You always read about people getting robbed in their homes as well, so does that excuse walking down the street in a crime-infested neighborhood openly counting a stack of $100 bills?
We ask that people be street smart in almost every aspect, but when it comes to women dressing provactively, while drunk and high at 3am in a strange man’s hotel room, we tell her that she bears zero responsibility for getting raped.
Well, yeah. It’s probably better not to be drunk or high with people you don’t know, but I don’t see why you’re so eager to assign blame to the woman. What responsibility does she bear in this case?
Who’s “we”? I hear about women being blamed for being raped because of their dress all the time. Judges do it, journalists do it, parents teach their kids about it, well-meaning message board posters do it, etc.
(Some) people have (very recently, in historical terms) been asserting the contrary as a reaction to this pervasive victim-blaming. It is only very recently that the critical role that rapists play in every rape has been examined in the public discourse.
Is this particular assertion made in the PDF you linked to? If so, can you tell me where? (it’s a REALLY long document)
IOW, I would like to see some factual evidence to back up your assertion. I don’t know if you are right or wrong-- I am just curious about this.
ON EDIT: Nevermind. I see that you specified the page no. in your post. Thanks.
Is this your opinion, or do you have evidence for this that you can produce?
I’ve never heard anyone say that “dressing sexy makes it OK for men to rape you”. Can you direct me to a quote from someone who holds that despicable view?
Thanks. But even if you can produce such a quote, it will have absolutely nothing to do with the pertinent debate here, i.e. dressing in revealing clothing may or may not increase the likelihood of one being raped.
Exactly. The man’s goal was to get laid. His primary tactics were romance, kindness, and charm.
When those don’t work he changes tactics and decides to use power (whether physical force or coercion) to reach his goal. Using power/force in this instance is merely a tactic to achieve the ultimate goal (having sex).
Using power to get sex does not mean that the rape is about power, just that power was employed (in this case as a second choice) in order to get what he wants (sex, not power).
It’s rather like a bank robber wielding a gun as a threat. The goal is to get a lot of money, not to “have power over cowering bank customers”. The robber is using his immense power (immense because he has a deadly weapon) to get what he wants-- money.
Money is one of the strongest motivators in the world. People will do a lot of things (good and bad) to get as much of it as they can. There are only a few things that humans desire more than money. Air, water, food, shelter and sex are what come to mind, but money is paramount because all those needs can be usually be obtained with money (or free of charge in the case of air and usually water). Of those, however, sex is the only one that is not always easily available worldwide even if the supply is adequate and one one has enough money.
Because prostitution, while widely available, is still usually illegal or morally shunned. This makes sex a unique “commodity”–one where simply having enough money does not necessarily mean that one has access to it. And, of course, there will always be many people who do not have enough money (or looks or charm or family connections) so they simply take what they need without regard for anyone else. Much the same as someone not worrying too much about the ethical ramifications of stealing bread if he/she is starving.
I’m not eager to assign blame. I’m just saying that everyone should use common sense.
Just like the guy who counts his $100s in the ghetto at 3am. He has an absolute right to his property, but he’s an idiot for doing what he did.
previously linked, obviously still not read.
The comment that not all men can find a willing partner or have access to hookers ignores the fact that rapists often have wives or partners that they do not rape.
You’re using the false equivilent of a single person counting money in the ghetto - it’s not common behaviour to be flashing one’s cash. The fault in the logic is that the majority of women dress up nice for dates. A very small minority get raped.
The majority of men (and women) on dates are hoping to get laid - that’s ultimately why they’re dating. Only a very small minority of men (and women) don’t care if their partner consents to sex.
And you’ve had to ignore the male/male rapes, all the elderly rapes, all the rapes where the women were not on dates and not dressed nice, and all the kids who are raped.
I quoted earlier that 22% of victims were under 12 years old. This figure has now been revised by the same agency (dept of Justice)
Bolding mine.
You’re arguing the point of view from your own perspective and you (I sincerely hope) are not a rapist.
Sexy clothes on a mature (over 18) woman may make *you *hornier, but studies have shown again and again that rapists seek opportunity and and easy targets - not loose or skimpy clothing, but the improved odds that will allow them to get away with the crime. And yes, dating can provide an easy target - it allows alcohol, drugs and isolation to be used as tools towards sex without consent. Just as fucking a kid allows authority to be used as a tool towards sex without consent.
Again, most men and women can go dating without being raped, they can wear sexy clothes without being raped, they can get drunk without being raped. Your judgment of them doesn’t alter the fact that it’s only if they date a rapist that they’re likely to get raped (and even then, not every time, because rapists often have consenting girlfriends too). Because most men do not get a kick out of sex without consent, they are not rapists.
I’m sorry for the lack of cites, other than my 10 years of volunteering as a rape and domestic abuse crisis counselor. I dealt with survivors, their families, hospitals (for evidence collection), police officers, courts, and occasionally an alleged perpetrator. During one period of volunteer work, I helped run a program in which survivors faced their perpetrators (perps behind bars in this case) and gathered information from those confrontations.
I think the confusion over the power vs. sex issue is this: Rapists tend to be people who are sexually AROUSED by having control over others or seeing others in helpless situations. So yes, it’s still sexual but there is typically (from my own interviews with perps) also about power at some level.
There are actually a decent percentage of people who enjoy this who are most certainly not criminals (i.e., “How about I tie you up and slap your arse with this paster server while you beg me to stop?”) I’ve seen cases where I didn’t understand why the perp didn’t simply find a consenting partner to play out a fantasy. The perp does it to get off, BUT he only gets off when the partner is in some sort of distress or under his control.
I also strongly agree with the poster who commented that it doesn’t matter. But I think that’s because I have a radical opinion on the subject: I ought to be able to swing my panties around my head and be safe. That is, women should have the freedom to wear what they want without expecting that it’s “asking for it.”
Re: Different “grades” of rape similar to murder 1 and murder 2. We have aggravated rape, which is the charge when the woman is beaten or otherwise abused. We also have different sentences for sex with people (not all rape victims are women) of different ages. Statutory rape cases can be a bit frustrating and disturbing.
Also, consider that a decent percentage (again, only my experience and I can guess about 25%) of cases involve a man who never becomes fully aroused. Those cases tend to make people think it was about power rather than sex. Especially when you add the fact stranger rape is very rare. It’s more common for someone the survivor KNOWS to become angry with them and take this action. It’s a potential way to humiliate and control someone why they can’t otherwise hurt…and I think men are more likely to consider this when they person pissing them off is a woman.
That type of rape is evident when rape is used as a weapon of war. Sure, the guy might be turned on, but it’s an attempt at exerting power over an entire culture of people, not an attempt at having an orgasm.
I believe this bears out in studies of chemically castrated men. They continue to rape. If they can’t use their own weapon, they find another object.