A girl was giving a speech in my English class, and she said something to the effect of “R@pe can be the person who the act is commited on’s fault”
What do you think?
I disagree. While responsibility for circumstances leading to the act of rape itself may be shared, the act itself can be nobody’s fault but the perpetrator’s. I’m also unsure that there is a factual answer to this question.
Depends on what you mean by “rape”. And on what you mean by “fault”.
Most rapes happen within the context of an existing relationship. Almost inevitably, therefore, some voluntary act on the part of the victim was an element of the sequence of events which culminated in the rape. Looking back, a victim will often be able to say that, if she had made a different decision somewhere along the way, the rape would not have happened (or, at any rate, would not have happened when and how it did).
Does this mean the rape is the victim’s fault? No, of course not. But it is the kind of thing which can make a victim feel that it is her fault.
Except for statutory rape, where lack of consent is established by age alone, rape is, by definition, sexual violation of an individual without their consent. If consent has been withheld and intercourse occurred against the person’s will, how could they be seen as complicit in the act?
I agree with Crusoe that the circumstances leading up to the rape may have included the victim, and they may have participated willingly, but that doesn’t change rape into “rough sex” and absolve the perpetrator of all blame. The “you led me on with your sexy clothes” defense is just not gonna fly in court.
Hang on a minute… what’s so bad about rope?
No, it is never the victim’s fault. How can it be? She did not force them to act, if she did, it wouldn’t be rape.
The only way that it could be construed as her fault, IMHO, is if she walked around with a sign say something like “F%#@ me, come on, I’m taking all kinds, F%#@ me!”, but even then, she’s still not making anyone do it.
So no, it couldn’t be the victim’s fault.
Another voice saying: “It depends on what you mean by ‘fault’”.
Being mugged is not the victim’s fault. But perhaps if he had chosen to call a cab instead of walk through the park at night, he wouldn’t have been mugged. So in a sense, you might say his mugging was his fault. But this ignores a couple of salient points: first, that people should be free to walk through parks unmolested, and the law should exist to protect them.
More importantly, however, when we apply this line of thinking to mugging, it’s usually not a problem; everyone knows that people do not typically freely give up their wallets to a stranger so no one shakes their head and mutters how the mugging victim must have secretly wanted to be mugged.
In the case of rape, in which violence is so intertwined with an overtlky sexual act, there seems to be a lingering perception that it’s possible, in some cases, the victim was complict in her attack. Musing about how the attack is possibly her fault oinly adds to this cloud of ambiguity a cloud that should not exist in the first place.
- Rick
Just as a point of order, the victim does not have to be “she”. Doesn’t anybody here watch Oz?
There was a thread a little bit ago on a psychic who conned a woman into having sex with him. If you ask me, it was the woman’s fault. But the guy was charged with rape neverless…
Substitute another form of assault for “rape” in this question. Is it sometimes a stabbing victims fault that she got stabbed? Is it ever a murder victim’s fault that he was murdered? Is there any conceivable legal theory by which a stabber or a murderer can be exonerated or mitigated because the victim was “asking for it?”
Rape is the rapist’s fault, end of story.
Here is a thread about rape with a twist. I thought it was entertaining.
To answer the OP,
It depends on the circumstances. Are we considering an attack and then forced or coerced sex?
Or was there mutual consent and then the accusation was made after the act?
Or how about mutual consent up until the point of intercourse then the victim says “no”.
The only way to answer the question is to know the actual circumstances leading up to the act. In some cases rape is not a violent act committed on an innocent person rather a case of who is telling the truth. I am of the opinion that if the other party says “no” no matter when it is said then the act should be called off. But what if the “no” occurs the morning after?
When violence is involved the attacked should never be blamed.
The only case I would consider a rape the victim’s fault (more so than the perpetrator) would be if it was not a rape at all, but appeared to be (because the “victim” claimed she was raped, for example).
Insert your own scenario here…
What if rape occurred to continue the human race?
Was Mary raped?
It’s an interesting question.
In a lot of cases it’s fairly cut and dried if the victim was truly assaulted, but there are occassionally less obvious cases where two people engage in seemingly consensual sex and the woman decides after the fact (sometimes well after the fact) , that although she didn’t say “no” at any point or resist the suggestion to have sex, that she was somehow intimidated or coerced into having sex against her will and files a rape charge. In these latter cases you might say that if the charge of rape is made and prosecuted she may have had some degree of fault for the way things progressed by not giving heads up that she was not onboard with the goal of intercourse, but the gray area in those situations is often impenetrable.
With respect to another scenario of getting raped by partying, getting drunk and passing out naked on a bed in a frat house, or an apartment full of gang bangers, well… it’s not the victims “fault” that she got raped by any stretch of the imagination, but real world common sense sympathy for the victims in these scenarios is likely to as limited as it would be for a man who struts through a dangerous area of town at midnight flashing a large roll of cash and gets mugged.
To say that no matter how stupid and/or irresponsible a person’s behavior is that it’s never their fault that bad things happen to them if the action against them is against the law may be technically correct but stupidity has its price. It’s not his “fault” he got assaulted but incredibly foolish behavior that puts you in harm’s way occasionally has dire consequences, and although he was not at fault for the assault itself I would assign some degree of personal (not legal) responsibility toward him for his foolish actions and the way things turned out.
No. She consented. (“Be it done unto me according to thy word.”)
This exchange between Mary and the Archangel Gabriel is the subject of about a hundrem million painting, icons, frescos and what have you. One of the cardinal points of the Incarnation story is that Mary consented.
The message? Even God has to take “no” for an answer.
Yeah, but God is omniscient. Or so it goes.
I asked the question hoping for a reply from Diogenes.
He oversimplified the divine interaction between God and Mary by saying she was raped. (recently in a different thread)
Well, for the reason already pointed out, that’s not so much an oversimplification as an untruth.
Your broader question was “What if rape occurred to continue the human race?”
Well, that would still be rape. And, in the terms of the OP, it would still not be the victim’s fault (unless, of course, it was she who had killed or sterilized everyone else on the planet). And it would still be the perpetrator’s fault.
Would rape be justified in these circumstances? No.
Well does that mean Adam r@ped Eve?
That’s what I thought at first!
Did “rape” become a swear word at some point?