympathy for an elderly woman attacked while putting her bins out in a dark side alley will be different to the sympathy for a woman attacked while walking home down a dark side alley after a night out. One is as "innocent victim" the other, well, what was she thinking? And if your knee jerk reaction is to see one of those crimes as worse than the other then use that to reflect on the fact that is because of value judgements on the two victims.

Thing is some people have no choice but to be in unlit or poorly lit places sometimes.
Yes, that's true.

So what if something happens then?
It shouldn't.

Well they brought it on themselves didn't they.
No they didn't, and no-one here has ever said they did.

They took a risk, because they had to.
They met a mugger or rapist who shouldn't have been there.
And through no fault of their own they got mugged or raped.

Just like the cyclist who had no alternative route but Marble Arch. They took a dangerous route and with it a calculated risk of being innocently run over.

So you think that women who "disobey" the "rules" about "how not to get raped" are taking calculated risks?

I call it "living a normal life".

I don't know anything about marble arch cyclists but why are you saying that a man attacking a woman is equivalent to someone "innocently" doing something else harmful? Why are you assuming that someone killing a cyclcist at marble arch is "innocent" in the first place? That seems a strange assumption to make.

You seem to have some fairly strong and quite unusual views around risk and blame IMO.

You're not reading what I said, Queen.

Both the woman in the alley and the cyclist at Marble Arch are innocent.
Both should be able to do that without harm, but both are taking a slight, calculated risk.

'Living a normal life' is all about taking risks and deciding which are unacceptable. Different people accept different levels of risk.

Rape is such a horrible subject that people often take every discussion to extremes, and I suppose that's understandable. But no-one should blame victims. I certainly don't, but I do avoid dark alleys because they are a risk.

I read it that you meant the driver was innocently running someone over.

Maybe a better analogy would be that add most drunk drivers are around at night time you shouldn't cycle after dark. Doesn't sound that reasonable but I imagine there's a similar level of risk as advising people not to walk down dark alleys.

The morning drink drivers are probably in the "I didn't think what I was doing was drink driving" category, a bit like the "I didn't think what I was doing was rape" group.

There have been awareness campaigns over "Look, there's a good chance you could still be over the limit in the morning..." we need the equivalent but "Let's runt through what genuine consent looks like..." (somewhere did do a campaign along the lines I've seen it online -- but the Internet being the Internet I can't find it now).

There's We Can Stop It in Scotland, and they used posters like this in Manchester last year, I think]]. That kind of thing (although the campaign I'm thinking of was a different one. Might have been abroad somewhere).

Here are some of the posters from the "No Excuses" campaign :)

They're all great posters and I completely agree about increasing awareness but that doesn't mean that there won't still be idiots about who will take advantage of an opportunity. Yes, yes, I know it's not the most common rape scenario but it does happen and I don't think there's anything wrong or 'victim blaming' about warning people about that particular scenario as well as increasing awareness of others.