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)

You see OP I think your real question is am I being unreasonable to take or instil in your daughter to take reasonable security precautions when you or she goes out. Stay in lighted areas, don't get in unregistered taxis and the rest of your list. This may or may not prevent you being the victim of a crime but it certainly helps to mitigate against the risk which is not a bad thing. If you asked that I would say YANBU but the way you have posed the question dealing specifically with apportioning responsibility I think you are being unreasonable.

You and me both, TheOriginal.

I suppose I could post that it seems unpopular on MN to expect men to take responsibility for their penises. But I expect am not allowed to say things like that on here!

No!

Wait!

Shit, guys, can you see this? It's like I'm typing, and the words are appearing, and no-one is censoring me! It's a miracle, a blessed miracle!

There's been some really excellent point made here, and we'd like to back them up with our We Believe You campaign, which busts many myths about rape.

'the way you have posed the question dealing specifically with apportioning responsibility I think you are being unreasonable.'

I agree. As if the responsibility for rape can be apportioned 90% to the rapist for attacking and 10% to the victim she perceives not to have taken sufficient 'responsibility'.

Male here and treading carefully although, while there are some illegal and immoral things I can imagine myself doing, rape is not one of them.

I'm of an age and physique where I have to think about muggers. A mugger is not a rapist but he (or indeed she, that happens too when they "need" the money for the next fix) also attacks people's bodies and not just their properties - so there is some overlap.

And I try to be careful where I go and keep an eye open.

But if I get mugged that is 100% the fault of the mugger, no matter how "careless" I may have been.

And if a woman gets into an unlicenced cruising "minicab" and the driver rapes her, he is 100% to blame. It is not zero-sum. But we still teach our DDs not to get into an unlicenced minicab and we are right to do so.

Of course I appreciate that rapists come in all shapes and sizes and that there are some whom no sensible care will avoid; that's why I chose the easiest sort to avoid for my example. But I hope I have made my point which is that to teach our DCs some degree of care and sense does not absolve rapists or muggers. Not one bit. It recognises that there is evil in the world which is, alas, true.

I would say that those types of discussions are appropriate PRIOR to an incident. You know - reminding your teenage/adult dd or friend to take precautions.

However....

AFTERWARDS, if there has BEEN an incident... those types of discussions are OFF LIMITS. Because they have no bearing on the incident at all. And if something happens, it is ALWAYS the fault of the perpetrator... without fail, without reservation, without any recriminations on the victim.

Thanks for all the replies, I wasn't expecting such a flurry and have now given up trying to write a response to everyone!. AIBU was genuinely a question, I wasn't trying to be controversial or start a row. I've been thinking about this recently and was interested to hear others thoughts. As I said, I didn't understand some of the points that I heard mentioned so I appreciate those explaining their points of view.

I stand by what I said in terms of people not putting themselves in unnecessarily vulnerable situations, but that was applying to everything in life, not specifically rape. And of course we are always vulnerable to crime, whatever preventative measures we take, so yes, where do you draw the line.

It's been mentioned that most rape is not from strangers anyway, which is a good point and makes it nigh on impossible to 'keep yourself safe' and is something I hadn't considered.

I guess i haven't come across quite as I meant (or maybe I have, it's hard to tell!). I am absolutely NOT VICTIM BLAMING. At all. You couldn't have known you'd get raped in any situation, you didn't commit the crime, so how could you possibly be responsible.

I don't get is why rape is singled over other horrible crimes where a person is attacked (forget the burglary thing, I wasn't comparing a house to a woman, it had happened to me so it came to mind). Why do these emotionally charged debates not happen when someone is beaten up, or killed? Perhaps it is because some people really do believe the victim is at fault and that muddies the water. I don't know. Anyway, no offence meant MNers!

I think we all need to keep the topic of precautions entirely separate from the topic of responsibility. A woman is not responsible for being raped, including in all those cases where she has not taken precautions against being raped. The responsibility always rests on the perpetrator.

Yes this. I don't think anyone thinks people shouldn't take precautions - but this should apply to both sexes.

The problem comes when, after a rape takes place, people start saying (and they always do), 'well, she was really drunk', or 'she shouldn't have got so drunk', because this is basically saying that, although what the rapist did was 'bad', because she was really drunk, he was somehow obliged to do it or something, and that was the only course of action that could have been taken.

is OP judge Richards? is it fucking 1982 again?

Crime prevention is laudable. My DCs of both sexes have received some self defence advice as part of what their martial arts club covers.

But putting it as a "perspective on rape" is wrong.

I don't get is why rape is singled over other horrible crimes where a person is attacked (forget the burglary thing, I wasn't comparing a house to a woman, it had happened to me so it came to mind). Why do these emotionally charged debates not happen when someone is beaten up, or killed?

Well, they do sometimes happen - I've seen similar debates about DV ('why didn't she just leave?' being a common question). I also saw a truly disgusting post (not on here) by someone commenting on the very sad story of the French woman who miscarried after an Islamophobic attack yesterday - the person said she shouldn't really have been there 'at a time like this'.

But, broadly, I think the reason debates about rape get such a response, is because there's such a long history of seeing it as shameful to women. There's no history of getting burgled being shameful, or being mugged.

The original author of "Don't Get Raped" is BlueMilk. I think she might even be a mumsnet blogger or was at one time.

The point about it being advice to avoid muggings is true, this is a really rare scenario of rape, though.

I read a brilliant analogy which was something like "it's like warning your teenage children that they could get run over if they walk on the road, so they should swim home in the river instead." Whichever course of action you take there is risk - taxi drivers have raped female passengers. Men have raped female acquaintances and friends on the pretext of escorting them home. Women get raped in bars and nightclubs and hotels. You are of course most likely to be raped (as an adult) by your own husband or boyfriend. Giving women the message that they aren't safe unless they are with a safe protector man is unhelpful because unfortunately the safe protector men and rapists aren't easy to tell apart. I've actually usually felt safer in a not-well-lit area because it means I can get home quickly without anybody noticing me.

Of course it's risky to binge drink but it's ridiculous to say it's more risky for girls/women than boys/men - young men are more at risk of several things, being assaulted, assaulting someone themselves, sexually or physically, overdosing on alcohol, attempting some daft stunt and getting injured. But nobody tells young men not to go out and drink too much. When they do it they are "lads" and it's hilarious banter.

No, I'm the one sighing at the ridiculously matryred form of passive-aggression in posts like this. If disagreement with this 'keep yourself safe' argument counts as 'flaming', then so does disagreement with the argument that 'keeping safe' from rapists is either possible or in a woman's gift.

This is what you get on MN if you have a different opinion. My point is made.

'I don't get is why rape is singled over other horrible crimes where a person is attacked (forget the burglary thing, I wasn't comparing a house to a woman, it had happened to me so it came to mind). Why do these emotionally charged debates not happen when someone is beaten up, or killed?'

I think a lot of that is down to the fact that rape wasn't even considered a real crime until relatively recently, marital rape was only recognised as a crime in (I think) 1990.

I think the fact too that the term 'cry rape' is still widely used highlights the fact that people are more suspicious of victims who make an accusation of rape compared to say an accusation of mugging for example. It trivialises it as a crime, you never hear of anyone 'crying burglary', or 'crying assault'.

I was nearly raped by a doctor colleague who I thought I knew quite well.

He asked me round for a coffee and a chat because he said he felt depressed & needed to talk to someone.

I'd finished my work shift & went round to his house. I wore: a loose uniform tunic, loose fitting work trousers, a long coat, flat trainers, my hair up in a bun & minimal make up.

I had my coffee & tried to offer him some advice. He seemed like a quiet, nice man who was a bit lonely because his wife was still living abroad in his home country. I felt sorry for him.

Then I stood up to leave & he changed into a complete psychopath! He said, you have to stay because I've locked the doors.
To cut a long story short I managed to get away from him, unlock the door & run. I didn't report it because who would believe me? Even an ex-friend I told said, him?? He wouldn't do a thing like that.

Back at work he was his usual quiet, nice, polite self. No hint of the sudden change in personality. No mention of that night.

In hindsight perhaps I was stupid to go to his house - but I was brought up to believe that you should be able to go safely to a male friend's house.

However I now let people know even if I go to my male neighbour's house for a cuppa. The incident has made me quite wary of men.

OP I can see why lots of people share your view. It feels logical. If all or most rapes were stranger rapes akin to mugging, it would be good advice. The problem is that they aren't, which is what leads to victim blaming. Where there is a (rare) case of a rapist snatching a woman out for an innocent run or something it is largely unchallenged. He's a monster, she's a victim. Thankfully. It's the vast majority of rape cases where this is not the situation where motives get questioned, which is sad.

Even taking your analogies at face value, which I don't agree with, it actually throws up some interesting points.

When you were burgled, did the police, your family and friends and local press discuss at length the fact that you hadn't set the burglar alarm?if they caught the burglar and it went to trial was much made of the fact that you hadn't set the alarm? Was it framed in court that you frequently failed to set your alarm and were known to make this error used by the defence to mitigate the crime?
If the burglar had turned out to be someone you knew, the guy who fitted your kitchen maybe, who you'd let take the old appliances to sell for parts. You'd given him stuff before so how does the court know this time you weren't ok with it? For that matter could it have been a mistake and he thought it was ok?

I think this shows that there are elements of the way a victim of rape is treated that are truly vile.

I agree with you OP, and I'm prepared to be criticised like you. In fact have said similar in the past, and have been.

Yes, most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim.
Yes, the rapist is always to blame
Yes, the victim is always innocent.
Those facts are irrefutable and beyond argument.

But if I walk out drunk in a public place I put myself at a greater risk of many types of harm, not just rape. No-one should be doing that harm to me, and I would be innocent, but I choose to avoid those risks.

If I cross a one-way road, I look both ways. There shouldn't be anyone driving the wrong way, and I would be innocent, but I can avoid that risk too.

YANBU.

The 'keep your knickers on' thing is a reference to the idea that it's somehow cheating to refuse consent after a certain point, isn't it?

Which is a load of crap.

We dont live in a world where it is safe to go off alone with a man and hope that drunk or sober he will behave properly (or her). We dont live in a world where a woman dressed provacitively can expect to go completely un hassled. We do live in a world where many men simply do not recognise that sleeping with a drunk or otherwise uncommunicative woman is rape. We do live in a mulitcultural society where different cultures have very different views on what is okay and not okay when it comes to the treatment of women.
We have to be aware of that, as awful as that is.

yes we should be responsible for ourselves

by drinking too much we may not always act in a responsible way but that does not mean we can be responsible for other peoples actions towards us

but a rapist makes a choice to rape, they are the only one making that choice they take all the responsibility for their actions

I don't get is why rape is singled over other horrible crimes where a person is attacked

OP I can't get you to realise why rape is singled over other attacks to the person. Law and Order SVU has a line at the start where they put it better than I could if I can remember what it is 'sexually based crimes are considered to be particularly heinous'.

Am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Do you really not view rape as different to other violent crime on the person?

Sure, Sallying, that makes sense. But does that mean you have any sort of moral obligation to do those things? You choose to. Do you think in general that women ought to?