Rape, blame, responsibility, Amnesty, etcetera.

see, there, he admits he's only even attempting to argue another viewpoint because it's in the news!

Does any of this make sense?

Yes, it makes perfect sense.

Sick Mouthy, how could this be a thread? The answer is just sort of, "yes" and that's it, or am I missing something?

nick, it is a gigantic waste of bandwidth. i am outraged.

xpost oh hell no

The first one is the idea that women's choices or situations in life somehow affect their right to not be raped, something it's implied that a nun "earns" or a prostitute "waives." That's the part we all reject flat-out; that right is basic, human, and non-conditional. Nobody puts himself in a position where it's "more okay" to murder him; nobody puts herself in a situation where it's "more okay" to rape her; period.

The second subtext is that rape is more or less wrong depending on how much the victim might be expected to "mind" -- which (a) kind of trivializes rape by assuming some women might not care so much, and (b) is kind of funny, as a notion, since most of the issue with rape is precisely that the perpetrator isn't, you know, paying much attention to what the other person does or doesn't want. There are arguments to be made that an act is more or less morally reprehensible depending on the amount of damage it does in its own context -- this is a part of why we take the sexual abuse of a child more seriously than that of an adult -- but that's just so complex and not at simple nun/whore play here: couldn't it be worse to violate a vulnerable, unstable, often-exploited prostitute than it would be to violate some particularly strong and saintly nun, firm enough in her faith to withstand with fortitude the evils of the world? And more importantly, since when does any rapist sit around gauging exactly how life-destroying his actions are going to be in relation to the particular victim? How can anyone involved ever claim to know exactly how deeply something like this will hurt one person versus another? And how much does it matter, anyway, with something that's this bad to begin with? And in the end, what bearing does this have on anything, anyway? It certainly doesn't change the ways our laws should respond -- so why are we playing St. Peter and ferreting out exactly how awful an awful act turned out?

The third subtext of the question is that men are so stupid that we'll perceive any form of sexual receptivity as consent directed at us in particular -- that we know to keep our hands off nuns, what with the wimples and all, but prostitutes are just too confusing. This is deeply insulting to the vast numbers of men who never come anywhere close to raping anyone, ever.

I dunno: you can take that thing apart on any number of levels. (In terms of the danger to society, my first thought was the the nun-rapist is likely just nuts, whereas the prostitute-rapist is likely to be an exploitative menace who knows what he can get away with!) But it always comes back to the same thing: in both a moral and a legal sense, it's just wrong, no matter what the circumstances. Killing hobos isn't "more okay" than killing priests; raping prostitutes isn't "more okay" than raping nuns.

If it is a wife instead of a nun or prostitute, should it be "more okay"?

in 33 states, there are still some exemptions given to husbands from rape prosecution. When his wife is most vulnerable (such as, she is mentally or physically impaired, unconscious, asleep, etc.) and is unable to consent, a husband is exempt from prosecution in many of these 33 states.

The only person demonstrating any "glee" on this thread is you, moron. And I don't see what's wrong with being moralistic? But seeing as you've no problem with accusing people you don't even know of being racist, misogynist, priveleged neo-rapists I don't imagine for one second that you'd even begin to understand that.

because, er, "A third of people believe a woman is partially or completely responsible for being raped if she has behaved flirtatiously, a survey suggests".

A THIRD OF PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS. who the fuck are these people, and why are they such total and utter cunts?

that's why it's a thread. because one-third of people who responded to that survey said a woman was in some way responsible for being raped. these things matter. they need discussed. ILX is a discussion forum. i want to discuss who these people are, why they feel like that, and whether "society" can do anything to change them, or whether we should just line them up and shoot them in the fucking face.

christ. (one third of) people = shit.

someone could make the argument that men are socialized in a context which encourages rape or the objectification of women. is a man who absorbs these social tendencies 100% responsible for them? no one would make the argument that a woman who absords this social environment is anything but a victim i presume. while their are social norms dictating that rape is wrong, there are also contrary messages meaning the opposite.

i personally would blame the rapist 100% for the rape not because i can honestly claim that he is a free acting agent but because i have to think that it's in our interest to perpetuate the fiction of morality.

sorry if this seems weird or offensive--just a thought experiment really. i think a lot of confusion abotu who is "responsible" for rape is really patriarchal bullshit, so maybe this sort of questioning is out of place.

i am pleased that the pinefox likes my posts here but i fear this one may not be up to his standards.

the point about "absorbing messages" from the larger culture matters (in the abstract--keep in mind im just being academic here and feel free to dismiss what i say as such) because i dont think there is some free moral center to people that makes assigning something like responsibility feasible.

i think, and things like thread and people's general attitude towards rape, that there are in fact contradictory attitudes about women and objectification and rape and all that stuff in our society.

assigning "responsibility" often as not, then, seems to be motivated by larger forces at play, often political.

ok im creeping myself out with this line of thought so maybe i'll shut up!

(1) No matter how many words you pour onto that first post, it's still a tautology: you're saying a third of people blame women for rape because our culture tells them to, and our culture tells them to in the form of a third of people (women included) blaming women for rape. I'm not sure the issue there is any sort of societal message that rape is acceptable. The problem is the flip side of that. We raise little girls to believe a lot of complicated things: that they're surrounded by the everpresent horrible threat of male sexuality but that they're somehow responsible for managing it, that their goal is to provoke male sexuality but it's wrong and sinful of them to respond to it, that they're meant to walk some tightrope of attracting it but not "asking for it."

(2) I don't understand this ongoing idea that everything has to be categorized as either "personal responsibility" or "product of environment," as if these things are mutually exclusive. In most cases they have everything to do with one another. There are environments you can put people in, and things you can teach them, that will make them more likely to do bad things; that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for those things. And vice versa: there is no horrible thing anyone does that doesn't have some story behind it, some narrative of badness and lies that leads up to it. So?

maybe not, but i would not be surprised in the least to find critical studies that suggest otherwise. personally i think, implicitly, that our culture is saturated in a view of women that leads directly to things like rape, but im not really in a position to back that up. it's ALSO true that our culture is strongly against rape in more explicit ways--but it's like the sexualization of young girls coupled with the hysteria of pedophilia (sp?): there is DEFINETLY a huge contradiction going on. it's almost like they depend on each other.

and as for the tautology: im not sure why that invalidates what im saying. that survey is evidence for the fact that people blame women for rape and certainly contributes to the general atmosphere where people blame women for rape. our culture tells them to in any number of ways, that survey surely included. why ELSE would people blame women for rape other than that's something they get from their social context?

as for point 2 i think you're having your cake and eating it too. responsibility is created by social norms. what we do and do not take responsibility for is determined by things larger than ourselves, namely our culture. (it's not a man's fault for raping a woman in some cultures)

my point is that they ARE mutually exclusive, and your argument in point 2 doesn't really show how they are having anythign to do with one another. you're just saying that there's both, at the same time, but they aren't interacting in any way at all. i dont know the answer to this problem, but i dont think there's really any sort of "compromise" solution possible in an analytic sense. we have to sort of muddle through and do our best with each new situation, respond with the tools at our disposal, provided by our cultural context.

Isn't there any morality or ideas of responsibility inherent in people? Where is there a society of people totally lacking morality or responsibility? There are many critical studies suggesting morality or ideas of responsibility are inherent in people.

Also that survey is not evidence for the fact that people blame women for rape. It only suggests it.

We're getting closer when we talk about the way we socialize children, and how we're telling them sexuality works. The purpose this kind of thinking serves is to basically shift responsibility from men to women: we just shrug our shoulders at the idea that men will take whatever's near -- kind of like swiping your belongings if you leave them unattended -- and therefore we make it the responsibility of women to "protect" their own virtue. There might also be some element of safety involved in blaming rape victims: if a woman is willing to believe that rape victims did something to provoke it, she may also be reassuring herself that it will never happen to her.

As for the responsibility thing, I have nothing to say but just no: I think it's just kinda silly and reductive to imagine that everything is either fully someone's fault or fully the fault of his environment. Both of these things are 100% at play in everything everybody does; your conscious "moral" decisions are based on what you've learned from the world around you, and the effects of your environment still lead up to some conscious "moral" descision. Trying to separate these things is just fucking pointless.

Trying to separate these things is just fucking pointless.

I agree. (though i think the troubling contradiction between the two ideas hold--but it can be a beneficial contradiction sometimes--making us question each case anew)

so: you never go to the pub? you never talk to a man? you never, ever, invite someone back to yours for coffee? because you have to be "responsible" for the fact that some people are cunts?

yeh, some life that's going to be.

look, i don't know what the answer is here. all i'm saying is that this notion of "responsibility" is horribly, horribly wrong. yes, women - and men - need to keep their wits about them, but the same is true of, er, crossing the road or changing a plug. if i cross the road and get hit by a speeding car, am i in some way responsible?

am i fuck.

rape is an abuse of power. there is no excuse. end of story.

ok, right. twinset and orange juice from now on for everyone, is it?

nobody is "perfectly safe" anywhere: in their house, crossing the road, at work, driving their car. yes, you need to be aware of the dangers inherent in everyday life. but for fuck's sake: the very notion that women should avoid "situations where they're more vulnerable", such as - say - the pub, or a nightclub, or someone's flat, or the company of any man they haven't had thoroughly vetted by the police is just ... it's so wrong i don't have the words right now.

how the fuck we do this, i don't know.

what "society" somehow needs to do - somehow - is utterly de-normalise any notion that women are "responsible", even slightly, for being attacked.

of course -- but will this stop rapes happening? i doubt it.

Also I find the idea of taking away responsibility from women (in general, not for being attacked) to be possibly the most oppressive and patriarchal thing mentioned on this thread. Have we not got past the view that women are weak and vulnerable things who cannot look after themselves and need big, responsible men to care for them?

No one should need to worry about crime, and society should be a free place where people can do what they like as long as it doens't harm anyone else without fear of consequence (?wtf?), society should care for those less well-off and protect those that are vulnerable. But it doens't. People are often assholes, there are dangers and there are crimes and people can't swan through life as if nothing can ever touch them. Society needs rules and needs a moral basis and that counts for liberties as well as crimes. You cannot do anything that you want to do with no fear or thought for consequences.

The number of recorded rapes of a female in 2004-05 was 12,867, up from 12,345 in 2003-04 - an increase of 4 per cent. The number of convictions for rape of a female in 2004 was 741, up from 666 in 2003.

• ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,095 adults aged 18+ by telephone.

They were given a series of scenarios and asked to indicate whether they believed a woman was totally responsible, partially responsible or not at all responsible for being raped.

If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible.

If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible.

If the woman failed to say "no" clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible.

If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible.

If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible.

If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible.

I mean, sure, you can say that's because I'm "blaming myself" for what happened, like a "typical rape victim" but the truth is, although I was certainly not "asking for it" it was patently foolish and inadvisable to be rolling around Hoxton by myself in the midst of a booze-induced blackout to the point where I am still not entirely sure what happened to me beyond the police report and rape kit and horrible bruises and garbled memories that I've actually had therapy to repress.

When I think back about how drunk I used to get, and the risks that I took, thinking that I was indestructable because "the worst thing in life that can happen to a woman had already happened" - I am surprised that worse things didn't happen to me. That doesn't mean that I "deserved it". But it does mean that I believe that women should think twice about getting into situations which appear patently dodgy. It doesn't mean that women shouldn't feel free to flirt in bars, wear miniskirts, invite men back for coffee, etc. etc. - but it does mean maintaining a certain amount of common sense about what situations are more than likely to be dangerous and stupid.

And if you want to rip me a new arsehole for saying that, then go ahead. You really can't do any worse than my attacker or the police gynocologist or the detective who asked me if I wanted to drop the case because they had sworn testimony from bouncers that I was plastered and being "aggressive".