My husband and rape

[pregnantpause]

My dh and I have just had a huge argument about rape. He thinks that girls can do things to protect themselves. I think that blaming victims is ridiculous, and men who rape do so for power and control and because they feel entitled to the objects they think women are. Dh thinks we can dress less provocatively, stay in groups, don't get drunk, and make ourselves safer. I think this is victim blaming and rather sickening . I appreciate if you get drunk and can't look after yourself you have made yourself more vulnerable , but I don't accept that we should teach our dds his ethos. In fact I'm appalled. Should I be ? I'm genuinely reconsidering him as a person,I'm so shocked By this. What would you think? Do?

If you are modifying your lifestyle to any significant degree/taking precautions because of fear of rape by strangers in alleys, bushes, etc., then you are going to a lot of trouble for a very miniscule chance of being assaulted. Keeping that view of rape uppermost and behaving accordingly is denying the fact that you are more likely to be raped by someone you know, in your own bed. You are far less likely to be raped by the stranger in the alley or in the bushes or the pub car park than the boyfriend, in your own flat or his, where you thought you were having a cup of tea together.

Moreover, the myth of the stranger in the bushes allows men to perceive rape in that context too, and avoids the necessity of confronting the reality of rape and the reality that many men may well have raped at some point in their lives.

And furthermore, when it is only women who are foolish enough to not 'take precautions' who get raped, it is easier for society to blame them for foolishness or pretend there is some ambiguity about the crime, some ambivalence on the part of the women about consent.

themetapicture.com/he-was-sorta-asking-for-it/

The other thing is that we don't regularly exhort men not to go out and get drunk in case they end up raping someone.

But that is more logical than exhorting women not to go out and get drunk in case they end up getting raped.

It's perfectly possible to encourage a bit of "Risk Assessment" with regards to Stranger Danger and remain aware of the fact that rape is prevalent in the home without needing reminding - but Thank You anyway!

You do realise that the whole stranger danger thing has, in the opinions of a lot of law enforcement agencies around the world, caused more harm than good, don't you?

But thanks for the condescending attitude

You do realise that the whole stranger danger thing has, in the opinions of a lot of law enforcement agencies around the world, caused more harm than good, don't you?

Proof, stats, citations please? Opinions are like arseholes, we've all got one.....

My opinion is that we can minimise the threat of stranger danger (and that's all I ever said). If you disagree that it's possible to be a bit sensible when out & about then just say so!

I'm pretty sure that most police forces discourage drinking until you can't see and then wandering around strange areas at night on your own for anyone of any sex, but please - I'm willing to be proven wrong - so feel free to do so.

Some of your opinions seem to be that it doesn't really matter as we're all living at home with rapists anyway & the chances of being assaulted while pissed & alone are so infinitesimally small that they don't matter....

And my previous post wasn't condescending - it was sarcastic.

Indeed, but the OP raised the topic based on the fact that her partner had said that women could take steps to protect themselves whilst out & about - admittedly in quite a Puritan manner - and she then said she didnt' "accept that we should teach our dds his ethos".

I'd agree that his ethos as quoted by the OP could do with drastic re-wording. But it's not hugely different to what we told our kids (don't get stupidly drunk, stay with your mates & don't go anywhere dodgy). We did this with the aim of reducing the chances of them being violently assaulted & we saw that as part of the parenting role.

I'm assuming that as the OP's partner is the only potential rapist in the house, unless she's particularly worried about him (which would be another thread), then the argument about home rape is going off on a tangent slightly at this point.

Also, rape is one form of violent, traumatic assault - there are lots of others and once you add them to the "alone in the dark" scenario the odds change.

As a parent, I really don't have a problem with bumping up the perception of danger "out there" because I know perfectly well it's statistically more likely to happen "out there" for us...

The OP said she had a concersation about rape where he said that the girls should protect themselves from rape by doing various things which in reality make very little difference.

The equivalent would me telling people to avoid being bitten by not getting out of the car in a lion enclosure at a safari park. Anybody who now says this is poor advice can now be accused of encouraging others to cavort with lions. The issue is that it is poor advice because it tells you nothing about how to spot aggressive dogs, which are what is actually likely to bite you.

So people need to stop talking about dark alleys (like anyone needs to be told) and start talking about the boys our daughters go to school with, work colleagues, their friend's dad and all the other men likely to rape them.

So by his reckoning, the women of Saudi Arabia can never suffer from rape. I am sure they are pleased to hear this.

I'm pretty sure that most police forces discourage drinking until you can't see and then wandering around strange areas at night on your own for anyone of any sex, but please - I'm willing to be proven wrong - so feel free to do so.

Of course they discourage getting pie eyed. But to state that in the context of a discussion about women being raped and an OH's idea that women should take precautions against being raped implies you think if and when they do get drunk they have only themselves to blame.

The implication behind any sort of 'women, don't get drunk and wander about' message is that if a woman is drunk that can be used against her if she is raped, while 9 times out of 10 if her rapist has also been drinking it excuses what he chooses.

Almond, that lion / dog bite analogy is fantastic and I will be stealing it for myself

"AskBasil - Up to you - if that's how you feel you could minimise your risks then so be it, seems a tad extreme."

How is it any more extreme than all the measures women are exhorted to adopt which only avoid a tiny proportion of rapists?

If the aim is to avoid rape, then it's far more effective and therefore arguably less extreme. Adopting a whole host of restrictive measures in order to avoid a very small risk, seems less rational than simply deciding to adopt a lifestyle which avoids quite a large risk.

So by his reckoning

Whose?

OK, I totally agree with everything you've said (and have done all along as I've said) - and don t see it as "stubborn refusal to acknowledge this", because I have acknowledged it

You're cherry picking certain aspects of what I said and ignoring others - I really can't be bothered with this sort of selective "discussion" pettiness as I don't personally find it satisfying, so will leave you to it.

As for the lion analogy - any dogs that could survive in a lion enclosure would need watching with the same wariness as the lions methinks. And what about the odd fuckwit that gets chomped for ignoring the warnings?(happens every year) - in your analogy they'd deserve it, whereas that's precisely the message that we don't want to be sending.

So a big fat "null point" from the analogy judges in this house!!

Um, I don't think the analogy implies that the dogs are in the lion enclosure does it?

My reading was that in your everyday life, going shopping, going to the park, you may encounter a dangerous dog.

You wouldn't encounter a lion because they are kept in enclosures.

Have I misunderstood?

It wouldn't be a difficult exercise to risk assess the possibility of both the scenarios: being a victim of rape from a stranger/someone you know, and being bitten by a lion/bitten by a dog. In both cases I would think the risks are greater from the latter threat. Therefore any risk control procedure should target them rather than the former.

Of course the consequences of the lion bite versus the dog bite are going to be more extreme (relatively) than the consequences of the rape from someone you know or a stranger so that skews things even more into the protection from the greater threat element when it comes to rape. This I think is where the analogy falls down. In a standard risk matrix the risks would be high/very high for rape, but more likely to be medium/low for the animal bites.

Treat it as the HSE do and you can see that society really has some issues with how it deals with (and even percieves) risk.

Sorry that was a bit wordy, H&S and Risk Assessing usually is tho'.

Yes exactly buffy - it's considered extreme