Why is rape the only crime where you can't examine what the victim did?

I'm not talking about in a court of law, where obviously that's going to form a basis of the trial, but in the wider public.

If someone's house is broken into everyone will ask if they locked the doors, the windows, if they hid a key in a too obvious spot, etc.

If someone gets beaten up they'll be asked if they provoked it, etc.

If someone is raped you can't ask any questions it seems. You can't ask if they walked alone down a dark alley because god (*)(*)(*)(*) it, women have equal rights and if they want to walk down a dark alley, alone, then they will and it's their right to do so!

If a woman has a relationship with a convicted criminal and it's suggested that maybe she should find a better man, then god (*)(*)(*)(*) it, you're blaming the victim, not the attacker.

You can probably think up many examples that you've heard.

Now, I'm not blaming the victim, as in I wouldn't blame the victim if they forgot to lock their door and someone broke into their house. It is still the fault of the person who committed the crime.

However, if we're not even allowed to examine what the victims of rape do, isn't that dangerous? Aren't we sending a message that it's better to be raped than modify your own behaviour?

Now obviously I don't want to live in an Islamic type country where women walk around all covered up and are accused of having too sexy eyes to tempt poor men with (they blame the victim it seems), but if we can put out information and discuss this crime beyond just what the attacker did then wouldn't we be arming women, and possibly some men, with more information to make their decisions and then allow them to make whichever decision they think is right for them?


Thought of this topic for here since it's been discussed on another board where people are usually quite rational, but as soon as this topic was brought up anyone who wanted to examine what the victims were doing, without blame, was instantly declared a hater of women.

We don't tell children to just run across roads because it's the fault of the driver who hits them and it'd be victim blaming to teach children road sense.

 

I agree that people should not position themselves to be 'victims'. I've often been told that I look and act like a "cop"; and that's likely because I'm a military guy who has been some places and been ready for certain things. Still, I could be a victim, by maybe someone who hates "cops"; they could target me.

Even so, I'm not sure that women are THAT careless about their surroundings. They are more easily overpowered unless they are armed/trained; they can only do so much.

What exactly are you suggesting here?

 

It doesn't really matter what the victim did. If it's against their will then it's rape. If they walked around in a tight skirt and flirted your head off but didn't consent then it's still rape.


One thing though is that a LOT of people seem to be under the believe that drinking alcohol makes you unable to consent. A woman actually told me that it's the man's responsibility to refuse advances of a drunk woman so if they're both drunk, both willing and do it, then if the woman regrets it later according to her that's still rape. That's bull. Sexist too.

 

I think that stems from the whole can't examine what the victim did mentality.

 

The first question should be, where was your firearm?

 

Of course you can.. What you can't do is bring up the victim's PAST sexual history.

 

To be fair a lot of women who are raped are raped young, under the age of 25 and many of them are under the age of 18. It's also by family members or close friends so they might not expect it or they are "beaten" down, whether physically or emotionally and don't resist.

The other one, the one I don't like, is how sex with a drunk woman can be seen as rape but sex with a drunk man, well, he shouldn't have gotten so drunk if he didn't want to sleep with her.

 

I did say not at a trial.

 

You mean in the investigation stage? Yes, they are questioned about who, what , when, where, how.. everything.

 

I mean just generally talking to people, whether with friends, on a board like this, etc.

 

Law enforcement doesn't investigate rape on political forums?

What are you trying to say?

 

Rape is always wrong because it's violent. If it wasn't it wouldn't be rape. Although, admittedly, some in the feminist contingent seems to want to expand the definition of "date rape" to include any instance in which a woman has beer before sex and regrets it the next morning.

I also don't buy this dogma that "rape isn't about sex; it's about power." If that were true we'd see less rapes of able-bodied young women and more rapes of weak, elderly men.

 

She can believe that all she wants. It would never hold up in a court of law. That is all that matters.

 

I think I get what the OP is asking, and I think it's a practical problem. The constitution says that an accused person has the right to face their accuser, and that there's a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. But we kind of go in another direction when it comes to rape.

But there's the practical reality to deal with, that many women, if forced to face their alleged rapist, won't be psychologically capable of reporting a rape.

 

I think a lot of rape is about power, such as when fathers rape their own children. Those fathers I believe tend to be tyrants in all parts of life.

But when some (*)(*)(*)(*)wit gets drunk and decides to rape his date, that I think is because he's horny and stupid, even though he's probably more likely to be more violent than the average person even when not drunk. But yeah, I don't buy that it's only ever about power. I think that's part of the, "You can't blame the victim!" mentality where if you admit it's about sex then when it is about sex then people will wonder what the victim did to "make" the guy horny, as if it's her fault.

 

Sadly there are many places around the world where if the women is drunk she can't legally consent, but her drunk male partner can and so is to blame.

 

The reason why we know it isn't about sex is because 99.99999% of men will be teased at some point in their life, and don't rape the girl. Sure, you will cuss her out. If you're smart never call her again. But if you are normal in the head, raping is not a justifiable reaction.

 

That's nuts. I'd move. Though, I don't go to bars as the flies are generally more trouble than some fun is worth.

 

Yeah, but that same logic could be used to say bank robbers don't rob banks for money, because most men want the money and don't rob banks.

 

I've heard of accounts in the US where men have been convicted of rape even though both parties were drunk. All you need is a jury to agree.

 

Most don't rob banks for the money. It is a rush, that most of the time turns into addiction, why police stress all criminals are eventually caught. There might be a few isolated incidences where the person only robbed 1 for the money and never did it again, though, I can't think of 1.

 

Heard of accounts in the US (always the US ) where a guy robbed a bank because his insurance company was going to let his kid die because they wouldn't cover the treatment.

 

99.9999% of people will be tempted to have property that doesn't belong to them and don't steal it. But that doesn't mean stealing isn't about a desire for material goods.

How does saying rape is motivated by sexual desire justify it?

 

Rape can still occur. Just because a woman is drunk doesn't mean she is willing. I don't think anyone would argue a woman being drunk is a license to rape.

 

I have actually known many thieves in my youth. All of them either stole for the rush, or for the eventual addiction. Stuff they didn't even want or need. I had one friend who was really bad about it. We would catch him and kick the crap out of him all the time for it. Still he couldn't stop.