<p>It is imprudent to allow those who do not understand that there are innumerable interpretations for every action, and innumerable narratives that can be constructed out of those interpretations, to shape the new narratives that are going to become the main pathways that young people use to create their models of reality. It is particularly dangerous when they do not understand that certain perspectives, especially when provided to the exclusion of competing perspectives, promote feelings of mistrust and hostility or that mistrust and hostility can be contagious and self-replicating and lead to the evolution of the society into something unhealthy and self-destructive. A social atmosphere can be poisoned just as surely as a physical atmosphere may be, and cleaning it up can prove to be every bit as difficult.</p>
<p>@awcntdb: “It is not blaming the victim to advise females to not go to certain places dressed in a way, acting a way and doing certain activities, which make them a potential target of predators in the crowd. That is not blaming the victim; it is common sense.”</p>
<p>First, I agree with this statement as written.</p>
<p>Second, in my mind, there is a simple difference between “Good Advice” and “Victim Blaming”:</p>
<p>Good Advice = Advice you give students to reduce their risk of becoming a victim of sexual assault.</p>
<p>Victim Blaming = Any statement that suggests that the responsibility for a criminal act is not entirely the responsibility of the perpetrator.</p>
<p>Example of Good Advice:
Telling your daughter that going to frat parties in a thong bikini, getting sloppy drunk, dancing on the table naked, and letting a guy take you back to his room are all behaviors that increase your risk of becoming a sexual assault victim.</p>
<p>Example of Blaming the Victim:
It wasn’t really a sexual assault because she went to the frat party in a thong bikini, got sloppy drunk, and danced on the table naked and let a guy take her back to his room. Therefore, it is partially or completely her responsibility.</p>
<p>The difference:
If your comments relate to an event that has already happened, you are probably victim blaming. If you are suggesting how someone can reduce their risk in the future, you are probably giving good advice. </p>
<p>Your thoughts?</p>
<p>I’ll bite. Learning from mistakes is not victim blaming. You shouldn’t have gone to that Frat party in a thong bikini gotten sloppy drunk and danced on the table. What were you thinking? OMG! is not victim blaming. Oh, you poor thing, men are just awful you should be able to do whatever the heck stupid thing you want and no-one should ever take advantage of your idiocy and if they do it’s proof that there is something wrong with society in general is nonsense. That poor girl can reduce her risks in the future by behaving differently than she did in the past. Honestly, I don’t even know who the kid is that needs to be taught this lesson. Has she been living under a rock?</p>
<p>Much2learn, I take your point, but unfortunately the example is extreme, and I think that almost anyone would agree that a person–male or female–who behaved that way <em>seemed</em> to be advertising their availability. Nevertheless, IMHO the preferred response to a drunken person who started dancing on a table in the bikini or naked would be for a couple of people to take charge of persuading him/her to get down off the table, cover him/her with something, and escort him/her back to her dorm–where hopefully there would be someone who would agree to keep an eye on him/her–or to the student health clinic.</p>
<p>There are, unfortunately, people who get drunk and who cannot be persuaded to behave themselves. In the video, it would be quite likely that if her friend tried to get her to leave the dancefloor and come home, she would have fought back and drunkenly demanded to stay. I know of a kid who ended up spending the night in a drunk tank because of this, despite the best efforts of his friends and GF. If he had been female, though, would he have ended up in the drunk tank, or in some opportunist’s bed? It’s a lot easier to physically force the average girl to go where you want her to go. </p>
<p>It seems to me that the only way to combat this is for the people who would NOT take advantage of what the person <em>seems</em> to be offering to be the vast majority. And for more people to actively intervene.</p>
<p>When I was in college, I had a visiting friend who got drunk and was throwing herself at two guys at a party. I managed to get her to come upstairs with me, lie down on the bed in the room where she was staying, and locked the door behind me. She slept it off. (I subsequently realized that maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to leave her alone, but it was about all I could do. She wasn’t drunk enough for it to be physically dangerous.)</p>
<p>@actingmt </p>
<p>I agree that learning from mistakes is not victim blaming. That is just helping someone reduce their risk of becoming a victim in the future. </p>
<p>Victim blaming in my mind is any statement or suggestion that any of those behaviors somehow make the crime less than 100% the fault and responsibility of the assailant. </p>
<p>Re: “victim blaming”</p>
<p>Perhaps using a non-rape example, if someone leaves his/her stuff unattended and unlocked, and thieves steal the stuff, the victim may be blamed for being an easy victim (not for the actual theft), but it does not excuse the thieves, who are still 100% guilty of theft.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many students go off to college with ingrained habits that make them easy victims to theft, having grown up in low crime areas where it is not necessary to be vigilant about watching and locking their stuff. Then they go to college with the same habits and have their stuff stolen.</p>
<p>The naivete that incoming college students have about alcohol, sex, and rape that makes many of them potentially easy victims for predatory rapists may be analogous. Separately, it also increases the risk of getting tangled up in unclear or misinterpreted consent situations.</p>
<p>In both cases, incoming college students need to be taught how to avoid being easy victims.</p>
<p>That’s correct, ucb, and the world can probably be divided into two types of people: those who would never think of taking someone’s stuff just because they could, and those who think that if the person doesn’t lock it up, it’s theirs for the taking. I do’t understand the latter group at all, I admit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the thong-wearing dancer was raped, it IS victim blaming, and it also makes light of the crime.</p>
<p>Would I say to someone I know of, “You shouldn’t have gotten drunk and dived off the boathouse roof” when he broke his neck and will spend his life in a wheelchair? That would be insensitive and cruel, and show a lack of proportion. Similarly, if someone is raped, that’s not the time for you to deliver another attack on them.</p>
<p>Disagree CF - I don’t think it’s victim blaming, at all. But, this is a fine line. Might it be insensitive? Maybe. It’s also possible no-one has ever talked sense to the thong wearing dancer, or she simply refused to listen. That happens.</p>
<p>You shouldn’t have left your luggage sitting in the airport and expected to come back and find it untouched, either.</p>
<p>And, drinking and sex happen in high school, too. Most college kids are just not this clueless.</p>
<p>actingmt, So you’re going to go up to the guy in the wheelchair and say, “Shouldn’t have gotten drunk and dove in the water, dude”? Seriously, you think that’s an appropriate thing to say?</p>
<p>I expect he knows this and I would likely say nothing because it’s not my business. </p>
<p>@Actingmt “Disagree CF - I don’t think it’s victim blaming, at all.”</p>
<p>If the point of the statement “You shouldn’t have gone to that Frat party in a thong bikini gotten sloppy drunk and danced on the table. What were you thinking?” was to educate for the future, it would be better to avoid ambiguity by phrasing it as, “In the future, it would be safer to avoid…”. </p>
<p>If the point of the statement is to assign the victim with responsibility/fault for being sexually assaulted, then I think the statement is victim blaming. </p>
<p>@Consolation “…unfortunately the example is extreme”</p>
<p>My point in making the example this way is to point out that if you do not have clear consent, it is rape. Full stop. There is no “seems” about it. Every college student needs to understand this. </p>
<p>Her actions do make her seem available. However, a potential/hopeful sex partner still needs to obtain consent and be comfortable that she has capacity to consent. Failing to do those things puts this person at risk for a rape conviction and prison. If there is any ambiguity to the situation, you need to stop and clarify with her for your own protection. </p>
<p>To give a non-rape related example. If I were to walk into a store and take some things and just leave without obtaining consent of the store owner, I will not be successful arguing in court that I was justified in doing so because the television advertisements “seemed to be advertising their availability”. There is a big legal difference between advertising and a consensual transaction. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the problem that emerges is the false reality that actions can and should only be interpreted a certain way, which is obviously not true. </p>
<p>Reality is not what you believe you are doing; it is what happens when what you are doing meets the outside world and collides. The final result may be very different than you expect, regardless of what you are thinking you are doing OR should be allowed to do. </p>
<p>This false reality also creates a false sense of safety, most likely reducing actual safety.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is weird thing going on in society that most problems are the result of some overwhelming interpersonal crisis with someone being a victim of someone else. And it is as if no other side is presented or highlighted other than that of the victim, and everything must be seen from the viewpoint of the victim. Too may victims are being created even if there really is not one and where the real condition should be shared responsibility, as to what is happening. </p>
<p>Of course this crisis-victim approach leads to mistrust and hostility because in the narrative only one party is responsible and the other never is. Such an approach creates much polarization between people and groups. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My DS says this is exactly what is going on on campus. Men are more wary of the women than the other way around, he says. He says guys quietly trust females as far as they can see them. That is sad. </p>
<p>But, explains the lack of real dating now. Who would want to date when the initial meeting starts off as distrust and with one party being told they are assumed hostile to the other before they even go out? I would not have ever dated my wife if that is how she viewed me before we ever went out. No way.</p>
<p>I’m not going to say anything to the kid who got drunk and dived off the roof. But I’m going to tell MY kid about what happened to that kid, and I’m going to say, “This is the kind of thing you risk when you get blotto.” I’m going to say the same sorts of things to my daughter when something awful happens to somebody else.</p>
<p>Does it cause you to have less sympathy for a victim of crime if their own lack of prudence made them an easy target? Honestly, it probably does in most situations–if you didn’t lock your bike, I’m going to feel less sympathy for you than if you had locked it and somebody cut the lock. But I guess if the harm to you is really serious–like, if you are seriously hurt, or raped, or your house burns down–then I’ll still feel a lot of sympathy for you. I don’t think it should have anything to do with the culpability of the criminal at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only the most ridiculous of people would say something like the rape was the fault of the victim. You’d probably find a similar number of people who say something like the theft is your fault if you don’t lock the bike, but people don’t spend as much time talking about bike theft. These are not majority opinions. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d go further: no decent person would even TRY to obtain “consent” from this drunken girl. She obviously needs to be taken care of, not taken advantage of.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, yes, but that example would work better if the girl were a prostitute. Until recently, no one seemed to think that a prostitute could reasonably claim to have been raped. (Or a wife, for that matter.) No one expects to pay for sex with a peer. Everyone expects to pay in a store. But yes, I agree that behaving in a manner that suggests one is interested in and available for sex is not the same thing as consenting, and it is no excuse. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If we’re imagining a girl falling over and puking, yes, definitely no decent person would try to have sex with her in that state. If we’re talking about a girl who’s had a couple and is basically just a more “loosened up” version of her normal self, that’s different. You can’t talk about drunkedness without stating what you mean. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, there is a difference to being genuinely blindsided in an attack and to what we are discussing here. So, let’s set aside that there are clearly situations where the victim has no hand in the situation at all. </p>
<p>Given the above set aside, this victim blaming definition does not strike me as a realistic definition.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>There are obviously ways, which risks of certain attacks can be and are mitigated. We teach them to people all the time, e.g., do not walk down this specific neighborhood at night with flashy jewelry or money showing in your hands. Since this is true, i.e., certain behaviors /actions cause the chances of certain unwanted reactions to rise, then it must be KNOWN that certain actions invite certain types of people to act a certain way. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect just because feminists say you are empowered that certain behaviors / actions magically are seen differently if done by you. </p></li>
<li><p>There now seems to be this impossible expectation that because I am woman I should have this safe zone around me because I say so. However, the cause and effect of the rest of the world does not change just because one sees oneself as empowered, as empowerment does not conjure up some invisible safety shield. Therefore, if you do something, which is KNOWN to attract certain attention and reactions, it is unrealistic to not expect that attention to come your way at a higher rate.</p></li>
<li><p>But, to me, the most unrealistic part of all this and the overriding factor that governs the outcomes of sections 1 and 2 above is I do not understand why anyone is teaching young women that they should demand and expect rational behavior from irrational people, i.e., predators and psychopaths are, by definition, irrational. If someone does something that is KNOWN to attract irrational people, why is there this unnatural expectation for them to suddenly come to their senses, act rational and leave you alone? These people do not magically change their stripes because they see an empowered sign on your shirt or body. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect irrational people to leave you alone just because you say so. </p></li>
<li><p>Overall, I believe that "blaming the victim’ is too nebulous a term because there are such things, as “smart victims” and “dumb victims.” What separates the two groups is how far ahead one thinks about the potential consequences of one’s actions and then takes precautions to be ahead of the game, on the safe side. We should be teaching females that if they are going to be victims (and hopefully they are not), at least be a smart one. And if you do become a victim, then go full-bore on the ■■■■■■■ and take whatever legal actions necessary. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>@Awcntdb
Surprisingly, I agree with much of what you are saying here. </p>
<p>I am in no way suggesting that women should behave foolishly and take risks as if they have some magical shield around them. That is just inviting trouble. I teach my daughters and son about being smart, and taking actions that significantly reduce risks, to leave any situation where they become uncomfortable, and to protect and help others when they can. </p>
<p>When I am talking about blaming the victim, I mean that if someone has sex with someone else who has not consented, or who does not have the legal capacity to consent, their defense can not include that the victim was drunk, or underdressed, or went into a room alone with them, or did not resist (none of these are consent).</p>
<p>The only defense is that you did have consent, and that she did have capacity to consent (i.e., she is not passed out, or too drunk to understand the situation, or underage). </p>
<p>You are right that young ladies should be smart. I am just saying that if they are not, that does not mean that others can take advantage of the situation with impunity. </p>
<p>The latest battleground seems to be defining what constitutes “too drunk.”</p>