Rape Victims: Do They Have a Responsibility in Getting Themselve Raped?

[LuisDantas]

Case 1, a woman went out drunk from her house and she drove her car and killed a child.
Case 2, a woman went out while drunk at midnight wearing a sexy short and while walking alone
a drunk man saw her and said, wow you're so beautiful, then she smiled at him like crazy because
of the intoxication, he tries then to kiss her while she isn't aware of what's going on and then ended
in raping her.

So in case 1 she's responsible for killing a child, in case 2 both were drunk and are responsible
for being intoxicated.

And the woman may well be called uncautious for that reason. But not responsible for the rape, even to a minor degree.

Rape is by definition non-consensual. It is never "wanted". It is not subtly different from drunken sex or rough sex, but an entirely different and brutal act instead.

I have seen a recent criticism in facebook because a woman agreed to share a bath with a former boyfriend and ended up raped by him.

It is still rape. It does not matter if a woman is throwing herself naked at the man and promising to enjoy it if he becomes rought and brutal. There is a reason why there are strict protocols and safewords employed by people who enjoy play-acting with undertones of violence. It is possible and legitimate to enjoy rough language and actions, but that is never difficult to distinguish from actual rape.

If one party clearly expresses the desire to stop (or never to begin) the sexual act and the other party understood that even vaguely but decides to ignore the request and go on with the sexual act, then it is rape. It is the violent disruption and perversion of what is supposed to be one of the most personal, intimate and sacred of acts.

Guys, for some reason I'm getting the impression that analyzing the rape from the victim's side or the advice given to the community as safety measurements for future reference and awareness, or any attempts of doing it for that matter, is viewed as blaming the victim and gets criticized harshly.

That is often true. And IMO fair.

This is really puzzling and doesn't make sense to me!

An enemy comes to kill you in the battle field while you're spacing out, you panic and shoot at them at random, they approach and give you serious injury, you manage to shoot again but with composure this time and manage to put them down. Advising you afterwards to stay focused, not panic and keep your composure would be considered blaming you according to that logic.

Analyzing things on the victim's side for any kind of crime is not blaming them. Giving awareness about it is not. It is not telling them they were at fault.

I'm oblivious by nature and I could be wrong, but I can't see the logic in that! Please explain it to me. Don't be an angry beaver and come at me with stupid bashing charges. Explain it to me like well mannered educated person so I can get what that logic is all about.

I think much of it is that many people think there is such a thing as a duty of the potential victims not to "encourage" or "allow" rape, while many others (myself included) find the very notion inherently offensive. Refusing to perform rape-like actions is part of the basic moral duty character of a person. It is not something that one can reasonably feel entitled to do, even if it verbally requested by the victim-to-be. A sexual act is either consensual or it is forced. If it is forced, then it is rape.

 

[Revoltingest]

Case 1: The fault was with the woman deciding to drive while intoxicated.
Case 2: The fault was with the man, who decided to force his sexual desires on someone who was unwilling. The fact that she was drunk changes nothing. She wasn't the one forcing herself on him. The one doing is the forcing is ALWAYS wrong.

Let's presume for the moment we don't know the details of the consequences of these 2 cases...only that they're terrible.
What can we deduce from this?
There is one thing in common, ie, both women made the choice to become mentally impaired, & then put themselves in dangerous situations.
This resulted in terrible consequences, the probability of each being elevated due to impairment.
Since it is reasonable to foresee woe (to oneself or to others) due to this dangerous behavior,
it would be at best irresponsible to act this way.
This reasoning would apply regardless of the gender of the parties involved, or the nature
of the consequences, & without assigning blame for any crime which also might occur.

 

[LuisDantas]

But he was drunk as well, IOW he wasn't aware that he was raping her and she wasn't aware that she has been
raped except after finishing with her.

How would that work? Can a man be somehow unaware that his sexual intrusion is being refused?

There is a reason why drugs that affect a person's ability to protest against sexual advances are called "rape drugs".

You scenario could only happen in the very rare and extreme circunstance of an entirely inexperienced man (probably a virgin) being very ill advised and finding himself attracted to a woman who was drugged with a rape drug without his knowledge or understanding of those effects. Or, perhaps, if the woman suffers from severe mental impairments that disrupt her ability to express refusal of physical intimacy and the man somehow fails to notice or understand that.

Those are not scenarios of shared responsibility, but rather of actual mental impairment coupled with very unfortunate circunstances.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Let's say they were drunk - this is generally accepted as being in a state of lower "inhibitions" - meaning that things that would inhibit you from undertaking certain behavior are either diminished or gone. So, whether it be a man forcing himself on a drunk woman, or a woman forcing herself on a drunk man - BOTH of those things are wrong, and only really point to an underlying problem with the behaviors that the person is willing to engage in regardless whether drunk or not. Simply put: if your inhibitions can't keep you from forcefully assaulting someone sexually when they are diminished, then that is probably an indication that those feelings or that desire or that behavior has been sitting dormant in you anyway, and was only awaiting an outlet or release. i.e. - you were a ticking time bomb.

And in all of this (pay attention here @FearGod) - YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS. Even if you were drunk. The woman who hits a child when driving while drunk is held accountable. So too would anyone who has raped. Afraid you'll rape someone while drunk? DON'T GET DRUNK. Afraid someone will accuse you of rape because you were both drunk? DON'T HAVE SEX WITH PEOPLE YOU DON'T TRUST WHILE DRUNK.

Understood. Thank you for clarifying.

That is often true. And IMO fair.

I think much of it is that many people think there is such a thing as a duty of the potential victims not to "encourage" or "allow" rape, while many others (myself included) find the very notion inherently offensive. Refusing to perform rape-like actions is part of the basic moral duty character of a person. It is not something that one can reasonably feel entitled to do, even if it verbally requested by the victim-to-be. A sexual act is either consensual or it is forced. If it is forced, then it is rape.

I see. Thank you for sharing your view.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Let's presume for the moment we don't know the details of the consequences of these 2 cases...only that they're terrible.
What can we deduce from this?
There is one thing in common, ie, both women made the choice to become mentally impaired, & then put themselves in dangerous situations.
This resulted in terrible consequences, the probability of each being elevated due to impairment.
Since it is reasonable to foresee woe (to oneself or to others) due to this dangerous behavior,
it would be at best irresponsible to act this way.
This reasoning would apply regardless of the gender of the parties involved, or the nature
of the consequences, & without assigning blame for any crime which also might occur.

Not entirely. For one, the child in scenario 1 likely wasn't drunk - likely wasn't purposefully ignoring basic rules of safety and playing with a ball in the street while waving at vehicular passers-by - and most certainly did not watch for the woman to come around a corner and then jump in front of the car to be hit. In other words - the child not only wasn't breaking any laws, but also wasn't acting immorally.

In the second case, however, regardless the possible danger the woman is in from falling down and hurting herself, there is no other danger she is in except that which can be perpetrated upon her by some outside party. In an ideal world, people would be fine walking in front of each other in any manner of dress, to any degree of inebriation, without having to worry about the actions of their fellow man hurting them with intent. Is the human race no longer interested in trying to strive toward ideals? Did I miss the memo?

 

[Revoltingest]

Not entirely. For one, the child in scenario 1 likely wasn't drunk - likely wasn't purposefully ignoring basic rules of safety and playing with a ball in the street while waving at vehicular passers-by - and most certainly did not watch for the woman to come around a corner and then jump in front of the car to be hit. In other words - the child not only wasn't breaking any laws, but also wasn't acting immorally.

In the second case, however, regardless the possible danger the woman is in from falling down and hurting herself, there is no other danger she is in except that which can be perpetrated upon her by some outside party. In an ideal world, people would be fine walking in front of each other in any manner of dress, to any degree of inebriation, without having to worry about the actions of their fellow man hurting them with intent. Is the human race no longer interested in trying to strive toward ideals? Did I miss the memo?

This doesn't address the premises I posited though.

What I'm trying to do is separate the gender politics to find a general
way of looking at behavior, consequences, & recommendations.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This doesn't address the premises I posited though.

What I'm trying to do is separate the gender politics to find a general
way of looking at behavior, consequences, & recommendations.

But your premise is off to begin with. Your "dangerous situations" are not both inherently dangerous. In scenario 1 you have great danger - because operating fast-moving machinery while under the influence is highly dangerous. However, in scenario 2, being inebriated isn't really what has put the person in danger. Without the intent to harm that person from the other party there is not necessarily any danger to the situation at all - outside of falling down and hurting oneself. I would argue that there is no inherent danger in being inebriated (outside of the obvious liver damage, possible mechanical/physiological mishaps, etc.) - unless you ASSUME that your fellow humans will be taking advantage of you.

And to your point - you are right - people need to be aware, and recommendations made as to the possible consequences of behaviors that have proven to make these types of situations into dangerous ones. However, the fact will always remain that responsibility lies with the party forcing themselves on the victim - no matter what. You can point at the circumstances until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, the answer to the question "who did wrong by another?" cannot be answered with "the victim". The rapist is the one who needs to be separated from the rest of his fellow humans - for the danger seen in him/her is by far greater than the danger that is to be had from people dressing a particular way, or drinking a particular drink.

 

[FearGod]

I guess you have never ever been drunk. When you are drunk you never smile to the ones that you do not want to sleep with but curse,shout,spit ,bite and hit. And the drunk could be really violent.

I frankly advise you to comment on what you know. What you are saying is sth like me making suggestions about moon travel where I have never been.

Depending on what you drink and how much you drink.

 

[Revoltingest]

But your premise is off to begin with. Your "dangerous situations" are not both inherently dangerous. In scenario 1 you have great danger - because operating fast-moving machinery while under the influence is highly dangerous. However, in scenario 2, being inebriated isn't really what has put the person in danger.

This is really just objecting to the premises.
Becoming inebriated is inherently dangerous because one loses control.

One can always arrange premises so that crimes against some people (men) are different
from crimes against other people (women), & that they should be dealt with differently.
But this is requires special pleading

 

[FearGod]

Still rape. This isn't a complicated subject and I'm not sure why some people have such logistical problems with it.

Just because he was drunk doesn't mean his actions aren't still wrong.

If a drunk driver kills a person, they are guilty of a crime. Why would it be different in the case of rape?

I didn't say that the drunk isn't responsible for raping a drunk woman.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is really just objecting to the premises.
Becoming inebriated is inherently dangerous because one loses control.

Sure. But that does not make being mugged or being robbed any less the fault of the perpetrator as opposed to the victim.

It is really no different with rape.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure. But that does not make being mugged or being robbed any less the fault of the perpetrator as opposed to the victim.

I never said otherwise.
That's because I thought it would be blindingly obvious that the one who perpetrates a crime is guilty of the crime.
Do you believe it could be otherwise?

It is really no different with rape.

If one person commits a crime against another.
It is generally true that the person committing the crime is the one guilty of the crime, ie, responsible for committing the crime.
This is true for all crimes, including but not limited to rape, robbery, murder, assault, fraud & kidnapping.
(This is the hardest concept to get across.)

 

[Buttercup]

both were drunk and are responsible
for being intoxicated.

I didn't say that the drunk isn't responsible for raping a drunk woman.

Yes, both people are responsible for being intoxicated. The man is responsible for the rape, irregardless.

I couldn't quite tell from your previous post if you held him solely responsible for the rape. If I misunderstood, my apologies.

 

[columbus]

How would that work? Can a man be somehow unaware that his sexual intrusion is being refused?

Perhaps I have spent more time in bars during the wee hours than you have. It is possible.
When a horny guy who just got paid has a woman bouncing in his lap. He does a shot of tequila every time he buys her one, and she likes tequila a lot.
By 3am, he might find it impossible to distinguish between "Don't!... Stop!.." and "Don't Stop!...Don't Stop!..."
Women often manipulate men by promising sex. And men are programmed to be manipulated by sex by evolution.
Tom

 

[FearGod]

Yes, both people are responsible for being intoxicated. The man is responsible for the rape, irregardless.

I couldn't quite tell from your previous post if you held him solely responsible for the rape. If I misunderstood, my apologies.

Nevermind, Yes you misunderstood me, i agree that the rapist should be punished for raping the woman
even though that he was a drunk but the responsibility of the woman that she was intoxicated and hence
giving a chance for the rapist to take an advantage of it(the situation).

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps I have spent more time in bars during the wee hours than you have. It is possible.
When a horny guy who just got paid has a woman bouncing in his lap. He does a shot of tequila every time he buys her one, and she likes tequila a lot.
By 3am, he might find it impossible to distinguish between "Don't!... Stop!.." and "Don't Stop!...Don't Stop!..."
Women often manipulate men by promising sex. And men are programmed to be manipulated by sex by evolution.
Tom

Moreover, since he's drunk, one could argue that he's unable to give consent, & would therefore be a rape victim.

 

[Wirey]

If it's possible to be responsible for your own rape, then it's possible for a child to be responsible for their own molestation, and a murder victim to be responsible for their own murder. No matter how any woman behaves, my right to screw her ends when she says so, period. Girls might put themselves in dangerous situations, but that doesn't make them responsible for the actions of a criminal.

 

[columbus]

Moreover, since he's drunk, one could argue that he's unable to give consent, & would therefore be a rape victim.

Don't try to bait me, kilt boy.

Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't try to bait me, kilt boy.

Tom

If I don't, then I'm not doing my job.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it's possible to be responsible for your own rape, then it's possible for a child to be responsible for their own molestation, and a murder victim to be responsible for their own murder. No matter how any woman behaves, my right to screw her ends when she says so, period. Girls might put themselves in dangerous situations, but that doesn't make them responsible for the actions of a criminal.

That appears to be universal consensus here....despite our inability to agree that we agree upon it.