3 ms·

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 y

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?
      - tropo 8y ago
        Pretty much, yes, if they are careless. Well, it becomes a meme of some sort, with everybody making fun of the bank. For example: there is over a million dollars in cash, the bank is near multiple good escape routes, the bank's cameras and alarms are broken, the "vault" has a hollow interior door, etc.
      - tomp 8y ago
        Banks are responsible to keep my money safe - by moving it to a safer place, deploying guards, alarms and mechanisms, insuring it...
    - CocaKoala 8y ago
      > Personally, I don't like the idea of requiring "explicit verbal consent" Why not? When two people don't have the presumption of consent, what's the harm in checking to make sure "hey, is this something you want to do?"
      - tomp 8y ago
        Besides the problem I outlined above, saying "no explicit consent is rape" would mean I'm accusing all my ex lovers to be rapists, which I will definitely never do.
        CocaKoala 8y ago
        The goal of "get an enthusiastic yes" is not to criminalize sex without explicit consent, but rather to normalize the idea that if you _don't_ have explicit consent, then you shouldn't have sex.

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?
    - tropo 8y ago
      Pretty much, yes, if they are careless. Well, it becomes a meme of some sort, with everybody making fun of the bank. For example: there is over a million dollars in cash, the bank is near multiple good escape routes, the bank's cameras and alarms are broken, the "vault" has a hollow interior door, etc.
    - tomp 8y ago
      Banks are responsible to keep my money safe - by moving it to a safer place, deploying guards, alarms and mechanisms, insuring it...
  - CocaKoala 8y ago
    > Personally, I don't like the idea of requiring "explicit verbal consent" Why not? When two people don't have the presumption of consent, what's the harm in checking to make sure "hey, is this something you want to do?"
    - tomp 8y ago
      Besides the problem I outlined above, saying "no explicit consent is rape" would mean I'm accusing all my ex lovers to be rapists, which I will definitely never do.
      - CocaKoala 8y ago
        The goal of "get an enthusiastic yes" is not to criminalize sex without explicit consent, but rather to normalize the idea that if you _don't_ have explicit consent, then you shouldn't have sex.