To be fair, it is sometimes claimed by the defense in rape cases that if a woman didn't take these precautions, she effectively gave consent and therefore it wasn't rape. Those who cry "blaming the victim" may be (over-)reacting to this.

We're raising children under helicopters. It is only reasonable to expect that they would want the helicopter when they get older (can't say "grow up").

Watch what happens when, not if, the "big one" hits CA. Somehow, it will be government's fault.

To be fair, it is sometimes claimed by the defense in rape cases that if a woman didn't take these precautions, she effectively gave consent and therefore it wasn't rape. Those who cry "blaming the victim" may be (over-)reacting to this.
Posted by: Rex Little at September 19, 2014 12:06 AM

Most states passed rape shied laws over thirty years ago, to prevent character assassination and blaming the victim in court.

I don't know if this is a good or a bad thing. If you are a mattress, with a history of lying, I think that should be something the defense ought to be able to bring up.

It goes to that all important *character*

Watch what happens when, not if, the "big one" hits CA. Somehow, it will be government's fault.

I blame Bush. Wut?

But as a pasty-faced white man, I long for the day that I could walk thru Compton at 4 in the morning without getting mugged, murdered, or raped. Yeah, that's not going happen anytime soon.

Unless they all think I am flat out loonie-toons. Don't mess with someone crazier than you are.

To me, the important difference here is between "should" and "should have."

I'm fine with people saying common-sense things like you "should be aware of your surroundings,""walk like you know where you're going," and "you should trust your instincts" about uncomfortable situations. Gavin DeBecker has an excellent book all about that. Or "friends should watch out for each other."

But after the crime, telling the victim they *should* have done something different is harmful, and that's what I consider victim-blaming. My friend in DC was sexually assaulted when she took her garbage out at 8pm, not 10 ft from her door. And afterward, she had to hear a chorus of, "Well you should have had your mace with you! You should have waited til your boyfriend got home and had him take the trash out!" from the bored housewives on her neighborhood discussion board.

Also some of the common anti-assault advice women get is just plain laughable: The next person who tells me to hold my key between my knuckles while walking to my car is getting choked. I'd jab them with my key, if I thought that actually worked. And the next person who tells me to leave work before dark is going to be invited to do my work for me.

This has jack shit to do with "blaming victims"

This is an attempt to make saying "Hey maybe you shouldnt have downed that bottle of tequila tied your sister boyfriend to the bed and fucked him. No he didnt rape you" socially unacceptable

Its just another attempt to claim women are never responsible for anything whilst claiming its equal rights

They go after soft targets like advice like this because most people wont stand up to them

I'm fine with people saying common-sense things like you "should be aware of your surroundings,""walk like you know where you're going," and "you should trust your instincts" about uncomfortable situations. Gavin DeBecker has an excellent book all about that. Or "friends should watch out for each other."

I think armchair quarterbacking by people who should know better is quite common.

You have to realize this is a psychological thing. These people are afraid of being assaulted themselves, and so in their mind they go over the simple measures they *hope* will keep them safe.

If I actually had to live in DC ( God forbid). I would take quite a few precautions for my personal safety that are totally unnecessary in the hinterlands.

I agree with sofar on should versus should have - and not just for rape. It applies to car accidents, running late, or a host of other things. People are usually aware when something goes horribly wrong. Most people are going to have some level of mental anguish, and others saying, "Well you should have done..." is just heaping guilt and not productive. (show up a day late for a job interview and I promise you will be mentally kicking yourself for awhile without help from others).

If a friend says, "Wow! I didn't expect that. Any idea how I can avoid THAT mistake?" then go ahead. Otherwise, keep the suggestions to yourself.

I also agree with the legal thing mentioned. However, while it doesn't work legally, people still say it (and a jury will hear even the things the judge strikes down), even if only in the court of public opinion. That's where "she had it coming" is said or implied. That said, there is a long way between, "She could have done more to protect herself," and, "It's her own fault." Forgetting to lock your front door is the former, putting a sign on the door that says "door unlocked, nobody home," is the later.

Well, so far as motorcycle accidents are concerned, absolutely no one wants to hear about learning a lesson from the situation.
People will pile up to offer prayers, but any suggestion that the situation could be avoided in the future is met with hostility.

The victim MUST be a rider of consummate skill, assaulted by circumstances totally beyond his or her control. Every time.

In my entire life, I have had precisely 2 people tell me they had been raped. One was a girl in college who I barely knew, not even sure if it was true. The other was my male (hetero) friend who was raped by a man while passed out drunk. So by my personal statistics, rape is very very rare and 50% of victims are male. Or people don't spill their personal guts to me much.

To Shannon: Well said. There's a big difference between being stupid and being guilty.

I've said before that chances are, most young people would really rather be warned than not warned, whether we're talking about avoiding rape by strangers or acquaintances or avoiding certain neighborhoods that are notorious for muggings. It's all in how you PHRASE your warnings - and when. Saying "I told you so" is never civilized.

When a black man gets beaten up for his color, by
strangers or not, most educated white people understand without being told that you DO NOT talk even privately about how he could have avoided it! That is not the point! Yes, a black man wants to know who the bad people / neighborhoods are, but even if he knows, he's still not 'fair game' just because he goes around
without a bodyguard! So why, when a woman gets attacked (by a man of the same color, of course), do men and women start talking about how *they* would never have been so 'stupid'? When will people realize that being more and more cautious only makes juries less sympathetic to the less cautious?

I suspect a big factor is that burglary is, at least, often about getting money for drugs (which often SEEM like a case of life or death) - or money for food, which is practically the same thing. Rape is neither. So people understandably have less patience with warnings related to rape.

Not to mention that, IIRC, when burglary went up in a neighborhood, the police typically considered it THEIR job to do all they could to stop it or at least slow it down - but with rape by strangers, the not-so secret attitude used to be "those poor sick men can't help themselves; women who walk alone are doing the equivalent of jumping in front of moving cars; you can't blame the men." Disgusting.

I don't know if this is a good or a bad thing. If you are a mattress, with a history of lying, I think that should be something the defense ought to be able to bring up.

It goes to that all important *character*

Posted by: Isab at September 19, 2014 7:21 AM
________________________________

Well, the two don't necessarily go together. That's what juries didn't used to understand. If she DOESN'T have a history of lying, why mention the other?

If I actually had to live in DC ( God forbid). I would take quite a few precautions for my personal safety that are totally unnecessary in the hinterlands.

I lived there for a couple years and absolutely LOVED it. For the last three months, though, I needed a place to live on short notice (the owner of the place I was renting decided to sell). So I wound up renting a room in a neighborhood that terrified me (and I've lived in some sketch places). I had a job that often required working til past midnight, so that meant a scary, dark walk home past the "murder warehouses," where some local shop owners and one of their children had been murdered right before I moved there. As for precautions, I had my pepper spray, trailed groups walking the same direction as me when I could, and informed my room mates that I was off the train and to call the police if wasn't home in 7 minutes. I got lots of "advice" (including the 'use your key as a knife' advice) during that time of my life, and, while I know it came from a good place, there wasn't a ton I could do about my living situation or job right away, so it came across as annoying. I always was grateful, however, when people encouraged me to text them when I left the train and then arrived safely home.

I agree with sofar on should versus should have - and not just for rape. It applies to car accidents, running late, or a host of other things. People are usually aware when something goes horribly wrong.

Yep. My male friend got mugged walking home from a party at 2 am. The first words out of my mouth were, "That's so scary. Thank GOD you're OK!" Not "what were you doing walking at night alone??"

" "[t]hat's not the world I want to live in.""
every time I see this, I want to say:
"do you really think suicide is the answer?"

Probably because I'm getting old and curmudgeonly. Guess somewhere along the line, it became unfashionable to accept the world as it is, and strive to make it better. Now it's all about expectation of the world as it should be, and "you BETTER make it like that."

Seems like we come back to this expectation thing. A LOT.

Best concept frm The Matrix movie, was that the machines would give human a perfect utopia, but the humans couldn't live with it. Kind of like, if we stop swimming, we die.

But your 20's are the most idealistic time, IIRC, and so you have all these ideas about how the world should be.

The more idealistic, the more brutal it is, when it doesn't come true. No matter how you think you should be able to step off a cliff and fly, gravity doesn't care what you think.

Well, the two don't necessarily go together. That's what juries didn't used to understand. If she DOESN'T have a history of lying, why mention the other?

Posted by: lenona at September 19, 2014 10:07 AM

Because if it one of those *he said she said* acquaintance rapes, I think it is fair to the defendant to bring up the fact that this woman has lots of casual sex.

What made this particular encounter rape?

If it is a stranger rape, jumped in the back alley thing, not so much.

Everyone just relax, ok?

The President of the United States of America is taking care of this.

I'm sure it will be just as useful as his directing NASA to bring the Muslim world into the 19th century. 20th. 21st. Whichever.

So why, when a woman gets attacked (by a man of the same color, of course), do men and women start talking about how *they* would never have been so 'stupid'?

Because these days "attacked" more often then not is really 'I voluntarily had sex but people are calling me a slut now so I'll claim I was raped so people wont judge me'

You guys.... you don't get it.

You're part of the problem! See, expecting a woman to take any accountability for her behaviour is sexist and bad, mmkay. Women are not to be treated as fully functional, responsible adult beings who use logic and reason to make thier choices, but are to be treated as precious flowers that must be lifted up on pedistals and treated with reverence because having a vagina is special, mkay guys? You must never ever tell a woman, "you shouldn't" or "You can't". You must always tell a woman, "You can do ANYTHING you want and it's up to the world to take care of the details because you.are.woman!" Otherwise, you're just trying to keep her down.

Get it, guys?

Implying that a woman should even THINK about self-protection is just wrong you guuuyssss. It's not a womans fault if she gets wasted and horny and allows you men to put it in her! It's the guys fault for LETTING her! But don't you dare try to stop her because she's free! FREE! But you? No. You're not free! You must be fully capable of good judgement and reason, even though you are ALSO wasted because a woman just CANNOT consent.

Because.... equality.

Because it was so long ago you have probably never heard of the Jim and Jennifer Stolpa or seen the movie Snowbound: The Jim and Jennifer Stolpa Story (1994).

I saw it on TV way back when and sat there and counted five mistakes the "victims" made that would have changed there outcome. If you ever have two hours you want to kill I suggest you put it on your Netflix list and spot the mistakes I'm talking about.

Then there are some accidents that are just unavoidable such as not realizing the conditions are favorable for black ice; the unexpected tire blowout on a tire you only had a few months and similar mechanical failures; deer suddenly running across the interstate; etc.

As far as rape. I would encourage women to get a CCW, especially if they live in a bad area. And also petition colleges/universities to remove the free fire zone (Gun Free policies) from the institution.

She [Rebecca Nagel] added that she doesn't want to test her drink with the nail polish because "[t]hat's not the world I want to live in."

I don't want to live in a world of inequality, war, crime, poverty or illness.

Guess what? I may not want to live in it, but I can either resign myself to the fact that it's that kind of world or I can commit suicide.

Because if it one of those *he said she said* acquaintance rapes, I think it is fair to the defendant to bring up the fact that this woman has lots of casual sex.

Posted by: Isab at September 19, 2014 10:23 AM

Er...explain, please?

After all, she may have had lots of premarital sex only with HIM, which, in the past, would have been enough to make her lose a jury's sympathy, since "nice girls" weren't supposed to do that before marriage. But it obviously wouldn't change the fact that he didn't have the right to force her on that particular occasion.

I WILL say that if a woman has a hostile reputation in general, maybe THAT should be admissible - even if it doesn't include a history of lying. It's still not the same as having casual sex.

I'll also say that, if it should turn out that it's true that most serial rapists were beaten by their single mothers (as it's rumored), that really needs to be discussed a lot more. Though it won't be pretty.

Because these days "attacked" more often then not is really 'I voluntarily had sex but people are calling me a slut now so I'll claim I was raped so people wont judge me'

Posted by: lujlp at September 19, 2014 12:25 PM

More often than not? Cite, please?

Thank you.

Guess somewhere along the line, it became unfashionable to accept the world as it is, and strive to make it better. Now it's all about expectation of the world as it should be, and "you BETTER make it like that."

Seems like we come back to this expectation thing. A LOT.

Posted by: SwissArmyD at September 19, 2014 10:21 AM

From a Hunger Project flyer:

"Hunger is not inevitable.

"Everyone knows that people will always starve, the way everyone knew that man would never fly.

"At one time in history most people knew that:

The world was flat
The sun revolved around the earth
Slavery was an economic necessity
A four-minute mile was impossible
Polio and smallpox would always be with us
And no one would ever set foot on the moon.

"Until courageous people challenged old beliefs and a new idea’s time had come.

"All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come."

(They might have added something about the Jim Crow laws, too, had they thought of it. Or about the "importance" of not allowing women to vote.)

A few reminders:

People die from starvation or exposure. Everyone needs money for food and rent, which is why, aside from career criminals, some desperate people mug people or break into houses. No one has ever died from lack of sex.

Many not-so-well educated young men don't quite comprehend/respect the idea of unwanted sex in the first place, especially if consensual sex with a particular woman has already happened in the past. (Or if he's paid for more than one dinner.) It helps to ask men how they'd feel if they were sexually attacked by a man who wouldn't take no for an answer. The point is, women who stay sober and avoid strangers could still be accused of not "taking enough precautions."

Regarding cold-blooded predators who know perfectly well what they're doing, it makes no sense not to engage in REAL prevention. I.e., we need to ask how and why some boys grow up to be serial predators - and how we can nip that in the bud, while they're still minors. Again, if the main factor is fatherlessness and abusive mothers, that will be a very complicated, painful procedure, but it has to be done. After all (regarding a somewhat different topic), we're only just beginning to understand the importance of treating mental illness as seriously as we do diabetes or cancer - especially when it leads to truly dangerous, insane patients who kill people. Yes, this will all be expensive.

As columnist Pollitt said: “We need to stop thinking of male violence as some kind of freak of nature, like a tornado. Because the thing about tornadoes is, you can’t do anything about them.”

"After all, she may have had lots of premarital sex only with HIM, which, in the past, would have been enough to make her lose a jury's sympathy, since "nice girls" weren't supposed to do that before marriage. But it obviously wouldn't change the fact that he didn't have the right to force her on that particular occasion."

There are many ways to lose the sympathy of a jury, and coming off as a sleaze is only one of them.

Unlike the witch hunts on college campuses these days, the rules of evidence operate to give the accused a fair trial.

Most of these *he said, she said* things don't actually make it to a jury for a reason.

If you are a woman, and someone has video of you pulling a train at a party, it goes to state of mind, and credibility.

If you have gotten yourself voluntarily naked, and then changed your mind, I would be a very unsympathetic juror.

Since the crime of rape (other than statutory)rests on your credibility as a person, if you get on the stand, and claim you were raped, it will open the door to cross examination by the defense attorney., who is free to impeach your credibility by introducing that video tape.

"As columnist Pollitt said: “We need to stop thinking of male violence as some kind of freak of nature, like a tornado. Because the thing about tornadoes is, you can’t do anything about them.”

Posted by: lenona at September 20, 2014 8:58 AM"

This is bullshit. Just as many women are as violent as the men are.

What are you planning on doing about it? The March to the Totalitarian state depends on people like this idiot, who think there is a preemptive solution for every problem of human nature, if you just write the *policy* correctly.

"At one time in history most people knew that:
The world was flat
The sun revolved around the earth
Slavery was an economic necessity
A four-minute mile was impossible
Polio and smallpox would always be with us
And no one would ever set foot on the moon.
Until courageous people challenged old beliefs and a new idea’s time had come.

Actually, the Hunger Project is itself wrong about the first four items.
When the Catholic Church put Galileo under house arrest, most non-Judeo-Christian cultures had already practiced celestial navigation for millennia. The Church itself knew the length of the year to within a second. Only the benighted Europeans, landlubbers at that, thought the first two things.
As for slavery - still practiced today, BTW, but where there is no money to be made we are silent - that's the only way to get truly difficult work done in the absence of trade and/or transportation, something you will note is a feature of most environments where it was or is practiced.
The 4-minute-mile was an obstacle only in competition featuring European white men. It's nuts to think that runners in Africa couldn't do this.

Actually, the Hunger Project is itself wrong about the first four items.
____________________________

Maybe they should have phrased it better, but they didn't say just WHEN in history they were talking about - and I'm sure they didn't mean that all those beliefs were held by the majority at the same time.

If you have gotten yourself voluntarily naked, and then changed your mind, I would be a very unsympathetic juror.
____________________________

Maybe YOU would, but I would hope that juries wouldn't want, in the long run, to change the law so that rape becomes a just "punishment" for certain mistakes in judgment made by the victim. There's a reason we say that rape is never a just punishment for the victim, male or female.

Also, as I've mentioned before, if the phone rang and the man knew it was a very important call for him, he'd be able to stop easily, so what's the difference?

And finally, again, if we no longer legally accept that some mentally disturbed people are going to torture animals or drive drunk, difficult as it is to tackle the root of the problem, what, again, is the difference?

This is bullshit. Just as many women are as violent as the men are.
______________________________

Which is why we have just as many women mugging and penetrating strangers on the streets. Funny, I don't remember even one such case.
______________________________

What are you planning on doing about it?

Posted by: Isab at September 20, 2014 1:33 PM
_______________________________

How about the same things we do to nip other psychopaths in the bud, preferably as early as possible? Such as taking them harshly to task when they show the slightest signs of racism? Since, you know, we can't be sure that such behavior won't grow into something much worse, later on?

Or educating them thoroughly on drunk driving - not to mention watching them closely for any sign of potential alcoholism or dangerous apathy - and doing what we can to get them to stay sober in general? Again, as early as possible?

Not that it's easy. Maybe there was little anyone could have done to stop Philip Markoff (the late Craigslist killer of 2009) - and maybe they had little reason to be suspicious of what sort of man he was growing up to be in the first place. (IIRC, he harassed one or more women as a teen, but they didn't think he would have done worse than that and didn't report him.) After all, he was smart enough not to flaunt his lack of empathy to those who knew him.

While it's understandable that some sober drivers stay off the road on some nights, since they fear the hordes of drunk drivers on certain holidays, even the police are not in the habit of warning sober drivers to do so. Why? They believe in keeping a sharp eye on preventing drunk driving instead - as does society. Same goes for animal torture - you don't hear cops telling people to keep their pets inside, EVERY day, for any reason other than coyotes. This is because people who torture animals are seen as an aberration, not something that's inevitable.

BTW, on a related note, Robecca Solnit has a great cover story in Harper's right now.