From here
Sorry dude - a 13 year old girl who gets forceably raped by a grown man has 0% of the responsibility, even if she was stark, raving nude.
Your post is dumb, and your opinion is dumb.
That is all.
I want to agree with you, but… there’s a question in my mind as to what “responsibility” means in this context. If someone does something risky, and something bad happens to them, does that mean they’re responsible for it? If someone drives without a seatbelt, or mountain climbs without a safety rope, or smokes, and then suffers a predictable consequence, we point that out.
But what if someone, say, walks around after dark in a sketchy party of town looking drunk and wearing slutty clothing?
One thing that makes this a touchy issue is that it sounds like arguing that the victim is partly “responsible” in some way lessens the responsibility of the attacker, which is certainly NOT true. If you forcibly rape a woman, you are responsible for her suffering and deserve to be punished, which is true regardless of what she was wearing.
(I hope that all makes sense.)
Dude - we’re talking about a 13 year old girl. She can’t even consent to sex with someone she likes, let alone a rapist - she’s 100% off the hook.
Nope. Doesn’t matter how she’s dressed, what she’s doing, or where she goes.
Imagine this defense, if you will:
Your Honor, those diamonds were just, well, right out there in the window for anybody to see. All twinkly. The store had bright lights shining on them just so I could see how sparkly they were. They were just asking for it. I had to have them. It’s only 50% my fault that I broke the window and stole them.
I’m with alice. This type of thing shouldn’t even be up for debate.
Oh alice, stop discriminating against his Christian values!!!
:dubious:
[sub]that’s sarcastic, just for the morons around here[/sub]
What you say is true. It is also true that people have a responsability to keep themselves safe and avoid dangerous situations. The rape is not lessened by the womans action, but neither is the womans action without some place for repremand. It is understood that some people are bad, so we have a responsability to try and keep ourselves safe from the bad people. Hanging out near crack houses, dressing like prostitutes, walking alone at night are all activities that cary a level of predeterminable risk, and so should be avoided as much as possible.
Though anyone should be able to do any lawfull thing they wish without putting themselves at risk, in the real world real and somewhat avoidable risks exist.
BTW - I have to point out how badly this sort of thinking paints men to be.
“So stupid and pathetic that a young girl in a mini-skirt provoked him into raping her.”
I’ve never actually met a man as moronic as this. Rapists are predators - the girl could be in a burka and be just as likely a target.
“Your Honour, the guy with the flashy jewelry who I robbed is just as responsible as I for the burglary. He tempted me. He should serve half of my sentence.”
People don’t but that argument over material goods - why would anyone in their right mind buy that argument when it comes to this?
Now, it is certainly true that it may be unwise to dress sexy - but only because there are a lot of bad people about. It is all a matter of context. Using the jewelry analogy, it is “unwise” to wear expensive jewelry in a place you think may have a lot of potential criminals, but that sure doesn’t make you “responsible” for being robbed if you get robbed. That responsibility is the robbers’, and his or her alone.
Didja all miss the part where the “woman” in question is a 13 year old girl? Well? Didja?
A thirteen year old does not truly have the mental capacity to make that determination.
I agree with the OP.
wow! simul-simul-simul-simul post.
Ya beat me to it. 
Responsibility is not zero-sum.
To sum up (and after seeing the x replies)
The rapist is 100% responsable for the rape. The girl is 0% responsable for the rape.
But, also, the girl is 100% responsable for not looking out for her own saftey quite as much as she could.
Hope that makes sense.
The girl has no responsability with respect to the illegal thing (rape in this case) that happened. So criminal action against the rapist should have no baring on what legal things the girl was doing even if they were not necessarily the wisest of actions.
13 years old does not qualify as “woman.” In any sense of the word, not even physically.
And, for the eleventy ninth time, rape is not a sexual act. It is a violent act of physical aggression.
You’re missing that there are different rules for children. If it’s a child who went mountain climbing without proper equipment and had to be rescued by helicopter, we “point out” the egregious stupidity of it differently than if it were an adult.
Isn’t that responsibility divided between the girl and her parents? And at thirteen weighted towards the parents considerably?
Isn’t that responsibility divided between the girl and her parents? And at thirteen weighted towards the parents considerably?
How come nobody ever says it’s a man’s fault for being mugged/gay bashed/whatever because he was walking alone at night?