Why is it taboo to discuss the responsibility of victims?

This definition clipped from the respective wikipedia entry:

Yes...But how does that make you responsible for someone else's behavior when they make the decision to harm you?
Being dumb is a good way to make yourself the human predator's target...instead of someone else.
Making yourself a more difficult target just means that they will find another victim besides yourself.
If you have not made yourself a difficult enough target, this does not absolve your attacker in any way.

Exactly.
Now another wikipedia definition:

Again, how does this make you responsible for someone else's actions?

So were you suggesting those who behave in unprudent ways and were hurt-by someone else...somehow wanted that hurt?
Too, blaming a woman for her assault because of her actions says that you expect men to be dangerously out of control of themselves. Which is pretty insulting to men.

Right, I've never said you should not be cautious.
If you are not, and become a predator's target, it's still the predator's free choice to attack.

Yep.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I couldn't notice that nobody has been able to come up with a working definition. Let's give it another week.

So forgot rape and let's talk about good old burglary. I lock my doors, I have an alarm system and SILL, I get burglarized. Who is to say I wasn't still complicit? Maybe the paint on the side of the house was too flashy, maybe the car outside too nice, maybe I forgot to bring in the morning paper....

The bottomline is, nobody can tell where the line between old fashioned common sense and recklessness is.

So until someone comes up with a definition, let's put this stupid idea to rest...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes.
Or where prudence ends and paranoia begins.

That would be nice, but it's a terrifically pervasive idea in our society, isn't it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No one ever expects to be a victim so it's hard to prevent a crime from happening. I see what you mean though and It's a good point, but I think people try to stay safe and protected as much as possible these days. analysis from both angles Is important. Im sure there are ways people can "turn off" a criminal mind. by that, i don't mean putting them to sleep or turning them into a vegetable. I mean, making them completely uninterested In doing the crime. Criminal's are usualy smarter than their victims though. :shrug:

 

to look attractive. This point brings us to another important fact of life. What women thinks looks "pretty" or "attractive" to themselves (or to other women) usually makes them look "sexy" to men. Look at it this way: mature, healthy, and vivacious are probably the three main characteristics of "sexy" in men's eyes. Ask any guy: your father, your husband, your brother, etc. They will probably tell you the same thing — "pretty" to a woman is usually "sexy" to a man. Go figure!

Lets say you dress nicely and some guy rapes you. Good example. If I knew that wearing a pink carnation in my lapel buttonhole and dousing myself with lavender cologne would attract homosexual rapists, guess what? If I chose to dress that way, I'd be very careful about where I went and who was around me. That is acting in a reasonably prudent manner.

the unsexy woman. Here we go again with this absolute risk management. You want absolute security, and when you feel it's your responsibility, out comes all these ridiculous security measures.

When is it not her fault and when is she not complicit in her rape? And this is what you cannot comprehend ... it all depends on the situation. I would not say that a woman was "complicit" in her own rape unless she did something very, very wrong. All instances of rape cannot be painted with a broad brush.

complicit. Complicity in criminal law refers to when someone is legally accountable, or liable for a criminal offense, based upon the behavior of another (so think "accomplice" when you think "complicity"). As for the extreme act of legal complicity in one's own rape, the only possible instance I can think of off the top of my head (and I'm still not sure) is when a woman willfully and knowingly throws herself at a guy meaning to take him to bed and to humiliate/embarrass/disparage him at the worst possible moment. They end up in bed in coitus, and as she planned, at the last possible split second before his orgasm, she tells him no and to leave her. The guy, at the peak of his sexual fervor, completes the sexual act, thus raping her. At trial, if she were to honestly admit to her intentions from the beginning, I think even a jury of all women would have trouble finding her completely innocent. Although they would not find her guilty as an accomplice to her own rape, they would probably not find the man guilty of rape or any inclusive crime.

I suppose it could be said that this was "date rape" by what is called the letter of the law, but not by what is called the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law also being what is referred to as the "legislative intent" of the statute — that is, what acts the legislature intended to criminalize with the statute. The legislature probably does not intend to protect the woman who purposely lures a man into bed with the premeditated intention to humiliate/embarrass/disparage him at the last possible split second at the height of his orgasm.

 

This is a very unrealistic scenario.

 

Once again, you are not responsible for someone else's behavior; you are only responsible for your own behavior. This is a fundamental principle of law. The criminal is responsible for the criminal act. You are responsible for any "failure [on your part] to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances" (to use your own words).

A typical example. You visit the park one day and sit down on a bench and set your purse down beside you. You then remember the beautiful flower beds in another part of the park, so you take a long walk and spend some time admiring them. In the meantime, someone with criminal inclinations passes by the bench and steals your purse. You eventually return to the bench, and you are dumbstruck when you realize your purse is gone. You call the police, and when they arrive, they tell you, "Lady, what did you expect when you left something of apparent value unattended in a public area? If not for your failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances, your purse would probably not have been stolen."

A very sad example. You work at a retail stall in a public marketplace. One day you bring your 2yo daughter with you, but you choose to pay so much attention to the customers that your daughter wanders off into traffic and is struck down and run over by one vehicle and run over again by another vehicle. Eighteen pedestrians also pass by and notice her severely injured body, but only the 18th one alerts the authorities. Medical staff at the hospital do their best to save her life, but she dies a week later. The legal authorities tell you, "Lady, what did you expect when you left your tiny daughter unattended in a dangerous area? If not for your failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances, your daughter would probably be alive and well today."

 

Then it is very unrealistic that a woman would be legally complicit in her own rape.

However, such evil acts (and worse) by some women are not unheard of. The cases of Omaima Aree Nelson and of Katherine Knight are quite profoundly unrealistic, yet those women indeed committed their thoroughly abhorrent and revolting crimes.

 

Cifo...the first example, a person who leaves their purse unattended in public...foolish. But not responsible for what the purse-snatcher did.

The second...a small child you take responsibility for...for the next 18 years when you have one. A purse does not sprout legs and walk off under its' own volition like a small child. A small child cannot be expected to control themselves yet. You have to take control for them. A motor vehicle you control, but to some degree you may not be able to stop it if someone or something runs in front of you.
But in the case of the Chinese girl who was killed, the girl was not likely to have been run down intentionally.
Being attacked by a rapist would be more analogous to being intentionally run over:
http://www.wreg.com/wreg-strangers-help-man-intentionally-run-over-by-suv--20111003,0,6102837.story

An adult rapist CAN be fully expected to control themselves, provided they are sane.
They choose to attack, the way the lady in the above story chose to drive over a curb to hit a man on the sidewalk.
Is that the run-over man's fault for being close to the street? For arguing with his girlfriend? Is what she did partly excused because he enraged her?

Edit: I think that you are just going to refuse to see my point, and I'm really tired of trying to convey it to you. -Making yourself an easy target does not absolve a criminal who targets you.
-I would never tell anyone not to take precautions.
-Sometime bad things will happen no matter what precautions you take.

 

Thank you James.

I'm glad you said this because I can't seem to express myself succinctly or meaningfully on this issue.

After some more brooding, I have come up with another analogy for consideration. What say ye all on this?

Who would you advise to act differently in the following circumstances?

1. A person prepares to cross a street at an intersection at night.
2. A "legally" drunk driver is approaching, unbeknownst to the pedestrian. (Another wonderfully emotional topic)
3. The pedestrian crossing the road failed to raise their head from whatever was occupying them and thus failed to look left and right before stepping off the curb.
4. The pedestrian is struck by a car and mortally wounded.

Questions:
A. Should the pedestrian have taken the time to check the traffic before attempting to cross?
B. Why or why not?
C. Have you ever told anyone to check both ways before crossing the road?
D. Who? Your wife? Your son? Your children? Do you look both ways? Does this even matter? (Who you have told, just to be clear)

I understand that some wish not to allow any sort of analogies, whatsoever, into this argument because it undermines an other wise airtight position, but what about this one?

It has all the elements, right? Two people involved - who's "complicit"? Perhaps "complicit" is the wrong word?

Is it not more generally the case to ask to what degree someone is able to avoid a given unpleasant outcome, in any situation? In other words "risk management"? I would ask why. Why is this particular topic so immune from common sense?

My understanding from counselors, law enforcement, etc. is that it is empowering to instill the idea that people are not helpless over their lives.

You are all so inspirational and informative on nearly every topic - but many of the heavyweights here have for some inexplicable reason determined that this subject is anathema. Why?

I've been brooding on this for many years - where am I wrong? Remove every aspect of gender from the question - does this change anything? Apparently not - I have tried very hard in the past to do this - to no avail.

Why is it wrong to advise someone to look both ways before crossing the street? Why is it wrong to advise someone not to walk down an alley at night nude? No boundaries? Of course not. If your three year old ran down said alley 30 seconds ago, of course you're (make that "I'm") going to chase him down. Otherwise, I choose not to go down the dark alley at night. Is this really that unreasonable?

By the way - the pedestrian was not killed by the evil drunk driver - s/he was killed by a car coming from the opposite direction - the drunk driver slowed and stopped for the light... Does that change anything? Another question - would you advise your loved ones not to drive drunk? Why / not?

Please, please play ethics 101 with me on my scenario(s).

I just don't get why I'm so fuckin' stupid on this particular issue...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Emotional involvement.
That's why I keep pounding on Cifo, too.

A. of course.
B. because it's smart to do so
C. yes, various small children over the years.
D. I always look both ways when going into a street, even if I'm pulling my car onto a one-way street...because twice now I've seen drunks going the wrong way on a freeway.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In my state, the law says you always yield the right-of-way to pedestrians. No matter what damnfool thing they just did, if you whack into them your insurance pays. Even if they jumped in front of you-this actually happened to my brother, with witnesses that, yeah, dumbass jumped in front of his car. The guy went to the ER to get bandaged up on my brother's insurance.
If you fail to stop and render assistance to someone you hurt with your car, you are charged with failure to stop and render assistance, and I believe that's a felony.

What I am trying to say, Szygys said succinctly:

Someone's case of the stupids does not excuse their predator. Period.

Still not advising anybody to go be stupid.

 

Aye. That does not negate the logic, now does it?

Now - the obvious. One question you failed to answer - why does this strategy not extend to precautions against other felonies? Such as, I don't know, maybe rape?

I'm not now, nor ever have, advocated locking women, or boys, or 300 pound men, nor trans, bi, homo or any other sexuals away from civilization. I'm not telling anyone what to wear or whom to talk with. I merely assert "be careful" - and 7 kinds of hell descend on me. WTF, I wonder???

So I get all carried away, old wounds surface, I quit, life goes on, same topic comes up, some old players / some new players, same result.

I feel like I am doing wrong for saying "be careful", broken down a little more explicitly as day to day life goes on. No one will specifically engage and answer all questions asked - it's a pick and choose game.

What really pisses me off is that I would bet my left nut that every one, every single one of these naysayers advises the people they care for to "be careful" as they leave the house. As they drive home after two beers. After they score a lid. Etc. Etc. Etc. Anyone care to stand up and tell me differently?

If this is true, all that they are doing is practicing informal "risk management" without knowing and / or acknowledging it. Thanks to Fraggle for going through the nuts and bolts of the discipline. I don't have the patience to break a simple everyday admonition to "check your back seat" before you get into the car into formal project management terms - which by nature necessitate incorporation of risk assessment. But, hey, do we need to reduce this to mathematics for someone to understand the basic principles in play?

I still fail to understand why this raises so much ire.

Are you afraid someone is trying to weasel their way from a "be careful" to a "s/he asked for it"? If so, that's sick...

No? What do you advise?

 

The sub-discussion here among Bells, chimpkin and Cifo (me) has reached a stalemate, and this is my last post in this thread. If anyone wants to believe that I'm quitting, giving up, retreating, caving in, buckling, relinquishing, renouncing, surrendering, and/or abdicating, then that is their privilege, and they are more than welcome to it.

I will end by restating and expanding upon what I have stated over and over and over again ad nauseam.

Goodbye, best wishes, and be well.

 

Oh, but it does.
Any violent crime...there are things you should do to make yourself less of a target.
People were not really dogpiling you, Rand, for saying that.

Who we were arguing with (and you just walked out into the middle of a firefight on) are those who think that a woman who is acting foolish deserves to get raped.

Does a woman (or man) acting foolishly deserve to be raped? NO.
Should they take precautions? YES.

Then why the hell have you been arguing with me for five pages???:facepalm:

...And I've just ran into another suicidal teen rape and incest victim on my social networking site! Let's see if I can get her to get help before she self-destructs, because of course she feels like she's filth for having been a victim!! Gawd this is a weird hobby...

 

Thanks. Really.

I do have to ask though, just for reference, which post(s) argue "that a woman who is acting foolish deserves to get raped", in your opinion?


Also, in all honesty, I wasn't an innocent bystander that "just walked out into the middle of a firefight". I've been in this theatre before. Same FUBAR situation. My fault for letting myself be drawn back in, but I .can't. .for. .the. .life. .of. .me. understand why this isn't obvious to everyone.

Actually, I think it is obvious to everyone. I just can't seem to communicate effectively on the issue, and that may very well be due to emotional involvement. But I still maintain that there is a difference between taking precautions and being at fault for assault of any kind, including rape.

Emphasis mine.

Great, Perfect. Succinct. My point indeed. Chalk one up for what I'm trying to say, whatever the "proper" label may be...

 

Do men get raped in dark alleys? I see men walking around the streets after dark.

Are men more likely to get raped if they wear less clothing?

When little boys get raped are they considered as complicit if they left off their shirts?

 

Hi SAM.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I would guess, just offhand, that it has happened, sometime, somewhere. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Why are you skulking about in dark alleys though? Perhaps you had sufficient reason to do so? Or maybe you carry a fully deterministic POV? Or... What?