[subego]

Is there any scenario wherein you bear any responsibility for being raped? For focus purposes let's not include statuatory rape in the main topic, but a side topic of rationale for its inclusion (or lack thereof) could be interesting.

I cannot think of a scenario. The responsibility lies fully with the person who makes the decision to commit the act.

[reader50]

Hire a hit on yourself. Pay in advance. So the answer to your question is technically 'yes'.

As to the intended meaning of inadvertently being at fault, I'm coming up blank.

[Shaddim]

Being drunk and mostly naked at a party with other drunk/stoned people, then passing out, doesn't help.

[subego]

I feel like I may be misunderstanding you. Can you expand on this?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I feel like I may be misunderstanding you. Can you expand on this?

It's a bad idea for a half-naked person to pass out at a party with a bunch of other drunk and stoned people. A buddy and I had to rescue a girl in college that did that. She passed out while only wearing bikini bottoms and a cropped t-shirt, and almost ended up getting to know most of the basketball team in a much more intimate way than she'd intended.

[subego]

I'd say you were 100% saving her from the actions of the basketball team and 0% saving her from her own actions. Passing out while scantily clad (or unclad for that matter) doesnt cause you to get raped. Someone choosing to rape you causes you to be raped.

[Shaddim]

It's still very stupid to pass out while half naked around strangers. That's piss poor judgement and contributing to the situation by not being responsible for yourself. I didn't know who she was so we deposited her on our couch and covered her with a blanket, but I read her the riot act after she "came around".

[subego]

Is it piss poor judgement for a naked man to pass out around strangers?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is it piss poor judgement for a naked man to pass out around strangers?

Yep, men can be sexually assaulted when they're vulnerable too. We don't live in a utopian world where people naturally look out for each other and bad things are rare. Self-accountability is important.

[Chongo]

Ask Marcellus Wallace

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yep, men can be sexually assaulted when they're vulnerable too. We don't live in a utopian world where people naturally look out for each other and bad things are rare. Self-accountability is important.

It's by no means a utopia, however I disagree completely with your view of the world. People do naturally look out for each other and bad things are rare. If this wasn't the case society would have devolved into anarchy long ago.

I officially take zero responsibility for what people do to me when I'm unconscious, regardless of how provocatively I'm dressed.

[Shaddim]

We don't live in the same world then, and nothing we've said to each other applies.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ask Marcellus Wallace

or Andy Dufresne

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We don't live in the same world then, and nothing we've said to each other applies.

No kidding. You live in buzzkill world.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

No kidding. You live in buzzkill world.

Here, here, now. I just call it reality. Last week we had a domestic violence call, when they arrived the officers found a father had smashed his 6 month-old son's head in with a rail from the crib, because the infant wouldn't stop crying while he was trying to watch TV. Now that's a buzzkill. Asking a person to keep their wits about them at a party isn't a lot to ask, in the grand scheme of things, especially when there are inhibition-lowering substances flying around.

Right?

[subego]

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you cops aren't there to protect you, they're there to clean up the mess. If it's your job to swim in society's dumpster juice, you're going to have a different reality than most people.

Most people can go their whole life without murdering an infant, or knowing someone who murdered an infant.


As for what's "too much to ask", I get the idea you think "don't rape people" is somehow asking more. That's a pretty damn easy request to fulfill, no?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you cops aren't there to protect you, they're there to clean up the mess. If it's your job to swim in society's dumpster juice, you're going to have a different reality than most people.

Most people can go their whole life without murdering an infant, or knowing someone who murdered an infant.


As for what's "too much to ask", I get the idea you think "don't rape people" is somehow asking more. That's a pretty damn easy request to fulfill, no?

Not when inhibitions have been dropped and judgement is impaired, like at a rave or party. Especially in those situations, watch your ass and don't lose consciousness around strangers, that only contributes to the problem.

As for going your whole life without knowing someone who has committed murder, not now, not with the way the media works today.

[subego]

I'm not talking about media knowledge, I'm talking about first hand knowledge, like you get as a cop.

I also said "murder an infant" not murder alone. I know someone who's committed murder, or at least been convicted, the guy he killed had it coming though, he threatened to rape his sisters.


The question though, isn't whether it's a good idea to maintain consciousness. The question is does self-inflicted lack of consciousness mean you are responsible for what others do to your unconscious body?

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is there any scenario wherein you bear any responsibility for being raped? For focus purposes let's not include statuatory rape in the main topic, but a side topic of rationale for its inclusion (or lack thereof) could be interesting.

I cannot think of a scenario. The responsibility lies fully with the person who makes the decision to commit the act.

Revenge comes to mind. Collaborators, WW2 sort of stuff.

[subego]

This scenario only works if you morally support revenge torture.

Myself, I think people who morally support revenge torture are in need of a morality tune-up.

[Waragainstsleep]

I suppose if you dressed provocatively and wore clothes or a sign of some kind that said 'rape me please' all over them, then you might legally be deemed responsible. If not morally or ethically responsible.

I had a girlfriend who used to drink a lot. Sometimes it was fine line between her going to sleep and passing out. On more than one occasion she told me I could "do what I liked to her" while she was unconscious. I never did anything, it just would have felt wrong.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I suppose if you dressed provocatively and wore clothes or a sign of some kind that said 'rape me please' all over them, then you might legally be deemed responsible. If not morally or ethically responsible.

Why?

If there is a porno on in the same room stimulating men, does that mean that a woman has any sort of responsibility for being raped?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I suppose if you dressed provocatively and wore clothes or a sign of some kind that said 'rape me please' all over them, then you might legally be deemed responsible. If not morally or ethically responsible.

That strikes me as a catch 22.

If you request a rape, you've provided consent. If you provide consent, it's not a rape.

In your specific situation, that wouldn't be rape, but what it was would be sketchy (IMO).

[subego]

@Shaddim

Just so you don't think I'm being more obstinate than usual, I understand where you're coming from on an instinctual level. If I'm walking late at night using my iPhone, and it gets jacked, I'd feel like I bear some responsibility because I know better.

The thing is, I'm not sure my instincts are giving me an objective read on the situation. That's not what they're for. My instincts are trying to protect me. If my instincts "think" I'll be better protected by them viewing the situation subjectively, that's exactly what they're going to do.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd say you were 100% saving her from the actions of the basketball team and 0% saving her from her own actions. Passing out while scantily clad (or unclad for that matter) doesnt cause you to get raped. Someone choosing to rape you causes you to be raped.

This is precisely right. Taking advantage of a person who is not able to actively deny permission is not the same as getting permission, and in most of the U.S. that is a legal standard as well as a logical truth.

No. Period, end of question. Rape is a violent act carried out by an attacker through use of his/her and the victim's sexual organs. It has no valid "precipitating" factors.

I spent several years as a rape crisis counselor. I worked with people who thought they were completely safe until... I worked with people who never knew that "Uncle Joe" had a long family history of abusing pre-teen girls in the family. I worked with people whose own fathers abused them regularly without their mothers taking action about what they knew what was happening... There is NO way a rape is EVER the fault of the victim.

Reader50 noted the possibility of "hiring a hit on yourself," and while that is a possibility, that changes it from being "rape" to being a different criminal act. Look at the various definitions of rape. If one hires someone (even anonymously) to commit a rape against oneself, it is no longer "against the will" of that individual. On the other hand, "no means no" applies no matter what; if someone was cooperating until some point and said "no" then, using force (even just the weight of another person's body on top of that person) technically (although not necessarily legally) constitutes rape. Actively getting someone drunk/drugged/etc. in order to attack them is part of every state's legal rape definition, as is attacking someone who has passed out through their own actions.

Anyone who considers what a person was wearing, how the person was acting, or anything else about the victim as "a rationale" for a rape does not understand (or chooses not to understand) the act of rape. It is an attack, whether for purposes of sexual satisfaction (seldom, mostly "party drug" activities) or to show pathological "dominance" over someone, or any other reason. It is NEVER the fault of the victim.

[subego]

I would imagine there are people you encountered who did think it was their fault to some extent.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

I would imagine there are people you encountered who did think it was their fault to some extent.

Absolutely. This is, in fact, the "family abuser's" biggest self defense tool. "You liked it, and you didn't tell your mom the first time, so you're the one who's really doing it." That makes it as much a psychological attack as a physical attack. With male victims, there are "physiological responses" that often make them extremely confused about whether they did ultimately enjoy the attack, and that's very hard to deal with as well. It takes a lot of very careful, very thoughtful counseling, educating, and empathy to start helping a victim get past the attack, and it is quite common for victims who do not get immediate help to wind up needing a whole lot of help later, to the extent of needing treatment for PTSD.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

People do naturally look out for each other and bad things are rare. If this wasn't the case society would have devolved into anarchy long ago.

This is the most f$&?ing ironic thing I have heard in a long time.

You live in Chicago, right ?

Ever been to the Southside ? They HAVE developed into anarchy. Bad things are the norm.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not talking about media knowledge, I'm talking about first hand knowledge, like you get as a cop.

I also said "murder an infant" not murder alone. I know someone who's committed murder, or at least been convicted, the guy he killed had it coming though, he threatened to rape his sisters.


The question though, isn't whether it's a good idea to maintain consciousness. The question is does self-inflicted lack of consciousness mean you are responsible for what others do to your unconscious body?

Not wholly, or even mostly, but to a lesser extent.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

This is the most f$&?ing ironic thing I have heard in a long time.

You live in Chicago, right ?

Ever been to the Southside ? They HAVE developed into anarchy. Bad things are the norm.

-t

We can't hold a candle to São Paolo.

More importantly however, have you ever been to Alaska? There are places the size of the South Side which have a population of zero.

Therefore, normal means no people, right?


Honestly, someone claiming the South Side is "normal" sounds much like they're arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Chongo]

There's this from the "Great White North" I remember the stir it caused on both sides of the border

Judge appears to blame victim in sexual-assault case - The Globe and Mail

A Manitoba judge has decided not to send a man to jail for sexually assaulting a woman because the victim was wearing heavy makeup and "wanted to party" on the night of the attack, the Winnipeg Free Press is reporting.

In a judgment that one prosecutor said could have implications for public confidence in the system, Judge Robert Dewar sentenced Kenneth Rhodes to a two-year conditional sentence outside of prison, accepting that he might not have understood that the woman did not want to have sex with him.
In the 2006 incident, Mr. Rhodes and a friend met the 26-year-old victim and her friend outside of a bar and headed off into the woods outside of Thompson, a town of 13,000 about 760 kilometres north of Winnipeg, the paper said. He and the victim kissed; later, when they were alone, Mr. Rhodes had sexual intercourse with her without her consent at the side of the highway.

At trial, Mr. Rhodes maintained that he believed the woman had consented.

Judge Dewar listed several reasons for this misinterpretation, including that the victim and her friend were wearing tube tops, high heels and makeup; that the two had implied they might want to go skinny-dipping in a lake nearby and that the circumstances of their encounter with Mr. Rhodes and his friend were "inviting."

"This is a different case than one where there is no perceived invitation," the Free Press quoted the judge as saying. "This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour."

Crown attorney Sheila Seesahai, however, countered that the victim was at the man's mercy and warned of broader implications for the sentence.

"This sentencing will raise a number of issues relating to public confidence in the sentencing process," she said in court. "This is a very serious rape case. The harm to the victim can't be underestimated."

In a previous impact statement, the victim said that she still bears a scar on her knee from that night.

The prosecution had asked for a three-year prison sentence.

FAIL: Judge Rules Rape Victim Partly To Blame Because Of The Way She Was Dressed - YouTube

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Honestly, someone claiming the South Side is "normal" sounds much like they're arguing for the sake of arguing.

You are either bad at reading comprehension, or you are intentionally twisting my words.

-t

[subego]

Whatever.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Honestly, someone claiming the South Side is "normal" sounds much like they're arguing for the sake of arguing.

You're kind of arguing for the sake of arguing by saying that a passed-out-drunk half-naked chick at a wild party isn't in any way responsible if she's raped. Which directly flies in the face of anyone having to take responsibility for their own bodies in potentially risky situations.

I'd say ~80% them, 20% her, but I could see a small swing either way depending on circumstances.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You're kind of arguing for the sake of arguing by saying that a passed-out-drunk half-naked chick at a wild party isn't in any way responsible if she's raped. Which directly flies in the face of anyone having to take responsibility for their own bodies in potentially risky situations.

I'd say ~80% them, 20% her, but I could see a small swing either way depending on circumstances.

I made a post wherein I said I understand your point and even illustrated how I would apply it to myself.

That's a counter-productive way to argue for the sake of arguing, no?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I made a post wherein I said I understand your point and even illustrated how I would apply it to myself.

That's a counter-productive way to argue for the sake of arguing, no?

But you still aren't holding the girl accountable for her actions in any way.

[subego]

Here. Let me tackle this from a different direction.

I'm using the personal "you" here. Anyone who answers, should answer for themselves.

Presuming you aren't under threat of violence, are you not 100% personally responsible for every decision you make?

Outside factors will obviously have an influence on your thought process, but is not the decision to act solely on your shoulders?

Again, without the threat of violence, are there really people out there who can make you do something?

Are you a hand puppet?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

But you still aren't holding the girl accountable for her actions in any way.

That's not true. I acknowledged your argument has merit, however I don't think it has been argued to the point I should consider it objective truth.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here. Let me tackle this from a different direction.

I'm using the personal "you" here. Anyone who answers, should answer for themselves.

Presuming you aren't under threat of violence, are you not 100% personally responsible for every decision you make?

Outside factors will obviously have an influence on your thought process, but is not the decision to act solely on your shoulders?

Again, without the threat of violence, are there really people out there who can make you do something?

Are you a hand puppet?

Depends on my mental state, if I'm impaired. I left the hospital after day surgery not long ago and I remember very little of what happened immediately after, I had trust in my wife to get me home safely. However, I was responsible for the decision to accept the anesthesia knowing that the doctors were trained professionals and my family would look after my best interests while I was incapacitated. If I would have had to solely rely on strangers, it's likely I would have postponed it until someone I trust could be there after the procedure.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's not true. I acknowledged your argument has merit, however I don't think it has been argued to the point I should consider it objective truth.

Alright then, that's fair.

[besson3c]

I hope we'd agree that "responsible" and "at fault" are completely different things here? That is, it would be 100% the rapists and 0% the woman at fault if it was 80% the rapists and 20% the woman responsible?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are you a hand puppet?

No, so why a thread on the topic? I mean...

OP: is it ever acceptable to club a snowseal pup?
Respondent: well... not really, but if...
OP: What?!? Buzzkill!

If your favorite place and time is consistently the wrong place and time, you're increasing your odds of misfortune. We teach our kids this sort of thing all the time... for a reason. They do have a part to play in managing their own well-being. Hangin' out with thugs and ex-cons because they're mysterious and cool? Check. Dress and act provocatively? Check. Too much to drink/smoke/pop/snort? Check. Now you may be able to employ this dangerous mix of behaviors the first 4 or 5 times and there might be a thug at the party with conscience enough to rescue you, but I'd argue that your odds of misfortunate increase exponentially with each pass. To lead anyone to believe differently is to produce a false sense of security and is downright negligent and irresponsible.

So, no... you can't be responsible for your own rape, but you're certainly risking your life by consistently putting it in others' hands. There's no PC-way around that, but it is undeniably so.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'd say ~80% them, 20% her, but I could see a small swing either way depending on circumstances.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

...it would be 100% the rapists and 0% the woman at fault if it was 80% the rapists and 20% the woman responsible?

it's against this sort of mindset that I made the original comment that sparked this topic (in another thread). And I would like to propose right now that my original concept is also a solution to this conundrum.

In short, guilt is not zero-sum. The man* can be 100% guilty and the woman can (theoretically) be 100% guilty at the same time. The percents aren't distributed between the 2 (or more) participants, but rather what the percents refer to is how much each of them is independently guilty, on their own personal non-shared scale of 0-100. In support of this premise, I offer that if there are 2 rapists, then they don't split the guilt for the crime 50/50, they are both 100% guilty; so why must the guilt be split between rapist(s) and victim? My answer is it isn't. So let's imagine that a woman chooses to put herself at risk by drinking to excess while unclothed and passing out on a frat-house couch. Any man who comes along and has sex with her while she's unconscious and unconsenting, is 100% guilty. However, let's suppose that her actions create an objectively predictable 25% chance of getting her raped she is also 25% guilty. It's not 75/25, it's 100/25. Furthermore, if all we are able to determine is the degree to which she is guilty, then knowing/proving that number doesn't tell us whether the man is himself guilty. She could be 0% guilty, and his possible guilt could still range from 0% to 100%. She could be 100% guilty (but I can't honestly think of any action she could take that I would personally judge her 100% guilty for), and his guilt could still range from 0% to 100%. He's responsible for his crime, no matter how much she is additionally responsible for it, if any.

*for simplicity and to avoid pre-judging rapist and victim, I'm going to go ahead and assume we're talking about a man (allegedly) raping a woman, just so I have something to call each of them.



It solves the problem that we feel we can't let any guilt get on the victim, even in cases of the victim doing something they shouldn't do, for fear that it will take guilt off the perpetrator by doing that. But it doesn't have to take any guilt away from the perpetrator, just to identify additional guilt on the victim, in fact I argue that it's more accurate if it doesn't work like that (see again multiple perpetrators). The victim doesn't share guilt for what happened, they just (could possibly) have guilt for it, without taking anything away from his share of guilt.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is there any scenario wherein you bear any responsibility for being raped? For focus purposes let's not include statuatory rape in the main topic, but a side topic of rationale for its inclusion (or lack thereof) could be interesting.

I cannot think of a scenario. The responsibility lies fully with the person who makes the decision to commit the act.

Well, I'll answer your question with more questions.

Are you responsible for getting robbed if you leave your door unlocked? How about wide open?

Are you responsible for getting mugged if you knowingly walk through a shady part of town?

[pooka]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Are you responsible for getting mugged if you knowingly walk through a shady part of town?

Add some attributes/mods and let's keep em rolling.

Are you responsible for getting mugged if you knowingly walk through a shady part of town while intoxicated?

Are you responsible for getting mugged if you pass out in a shady part of town?

Are you responsible for getting mugged if you pass out in a shady part of town with large sums of money visible in your pockets?

Me personally? I feel that anyone should be able to walk through any part of town, at 2:00 o'clock in the morning, high on cough syrup, wearing nothing but a fedora and carrying a backpack full of gold bricks without fear of being mugged.

Addendum: Let's bring it closer to home.

Do any of you leave stacks of money or jewelry laying around your home? Especially if only your good friends and family are around. I mean, you are supposed to be able to trust those close to you. Why be on guard? They would never steal from you, correct?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Addendum: Let's bring it closer to home.

Do any of you leave stacks of money or jewelry laying around your home? Especially if only your good friends and family are around. I mean, you are supposed to be able to trust those close to you. Why be on guard? They would never steal from you, correct?

There is also a plausible scenario where you would consent to them taking some arbitrary property from you. It's even plausible that you might both want this arrangement to be unspoken (like they pity you but want to spare you embarrassment). If they take it from you, it could actually be a misunderstanding on their part, and an error on your part. You hold guilt for an accident (as if you had made an error that destroyed or lost your own property, without anyone else gaining it), and they are not really guilty of anything, as it was just an honest misunderstanding.

Me personally, I think that whether they are wrong or right to do it, depends only on their perspective, and their responsibility, and not on whether what you did was right or wrong. It's confused by the fact that we generally set up the rules of right and wrong so that two rights are unlikely to make a wrong. But it's not that way because of causality; IOW one person is not right or wrong because of the other person's rightness or wrongness.

Me personally? I feel that anyone should be able to walk through any part of town, at 2:00 o'clock in the morning, high on cough syrup, wearing nothing but a fedora and carrying a backpack full of gold bricks without fear of being mugged.

What's the rape analog of that, public indecency (a crime)?

What's your opinion of placing stacks of coins on the ground behind you as you stand facing away from a beggar, but calling the police on the beggar if he picks up your coins? Do you agree that there's a limit to ambivalence, beyond which it's something more... active?

[OreoCookie]

I'm really surprised that some of you really think that the responsibility lies with anyone else besides the rapist. If a woman says no, you have to stop, period. It's not an excuse if she's drunk or looks for consensual sex. It's not an excuse that she wore a short skirt. Or that she initially said yes and changed her mind during foreplay.

Of course, women can put themselves at additional risk, but that still does not mean they bear any responsibility for the rape.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm really surprised that some of you really think that the responsibility lies with anyone else besides the rapist. If a woman says no, you have to stop, period. It's not an excuse...

Blame can exist in the victim without making it an excuse, and without relieving the rapist of any blame. Blame is not zero-sum.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Blame can exist in the victim without making it an excuse, and without relieving the rapist of any blame. Blame is not zero-sum.

That's what I was trying to get at.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Blame can exist in the victim without making it an excuse, and without relieving the rapist of any blame. Blame is not zero-sum.

But all of these comments are mere excuses: she shouldn't have been there, she shouldn't have worn that dress. Dangerous neighborhoods are dangerous because there are dangerous people there. If you get robbed in a bad neighborhood, you don't have a part of the responsibility or blame (even it if sums up to more than one), because you were in the wrong place. Or if you get hit by a car while riding a motor cycle: the added risk of riding the motor cycle doesn't add blame on my part if I have stuck to the traffic laws while the driver of the car was under the influence.

Amongst my friends, a few have trusted me with their story of being raped (in some cases more than once). All of them knew their attacker beforehand, he or she was a friend, an ex boyfriend or a mother. None of them filed a police report. I'm not sure whether this is representative, but I think the classic »dark alley way« rape that many of us think of is actually not the most common setting.