Um, neither have I in my 34 years really. Could you please clarify what you mean by that for this discussion? Or maybe the OP is not clear?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Rape Victims: Do They Have a Responsibility in Getting Themselve Raped?
- Thread starter Smart_Guy
- Start date
Um, neither have I in my 34 years really. Could you please clarify what you mean by that for this discussion? Or maybe the OP is not clear?
Still, it does happen people change their minds, even at what for others seems like the last moment. To suggest they are responsible then for being raped would seem to risk suggesting they have no real right to change their minds.
Besides, the consequences to a man or woman of being raped are far and away greater than the discomfort of blue balls is to the would be rapist. There is no comparison.
I mean, it is simply absurd to think the victim of a rape can be held responsible for being raped.
Voted "No, they never do". In terms of the law, it's a question of self-ownership and of a person's right to own and control their own body and to have sex on the basis of consent. Morality isn't black and white however and mitigating factors (such as drugs/alcohol) that can make the distinction of "consent" a grey area as your trying to ascribe intent to the violation of a persons right to their own body. These are still human judgements which are far from perfect, both by people who perpetrate and are victims of rape, as well as those who enforce the law. But, regardless of its imperfections, we still need that standard to protect individuals from abuse and its up to a jury to decide whether it falls within the definition of rape "beyond reasonable doubt".
If someone walks down a dark alley and is murdered, should the murderer get a more lenient sentence because his victim took a risk by walking down a dark alley? Should the murderer be able to claim that he himself was not fully responsible for murdering his victim?
If the answer to those questions is "no", then the answer to whether or not a victim of rape is responsible for their rape must also be "no".
Hmm.. this is different than your other post. You said, if I understood it correctly, that the rape victim never forces the rapist to rape them. The OP is not saying so. It says "sharing responsibility" which means the excuses some people blame the rape victims with, that I hear of sometimes.
Either way, I'm not claiming anything here. I'm just putting up a topic to debate. I'm not even gonna vote
Sees
Dragonslayer
It's hard to think of anything outside the possibility that it is a rapist who gets raped themselves in an act of revenge, thereby specifically and directly causing/inspiring their own sort of victimization. Perhaps you could alternatively swap in some other horrible crime per the revenge scenario.
Nothing like the temptation b.s. excuses.
Nothing like the temptation b.s. excuses.
Same here. This is what the thread is all about.
One of them just changed their vote.
Important Note:
Those who vote, cannot be know by the public.
Buttercup
Veteran Member
Cool. Maybe we helped that person change their mind.
The good thing is that they changed it to "no". Votes can be changed, not removed, and the first option is zero, so I figured it out
Buttercup
Veteran Member
That's what I figured out as well and was happy about the change.The good thing is that they changed it to "no". Votes can be changed, not removed, and the first option is zero, so I figured it out
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I’d suggest that in this context, rape is like any other crime against a person and it’s only the seriousness and emotional aspect that causes people to view it differently.
The first thing to point out is that responsibility for a crime isn’t a fixed amount that gets divided up depending on the number of parties involved. Any individual is as responsible for their own actions (or inaction) regardless of the involvement of anyone else. Otherwise six people robbing a bank would be half as serious as three people doing it. So, a rapist remains entirely responsible for their act of raping (or trying to rape) their victim regardless of anything else.
Beyond that, it is clear that we can all do or not do things that will increase or decrease the risk of our being the victims of crime. In other areas we happily acknowledge common sense advice like not leaving valuables visible in a parked car, not keeping keys by the front door or keeping purses and wallets secure. If you ignore this advice and become a victim of theft as a result, the thief is just as guilty as they’d always be but you have some separate responsibility for your negligence.
Taking reasonable and common sense measures to avoid rape (which will often overlap with avoiding assault and theft in general anyway) shouldn’t be seen any differently to me. Advising people (because I don’t think it should only be about women) to do things like avoiding getting so drunk you’re incapable of making rational decisions, not walking home down dark streets alone or not getting in to an unlicensed taxi should be perfectly acceptable and not condemned as excusing criminals.
That said, bringing such things up in the immediate aftermath of a crime, especially something as psychologically damaging as rape is still heartless and unnecessary. In fact, that’s all the more reason why it should be promoted as general advice to try to reduce crime rather than accusations after the fact to try to rationalise it.
There is also the issue of bad or flawed factors, such as in relation to what people wear or perfectly innocent actions such as dancing with people in a club or talking to someone in a bar. Suggesting those as inviting rape and especially directly attributing them as a factor in the victims fault is wrong regardless and typically reflects poorly on the accused as much as anything else.
The first thing to point out is that responsibility for a crime isn’t a fixed amount that gets divided up depending on the number of parties involved. Any individual is as responsible for their own actions (or inaction) regardless of the involvement of anyone else. Otherwise six people robbing a bank would be half as serious as three people doing it. So, a rapist remains entirely responsible for their act of raping (or trying to rape) their victim regardless of anything else.
Beyond that, it is clear that we can all do or not do things that will increase or decrease the risk of our being the victims of crime. In other areas we happily acknowledge common sense advice like not leaving valuables visible in a parked car, not keeping keys by the front door or keeping purses and wallets secure. If you ignore this advice and become a victim of theft as a result, the thief is just as guilty as they’d always be but you have some separate responsibility for your negligence.
Taking reasonable and common sense measures to avoid rape (which will often overlap with avoiding assault and theft in general anyway) shouldn’t be seen any differently to me. Advising people (because I don’t think it should only be about women) to do things like avoiding getting so drunk you’re incapable of making rational decisions, not walking home down dark streets alone or not getting in to an unlicensed taxi should be perfectly acceptable and not condemned as excusing criminals.
That said, bringing such things up in the immediate aftermath of a crime, especially something as psychologically damaging as rape is still heartless and unnecessary. In fact, that’s all the more reason why it should be promoted as general advice to try to reduce crime rather than accusations after the fact to try to rationalise it.
There is also the issue of bad or flawed factors, such as in relation to what people wear or perfectly innocent actions such as dancing with people in a club or talking to someone in a bar. Suggesting those as inviting rape and especially directly attributing them as a factor in the victims fault is wrong regardless and typically reflects poorly on the accused as much as anything else.
Hmm.. this is different than your other post. You said, if I understood it correctly, that the rape victim never forces the rapist to rape them. The OP is not saying so. It says "sharing responsibility" which means the excuses some people blame the rape victims with, that I hear of sometimes.
Either way, I'm not claiming anything here. I'm just putting up a topic to debate. I'm not even gonna vote
Let's start over then, and maybe this will better explain to you my point.
You ask whether there are circumstances in which a must assume some responsibility in being raped. I think many of us have at least some difficulty with just how to think about that problem. And I believe that at least part of the reason for that difficulty is because the word "responsibility" can mean two quite different things in this context.
Now what we really need are two different words -- one word for each meaning -- but English doesn't give us that option, so things can get confusing fast when discussing "responsibility". First, we need a word that means something like the phrase, "moral responsibility". As in, "Does someone have a moral responsibility or obligation not to steal, or not to murder, or not to rape?" I think if you asked most people those questions, they would say "Yes, we are morally obligated not to steal, murder, or rape."
But that sense or meaning of "moral responsibility" doesn't work so well when we speak of someone's "responsibility" to, say, avoid extremely risky behaviors that might reasonably lead to their being stolen from, murdered, or raped. I don't know of any serious philosopher who would argue, for instance, that we have a moral responsibility or obligation not to engage in extremely risky behaviors that might reasonably lead to our being stolen from, murdered, or raped.
You see, for someone to logically argue that, he or she would need to argue such things as a murderer should be given a more lenient sentence if their victim had chosen to walk down a dark alley in a bad part of town and was murdered there. Or that a robber should be given a more lenient sentence if their victim had flashed a wad of dollars in their face. Or that a rapist should be given a more lenient sentence if his victim was drunk, wearing an extremely short skirt, and attending a biker's party. Anyone who would argue such views is, logically, arguing that the murderer, the thief, and the rapist themselves had some moral obligation, or at least some right, to do what they did.
So, we need a second word here for the sort of responsibility that is expressed in the concept one has a responsibility of some sort to avoid extremely risky behaviors that might reasonably lead to their being stolen from, etc. And since we don't have such a word, perhaps the best alternative is the phrase, "personal responsibility".
Should a woman take personal responsibility for avoiding extremely risky circumstances where she might be raped? Well, one might, for her sake, hope she would. But one cannot say that she absolutely should or must take personal responsibility without also logically implying that she is not free to do as she pleases.
In other words, there is a distinction between moral responsibility and personal responsibility. Is a woman who has been raped morally responsible for her rape? Absolutely not! But is a woman who has been raped personally responsible for her rape? That question can only be answered in the affirmative if and only if we acknowledge that personal responsibility does not, and cannot, imply moral responsibility.
My apologies for such a long post. I glossed over a few points to keep it as short as I could.
Thank you for the comprehensive post.
That's why the OP says "a responsibility" and not "the responsibility". Offenders are always guilty the same way, whether their victims were chosen at random or even if the victim jokingly and frustratingly dared the offender to do the crime against them. This is generally speaking for "crime". The OP is about the opinions whether the victim (rape victim in this discussion) had a hand in it or not, that could be accounted for. I want to know what those who think so say so.
Last edited:
This post is informative, thanks for the clarifications
. I would like you to have a look at a post I made just before you posted this since it could clarify other things the OP is about. Think of it just for the information if you wish :
Murder victims: Do they have a responsibility for getting themselves murdered?
Equally stupid question.
Replying to a question with another question is something even more stupid
You could answer instead.
Last edited:
Forgive me, rhetoric is my native language.Replying to a question with another question is something even more stupid
You could answer instead.
No, rape victims are not responsible for getting themselves raped. That is an extremely ridiculous suggestion.