Agi Hammerthief wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Yeeeup. When there's no accountability, why not?

Cuz it's just plain wrong? For many that is enough reason.

I would be more worried about the social cost personally. Always being "The Rapist" among everyone I know. Ugh.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:We do live in the real world and telling victims everything they did wrong only serves to embolden perpetrators and shame victims.

People who have been raped know if they'd just stayed home that it might not have happened. Informing them of all the "risky" things they did is of literally no value except to criticise and shame them and redirect responsibility.

BTW, the only reason there is any risk associated with walking alone at night is because perps keep perpetrating violence. There is nothing inherently risky about it.

Are you suggesting we don't tell people to not walk through dodgy dark alleys flashing their money?

No, the dark alley is not risky in itself. It is the robberer who makes it dangerous. That doesn't change the fact that it's dangerous/risky.

It depends on the way you do it.

"Thuggery McMuggington, the jury has found you guilty of armed robbery, and assault and battery causing grievous bodily harm. However the victim was walking alone in a dark ally flashing his wallet and was clearly asking for it. So, since we don't want to cause you any further inconvenience, we'll let you off with a slap on the wrist. Case dismissed." Turns to the victim. "Let that be a warning to ye. Shame on you."

Clearly not the right way.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:We do live in the real world and telling victims everything they did wrong only serves to embolden perpetrators and shame victims.

People who have been raped know if they'd just stayed home that it might not have happened. Informing them of all the "risky" things they did is of literally no value except to criticise and shame them and redirect responsibility.

BTW, the only reason there is any risk associated with walking alone at night is because perps keep perpetrating violence. There is nothing inherently risky about it.

Are you suggesting we don't tell people to not walk through dodgy dark alleys flashing their money?

After they've been robbed? Yes. It's of no value.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:We do live in the real world and telling victims everything they did wrong only serves to embolden perpetrators and shame victims.

People who have been raped know if they'd just stayed home that it might not have happened. Informing them of all the "risky" things they did is of literally no value except to criticise and shame them and redirect responsibility.

BTW, the only reason there is any risk associated with walking alone at night is because perps keep perpetrating violence. There is nothing inherently risky about it.

Telling victims everything they did wrong does not embolden anyone, unless these perpetrators are hanging on every word of advice (good or bad) passed along (in excellent threads like this one) to those who may not even have encountered any perpetrators. What you've done is make a theoretical judgement about how the conversation on sexual violence affects violent/aggressive individuals, without applying any data to the problem. Such individuals can find all the support they might want from the crowd of misogynists in which they hang out, and those people are not listening to you.

Telling a victim who got sexually battered after passing out drunk on a public walkway that getting drunk enough to pass out in public was risky behavior is simply pointing out a fact. People in that condition asphyxiate on their own vomit sometimes.

What's the theory, Rachel? That ranting about victim-blaming in an obscure internet thread is going to alter the conversation on sexual assault? Great theory.

Have a look at the cover of Time magazine for this week. Speaking out against sexual assault / harassment is the story there. There isn't anyone here saying sexual assault / harassment is not a visible problem. When we mention this Stanford chap, let's not forget to mention that alcohol intoxication on college campuses is also a visible problem, and it doesn't do to pretend that relations between men and women are not severely complicated by the tendency of men and women to make themselves intoxicated in each other's company.

Good points well made, Cito. Applying them to your own contributions is left as an exercise for the reader.

Incidentally, so what if telling a victim who got sexually battered after passing out drunk on a public walkway that getting drunk enough to pass out in public was risky behaviour is simply pointing out a fact? Precisely what purpose does it serve? Like, you know, I think that point has already been driven home a little more forcefully than occurs by someone simply pointing out a fact at them after the event. Or are you the type of individual who just likes to stand around simply pointing out facts to people for no good reason? I mean telling a dying child that sorry but no, there is no heaven and when he dies he will not meet his favourite pet dog again and will simply cease to exist as an individual and will rot into the earth is also simply pointing out a fact. And?

It is a matter of context and timing.

Being inebriated in public to the point of passing out is not a good idea for all sorts of reasons ... such as health and hygiene. I would think people would know better except, well, I have met people. Announcing that more care ought to be taken when planning to attend such events is a public service.

"Just pointing out facts" to a victim of molestation afterwards ... not so much. What does it accomplish? Is she likely not to have realised and regretted enough all on her own, that she needs someone to come along and "just point out facts" for her? Even with the best of intentions it is just plain insensitive.

And "just pointing out facts" in the context of discussing a rape trial...

Fallible wrote:Incidentally, so what if telling a victim who got sexually battered after passing out drunk on a public walkway that getting drunk enough to pass out in public was risky behaviour is simply pointing out a fact? Precisely what purpose does it serve?

It serves the same purpose that pointing out sexual battery is brutality does, as far as concerns anyone who might be a perpetrator or a victim, as far as pointing out facts is concerned. Someone's been duly subjected to some consequences of indiscretion, and now someone else has to be duly subjected to other consequences of other indiscretion. In both cases, we take the indiscretion to have been voluntary, and we say that making yourself a victim is not as bad as making a victim of someone else. Same old story, I guess. Active vs. passive victimhood, right?

A more productive method for those who feel the irresistible need to point out facts which
do not need pointing out is to direct their comments at the perpetrator and not the victim

They are the ones responsible for their actions and so therefore need to be educated about them
Victim blaming does not stop perpetrators from repeat offending so as a tactic it is totally useless

surreptitious57 wrote:They are the ones responsible for their actions and so therefore need to be educated about them

I'm so glad to hear that you know all about who's responsible for what. Maybe you can add a metaphysical treatise about causality to make sure everyone understands everything down to the smallest detail.

There's nothing in my remarks which excuses sexual assault. Since I have made it clear I don't think that constitutes the entirety of the problem, thereby enabling a totalizing ideology of male-female relations to take over, I'll continue to try to educate whom I please. It's not always possible for me to do so, at least until I can get their attention.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:Incidentally, so what if telling a victim who got sexually battered after passing out drunk on a public walkway that getting drunk enough to pass out in public was risky behaviour is simply pointing out a fact? Precisely what purpose does it serve?

It serves the same purpose that pointing out sexual battery is brutality does, as far as concerns anyone who might be a perpetrator or a victim, as far as pointing out facts is concerned. Someone's been duly subjected to some consequences of indiscretion, and now someone else has to be duly subjected to other consequences of other indiscretion. In both cases, we take the indiscretion to have been voluntary, and we say that making yourself a victim is not as bad as making a victim of someone else. Same old story, I guess. Active vs. passive victimhood, right?

What?

Surr, did you just look like you were presuming to know things around Cito?

Fallible wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:Incidentally, so what if telling a victim who got sexually battered after passing out drunk on a public walkway that getting drunk enough to pass out in public was risky behaviour is simply pointing out a fact? Precisely what purpose does it serve?

It serves the same purpose that pointing out sexual battery is brutality does, as far as concerns anyone who might be a perpetrator or a victim, as far as pointing out facts is concerned. Someone's been duly subjected to some consequences of indiscretion, and now someone else has to be duly subjected to other consequences of other indiscretion. In both cases, we take the indiscretion to have been voluntary, and we say that making yourself a victim is not as bad as making a victim of someone else. Same old story, I guess. Active vs. passive victimhood, right?

What?

Let's put it another way, then. As I explained to surr just now, nothing in my remarks excuses sexual assault. It's just that nothing, including calling it 'victim blaming', is going to induce me to stop pointing out that falling down drunkenness is dangerous. Should I ever have the chance to point out the error of his ways to some misogynistic prick somewhere, you can be sure I will avail myself of the opportunity, for all the good it is likely to do. On the one hand, that falling-down drunkenness is dangerous is a stone cold fact, even though pointing it out might be sadistic in some circumstances. Misogyny, on the other, is risky, but all it is likely to get us is a lecture or two from someone fancying herself in loco parentis. I used to be a big believer in education. Not so much any more.

What I struggle with on topics like this is that people seem to think like this:-

Crime occurs
Blame available 100%
Blame to be assigned to criminal = (100% - blame attached to victim)
Therefore any mention of fault on the victim's part = reduction of blame assigned to perpetrator.

I don't understand how anyone can distort things to that extent, but it seems most people do.
In my mind only actions that could cause the perpetrator to believe he was not acting wrongly take away from his blame.

You could say there is 200% available.

Spending all day knowingly jumping around a minefield in hobnail boots = 100% to be assigned to victim.
Planting the minefield next to a civilian village just for kicks = 100% to be assigned to perpetrator.
Neither gets off scott free or even with reduced culpability because of the actions of the other.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:Incidentally, so what if telling a victim who got sexually battered after passing out drunk on a public walkway that getting drunk enough to pass out in public was risky behaviour is simply pointing out a fact? Precisely what purpose does it serve?

It serves the same purpose that pointing out sexual battery is brutality does, as far as concerns anyone who might be a perpetrator or a victim, as far as pointing out facts is concerned. Someone's been duly subjected to some consequences of indiscretion, and now someone else has to be duly subjected to other consequences of other indiscretion. In both cases, we take the indiscretion to have been voluntary, and we say that making yourself a victim is not as bad as making a victim of someone else. Same old story, I guess. Active vs. passive victimhood, right?

What?

Let's put it another way, then. As I explained to surr just now, nothing in my remarks excuses sexual assault.

This isn’t putting it another way, it’s introducing a whole new concept into the small back and forth between you and me, presumably becaus I posted near surr. Nothing in my remarks suggested that your remarks excused sexual assault.

It's just that nothing, including calling it 'victim blaming', is going to induce me to stop pointing out that falling down drunkenness is dangerous.

Oh, I understand perfectly that you stand resolute in your mission to point out the blatantly fucking obvious. You go, girl.

Should I ever have the chance to point out the error of his ways to some misogynistic prick somewhere, you can be sure I will avail myself of the opportunity, for all the good it is likely to do.

Ah Cito, now I understand. It’s not a logic thing, it’s a fee fees thing. Even if it will do no good you’re damn well going to point out obvious facts to people.

On the one hand, that falling-down drunkenness is dangerous is a stone cold fact, even though pointing it out might be sadistic in some circumstances. Misogyny, on the other, is risky, but all it is likely to get us is a lecture or two from someone fancying herself in loco parentis. I used to be a big believer in education. Not so much any more.

Yeah - it’s not as exciting or sexy as being sadistic. I think it more fitting to call it totally redundant and possibly a bit autistic. YMOV.

I am very uncomfortable with the notion of victim blaming in relation to sex crimes since the more responsibility that can be passed onto the victim means less responsibility being passed onto the perpetrator. This is even more true when the crime in question is pre meditated which means that there was already a victim in the mind of the perpetrator before any crime was actually committed. What measures can a potential victim take to prevent that from happening. None at all. So focusing on victim blaming in such a scenario is entirely ridiculous. But even where the crime is opportunistic the perpetrator must still accept full responsibility for their actions. If every word of advice from a victim blamer was acknowledged by victims there would unfortunately still be victims. So therefore attacking the symptom rather than the cause is not actually helping them

surreptitious57 wrote:I am very uncomfortable with the notion of victim blaming in relation to sex crimes since the more responsibility that can be passed onto the victim means less responsibility being passed onto the perpetrator. This is even more true when the crime in question is pre meditated which means that there was already a victim in the mind of the perpetrator before any crime was actually committed. What measures can a potential victim take to prevent that from happening. None at all. So focusing on victim blaming in such a scenario is entirely ridiculous. But even where the crime is opportunistic the perpetrator must still accept full responsibility for their actions. If every word of advice from a victim blamer was acknowledged by victims there would unfortunately still be victims. So therefore attacking the symptom rather than the cause is not actually helping them

Perfect example of the faulty 100% blame mathematics I just addressed.

You can't say "You're 100% not at fault but you shouldn't have been out drinking/alone/gone home with that person" without blaming the victim for something. It is in no way helpful. It only serves to shame the victim.