4 ms·

Here's the way I've always thought about it. If you're walking in a bad neighborhood at 3am and you get mugged, should you have chosen your path more wisely? M

Here's the way I've always thought about it. If you're walking in a bad neighborhood at 3am and you get mugged, should you have chosen your path more wisely? Maybe. But would anybody say that _because you chose to walk in a bad neighborhood and you got mugged, the mugger isn't at fault and shouldn't be prosecuted for the crime they committed_? No, probably not. Mugging is a crime, and just because you put yourself in a situation where you're more likely to get mugged doesn't make it less of one. Why does the same not apply to sexual assault?

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
It's not either/or, it's both/and. Yes, the mugger is morally and legally at fault. Absolutely. And by walking in that neighborhood at 3 AM you at least increased your probability of being mugged. Morally, people in that neighborhood shouldn't be like that. But they are like that, and you knew it, and you walked there anyway. Morally, it isn't your fault, and yet what you did was definitely unwise. In an ideal world, it shouldn't make any difference where you walk. But this isn't an ideal world, and in the world we've got, with the people we've got, you need to pay some attention to where and when you walk.
tomp 8y ago
Nobody is saying that the mugger/rapist aren't guilty. But, are you not going to tell your kids, "don't walk in dangerous dark streets at night" and "scream if someone tries to mug you"? No, of course not, because it would be idiotic not to, it's just common sense! Then why wouldn't you tell women (well, people in general), "don't be alone with people you don't trust" and "scream 'no' if someone tries to rape you"? It's common sense!
- CocaKoala 8y ago
  You can (and I suspect people DO) tell women "don't be alone with people you don't trust". That's not in contention. Victim blaming is when you say "Well, if you hadn't been alone with somebody you didn't trust, you wouldn't have been raped"; it's technically a true statement, but it puts the onus on the woman (why was she alone with somebody she didn't trust, something she's been told not to do?) as opposed to on the rapist (why did they rape somebody?). While it's valuable to give people tools to avoid situations that might go bad, it's still important to recognize that the person at fault for the situation going bad is the person who commits the crime, and not the person who ended up in a bad situation.
  - tomp 8y ago
    I don't interpret that as shifting fault or blame, just as I don't interpret "well, if you wore a seat belt, you wouldn't be tetraplegic". Every person's primary responsibility is to protect themselves, and after each incident the most you can do to prevent another one, is to analyse what more you could have done, or you could do in the future.
    - CocaKoala 8y ago
      > after each incident the most you can do to prevent another one, is to analyse what more you could have done, or you could do in the future. Sure. Which is why, in addition to telling people to wear seat belts, we also make people take Driver's Ed so that they can demonstrate that they at least nominally know the rules of the road and can drive safely. What's the Driver's Ed version of teaching people not to commit rape or sexual assault? When I was in college, there was a freshman orientation activity that talked about consent, but it wasn't mandatory, not all colleges have it, and not all people go to college. Who's teaching high schoolers about the nuances of consent and what it means to sexually assault somebody?
      - tomp 8y ago
        Maybe, although I think those do more harm than good. Personally, I don't like the idea of requiring "explicit verbal consent" and those that suggest it don't really explain what should happen if two people just have sex (i.e. who should go to jail - most would default to the man but that's just sexist and what about lesbians?). But in any case, that's just a small proportion of alleged rape cases, all of which are much more easily and uncontroversially resolved by urging women/victims to say "no" loud and clear. The rest of the cases (i.e when someone wants to rape), I don't think can be resolved by courses or such, just like you don't resolve robberies by "teaching criminals not to steal".
        CocaKoala 8y ago
        > just like you don't resolve robberies by "teaching criminals not to steal" Do you tell banks that they shouldn't have kept so much money in the vaults if they didn't want to get robbed?

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

It's not either/or, it's both/and. Yes, the mugger is morally and legally at fault. Absolutely. And by walking in that neighborhood at 3 AM you at least increased your probability of being mugged. Morally, people in that neighborhood shouldn't be like that. But they are like that, and you knew it, and you walked there anyway. Morally, it isn't your fault, and yet what you did was definitely unwise. In an ideal world, it shouldn't make any difference where you walk. But this isn't an ideal world, and in the world we've got, with the people we've got, you need to pay some attention to where and when you walk.

tomp 8y ago

Nobody is saying that the mugger/rapist aren't guilty. But, are you not going to tell your kids, "don't walk in dangerous dark streets at night" and "scream if someone tries to mug you"? No, of course not, because it would be idiotic not to, it's just common sense! Then why wouldn't you tell women (well, people in general), "don't be alone with people you don't trust" and "scream 'no' if someone tries to rape you"? It's common sense!

CocaKoala 8y ago
You can (and I suspect people DO) tell women "don't be alone with people you don't trust". That's not in contention. Victim blaming is when you say "Well, if you hadn't been alone with somebody you didn't trust, you wouldn't have been raped"; it's technically a true statement, but it puts the onus on the woman (why was she alone with somebody she didn't trust, something she's been told not to do?) as opposed to on the rapist (why did they rape somebody?). While it's valuable to give people tools to avoid situations that might go bad, it's still important to recognize that the person at fault for the situation going bad is the person who commits the crime, and not the person who ended up in a bad situation.
- tomp 8y ago
  I don't interpret that as shifting fault or blame, just as I don't interpret "well, if you wore a seat belt, you wouldn't be tetraplegic". Every person's primary responsibility is to protect themselves, and after each incident the most you can do to prevent another one, is to analyse what more you could have done, or you could do in the future.
  - CocaKoala 8y ago
    > after each incident the most you can do to prevent another one, is to analyse what more you could have done, or you could do in the future. Sure. Which is why, in addition to telling people to wear seat belts, we also make people take Driver's Ed so that they can demonstrate that they at least nominally know the rules of the road and can drive safely. What's the Driver's Ed version of teaching people not to commit rape or sexual assault? When I was in college, there was a freshman orientation activity that talked about consent, but it wasn't mandatory, not all colleges have it, and not all people go to college. Who's teaching high schoolers about the nuances of consent and what it means to sexually assault somebody?
    - tomp 8y ago
      Maybe, although I think those do more harm than good. Personally, I don't like the idea of requiring "explicit verbal consent" and those that suggest it don't really explain what should happen if two people just have sex (i.e. who should go to jail - most would default to the man but that's just sexist and what about lesbians?). But in any case, that's just a small proportion of alleged rape cases, all of which are much more easily and uncontroversially resolved by urging women/victims to say "no" loud and clear. The rest of the cases (i.e when someone wants to rape), I don't think can be resolved by courses or such, just like you don't resolve robberies by "teaching criminals not to steal".
      - CocaKoala 8y ago
        > just like you don't resolve robberies by "teaching criminals not to steal" Do you tell banks that they shouldn't have kept so much money in the vaults if they didn't want to get robbed?