It is even sillier than that–it is saying that the way to protect yourself is to tell other people to change their behavior: “The way to not have your house robbed is to tell other people not to steal.” Well, duh, why didn’t I think of that easy and obvious solution–problem solved!
I really think the point is being missed. Unless I’m wrong, I think what **Poysyn **is saying is that it’s not the behavior of rape victims that needs to change, it’s the behavior of rapists that needs to change - and that can only take place through cultural change.
Come on, you guys are being obtuse. Common “helpful” tips to prevent rapes are to walk in a group, stay in well-lit areas, or some other action that makes the individual a less desirable target. Look how many comments are made that “she wouldn’t have been raped if she hadn’t done ___.”
But while steps like this might prevent (or more accurately, minimize the chances of) that individual being raped, they aren’t particularly useful steps in reducing the occurrence of rape in general. There is always some woman who doesn’t have a choice about who she walks with or where.
Poysyn’s point was that to truly prevent rapes, you need to take steps that prevent the perpetrator from raping, not the victim from being raped. It does not in any way reduce the importance of steps to minimize risks for an individual, but those steps will not be sufficient by themselves.
This.
I’m tired of people trying to draw all sorts of distinctions between different “types” of rape. It’s a violent assault, whether it happens in a dark alley, the living room of your date’s condo, or in a massage room on a private island. It’s not something that normal guys do when they get carried away. It’s just that rapists sometimes act like normal guys in order to create opportunities.
Turner selected a victim that was particularly vulnerable, and some people have actually manage to twist this into a mitigating factor. This is ridiculous, like saying that mugging an old lady is less of a violent crime than mugging a healthy young guy, because you don’t have to use as much force.
The was a very interesting article in the Atlantic a few months ago.
There are tens of thousands of untested rape kits in police evidence lockers around the country. There is currently a movement to test these kits and possibly get evidence to reopen cases.
Something interesting happened during this project. A lot of rape kits had never been DNA tested because the identity of the rapist was known and undisputed. He was a date or aa acquaintance and there didn’t seem to be any reason to run the DNA test. But lots of these samples were tested as part of this movement and it was not a fruitless exercise. The DNA from these known rapists, in many cases, matched up with uncleared stranger rapes and many of these cases were reopened. Because it turns out that rape is rape, not some sort of momentary judgemental lapse. And rapists are rapists.
You can say that about every crime, though–and it is just as stupid and polyannaish a thing to say. The day you “teach everyone not to rape” is no closer than the time you “teach” everyone to not commit every other category of crime.You control your behavior, not the behavior of other people.
Again, that is not the point. “Prevent rapists from raping” was not presented as a solution by itself; it was being used to draw a contrast to the typical advice that addresses only the victims. No one is saying we will stop all rapes by preventing rapists from raping, or that we will be successful in teaching everyone not to rape. This is not a zero-sum game, where we can either teach victims how to minimize their risk, or we can teach people not to rape. We should actually do both.
The fact is that while maybe you can’t control what others can do, you certainly can influence it. We can create a culture where “boys will be boys” is not an excuse, where consent is well understood, and where penalties for rape are severe and predictable. These are all actions that address the perpetrators, not the victims.
Really, I don’t think this is at all controversial. No one is arguing the point that you seem to be arguing against.
Yes and no.
I think the points that Poysyn meant/tried to make were good ones. Yes, women shouldn’t have to live in fear or limit their behavior to keep from being raped. And yes, we need to change whatever attitudes or culture have anyone thinking that any rapes are ever okay or justified or no big deal.
But what Poysyn actually said—“The only way to prevent rape/sexual assault is to not rape or assault anyone”—strikes me as silly, for the reasons that Darren Garrison and Little Nemo said.
Sure, it’s silly if you interpret it literally. But since it was used as a contrast to common advice and was not meant to be taken literally, it’s kind of silly to interpret it that way.
ETA: To be more charitable, it’s not silly if it initially struck you that way, because it wasn’t 100% clear. But it is silly to continue to argue against that point after it has been explained.
Jayzus. Rape anybody lately?
Being street smart is everyones responsibility. The only way to live in a street crime free environment is to live is a strong police state where the government commits the crimes.
Interesting. Which police states are currently free of rape?
Free? Probably none. But in classic police states like the USSR, Maoist China or Nazi Germany rapists wondering around looking for opportunistic rape are going to stand out. The police dont need evidence nor probable cause to detain you.
I don’t think the bolded part is true or accurate in any way.
But the difference is that we’re still teaching people that it’s in a sense okay to rape, in a way that we’re not teaching them it’s okay to steal or murder or whatnot. And this is emphasized when we focus so much on changing the behavior of potential rape victims. When we focus rape prevention efforts mostly on the behavior of the victims, we’re telling the perpetrators that their own behavior is normal and to be expected.
As I’ve said before, if we treated robbery the way we treat rape, then guys who complain about having been robbed would be constantly faced with questions like this:
We don’t ask robbery victims that kind of question, because we don’t have a lingering cultural assumption that robbery is “just something guys do” when their potential victims aren’t being careful enough.
I think it would be better to say “The only way to prevent rape/sexual assault is to work on changing society so people will not rape or assault anyone.” That drives the point that people need to make a more active effort than just personal non-participation.
It’s the difference between saying “I’m going to that college party and I won’t take advantage of any girls who have too much to drink” and “I’m going to that college party and I won’t stand by if I see anyone trying to take advantage of any girls who have too much to drink.” (And the wrong attitude is saying “Girls shouldn’t drink because somebody might take advantage of them.”)
We do. For example, to avoid being pick pocketed or scammed, don’t go to areas where it’s pervasive, and don’t look like a tourist. That example isn’t definitive, it is just pretty recent so I remembered seeing it.
Rape absolutely has a victim blaming aspect that is much worse than other personal crimes, and that often extends to excusing the perpetrator. The unfortunately ubiquitous “she was asking for it” compared to “that car was begging to be broken into.” One of those is not something that is commonly said. Also take “that isn’t a safe place to park” and “those aren’t safe people to be drunk with.” One of those will get many people all upset as victim blaming, while they’ll say the other is just common sense.
Yeah, it would be nice if it was safe to park anywhere, and safe to hang out and get drunk with anybody. Those are goals to work towards, but it is still possible to recognize that avoiding dangerous situations is advisable.
What I’m trying to say is that I think the problem with the attitudes towards rape come after the reasonable statement: “I thought that was a safe place” is something a victim of both crimes might say (rape and getting your car broken into). One of those crimes will get the response, “that’s too bad, I’ve never had a problem there before,” and the other “what did you do to lead them on” or some such nonsense.
Or more simply, both things can be true: it isn’t the victims fault; examining the victims actions can be educational in avoiding future problems. “Don’t leave your laptop in plain view on the front seat” and “those guys have a history of sexual assault, so don’t hang out with them, and in fact they should be in prison.”
Also because sex is something that many, many people want and seek out. Very few people want and seek out robberies, murders, violent assaults, etc.
Bull.
In every robbery, there is at least one person who sought it out, the robber. Just like every rape has a rapist.
That most people want sex is a distracting non sequitur.
Every time I leave my house, I have money in my pocket. I anticipate possibly finding something that I want at a store or restaurant. You could say that by constantly carrying money on me, I am ‘just asking to be robbed’. That would be considered 'victim blaming, and rightly so.
To say that people want sex does NOT mean they want rape!
Yeah, I know. I didn’t say that. Just pointing out another reason the crime gets perceived differently. Very few people want to be robbed, want to be murdered, etc. Lots of people want to have sex. It would be ridiculously implausible for a robber to claim that his victim “wanted” to be robbed; do you disagree?
Lots of people want sex. Rapists use force to obtain sex from people who don’t want to give it to them.
Lots of people want money. Robbers use force to obtain money from people who don’t want to give it to them.
I’m not sure what point you think you’re making here, but you’re making it extremely poorly.