VB: The Thread Killer.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

tetromino
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby tetromino » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:40 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
tetromino wrote:Sure, you have a right to not be murdered, robbed, or raped. Guess what? Some people simply don't care about your rights. They will murder, rob, or rape you, given the right risk/benefit ratio. If you knowingly walk into a situation where you will likely encounter a person who will go ahead and violate your right, they are responsible for the crime, but you are still a dumbass for volunteering to become their victim.
You really need to check your language. 'Volunteer' implies consent, and again, you're calling rape victims 'dumbasses', when it's already been explained to you precisely why people make the choices you've described as 'stupid'.

I am using the word "volunteer" in the sense of making a choice to do something (on the part of the victim). And I am talking about situations where you make a deliberate choice to walk into a dangerous situation.
As for your explanations - if I understand it right, you claimed that a woman who is drunk, walking in a dark alley, on high heels, is not a dumbass because society pressures her into heavy drinking and silly footwear, and that she might want to walk home alone from the party to avoid her dangerous acquaintance. To which I reply with a simple question, why walk through that dark alley? Why not walk along wide well-lit streets, or take a bus, or call a cab? There is nothing wrong with drinking (in general). Or high heels (in general). Or walking at night. But combine those three factors with an environment where there are no witnesses, low visibility, no-one to hear her, and no room to escape... Unless, of course, that alley is the only way she can get home, in which case, she has my sympathy.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:In the exact same goddamned post that you just quoted summarized in two words, sophy affirmed having done every part of your list of bad ideas, and never having been raped in the process. The fact is, the things that you think are blameworthy really are done by reasonable people all the time.

Because every time you do something risky, the worst possible outcome happens, right? I am happy that she was lucky. Others might not be.

Getting raped does not render you blameless. Getting raped fails to impart any blame on you, by virtue of the fact that you are not the rapist.

Different definitions of the word "blame". I love the English language. Again: by virtue of the fact that you are not a rapist, you are not responsible for what happens. But if what happened occurred as a result of a foolish choice that you had made, you might deserve censure (but again, not responsibility).

tetromino wrote:Actually, in the US, in only 29% of rape cases are both the victim and the perpetrator sober. Not getting drunk, and not being around people who get unpredictable when drunk, is one good way to decrease your chances of becoming a victim (and not only of rape, but of other crimes too).


Is that a percentage of reported rapes?

The number is from the Wikipedia rape article. Here's a link to the study in the footnotes (I have not read it): http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Simila ... actics.pdf

tetromino
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby tetromino » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:46 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Fucking excellent post, Osha. Bookmarked.

Osha wrote:There is a culture of rape, we (society) systematically ignore it, shift blame from the perpetrators, cover it up, blame the victims, don't fire and prosecute soldiers and prison guards who rape and don't hold their higher ups accountable when they ignore it.


Hey, if we can do it for non-convicts, we can do it for people in prison even more, right? After all, they did stupid things to put themselves in that situation, right?

(The answer to those questions is a firm fucking "no," tetromino. Don't even try.)

Prisons are different. At least in Russian prisons - American ones are probably similar - you might end up raped for violating a seemingly silly law among the convicts that an average person outside the prison had never even heard about. A reasonable civilian can hardly be expected to be knowledgeable about the subculture of the prison where they end up.
And then there are the cases where are people are raped just because of their looks, their sexual orientation, etc.

So no blame for the victims here.

Please don't doublepost. Edit changes into the last post instead. -L

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:55 am UTC

tetromino wrote:I am using the word "volunteer" in the sense of making a choice to do something (on the part of the victim). And I am talking about situations where you make a deliberate choice to walk into a dangerous situation.
As for your explanations - if I understand it right, you claimed that a woman who is drunk, walking in a dark alley, on high heels, is not a dumbass because society pressures her into heavy drinking and silly footwear, and that she might want to walk home alone from the party to avoid her dangerous acquaintance. To which I reply with a simple question, why walk through that dark alley? Why not walk along wide well-lit streets, or take a bus, or call a cab? There is nothing wrong with drinking (in general). Or high heels (in general). Or walking at night. But combine those three factors with an environment where there are no witnesses, low visibility, no-one to hear her, and no room to escape... Unless, of course, that alley is the only way she can get home, in which case, she has my sympathy.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere! Here are the magical elements necessary for us to assign blame to you for being raped: You need to be drunk, wearing high-heels, and walking in a dark alleyway. Then we can blame you!

Thanks for setting us straight, tetromino; I was wondering what the mystical combination that rendered victims blame-worthy was. If it wasn't for your experienced knowledge on this subject, I might still be wondering!
tetromino wrote:Because every time you do something risky, the worst possible outcome happens, right? I am happy that she was lucky. Others might not be.
I think the GrammarBolshevik's point was that you described a behavior as 'stupid', and when sophyturtle stepped up to the plate and said 'yeah, hi, I do all of that', you instantly backed the fuck down/glossed over how it's totally different when they do it.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:59 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:56 am UTC

michaelandjimi wrote:Right, I came in with a huge analogy and stuff, and then realised I was falling victim to the blunder I identified.

I think that this would be a case in which we have to divorce the notion of rapist and rape. Each of the people are a victim of rape. They were having sexual intercourse without their consent. They should have the same sympathy as someone who was raped by a sober person.

There should probably theoretically be a lesser term, I agree. But again, I don't think that anybody would convict either party of rape, in practice. And I doubt either party would condemn the other as a rapist, tarring them with a villainous brush. Practically, I'm not sure we need the lesser term.


I'm actually talking about one sober, one drunk. Where the sober person is of the belief that everything that's going on is totally cool by the other person. I'm not sure if this ever actually HAPPENS...I know it happens, but I don't know how many of those situations are considered rape by the potential victim.

But I do think that lesser term would serve society pretty well. There is a huge difference between a forceful rape and one that was assumed to be consensual by both parties at the time. Going by a penal philosophy of erring on the side innocence, I'd much rather have a sentence for the later be some sort of community education or something if it's a first offense. Like, this is what consent is. Here is how to make sure you have it. We know you meant no harm, but harm was done. Here's how you can avoid doing more. Ugh, and no god damn sex offender registry for that either. "Hi, I just moved in and legally have to inform you that I'm a sex offender because this chick I hooked up with at a party wasn't as mentally coherent as I thought she was."

What we have right now is a black and white line. Where society has to judge objectively with a prison sentence on the line for someone, whether or not that someone committed the vile act of rape. And rape as willingly and knowingly committed act truly is vile. And we could do with a codification of "Yes, you raped this person, but you are not a rapIST."
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
michaelandjimi
Isn't Even Playing
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:21 am UTC
Location: Citizen of the World
Contact:

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby michaelandjimi » Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:00 am UTC

I agree with all of that, Marzipan.

I would like to note, though, that you're being a huge dumbass if you have sex with a clearly off-her-face girl who has not expressed consent to sex before getting drunk.
Whelan wrote:Relax, have a good time, and hope for the bees ;)

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:07 am UTC

tetromino wrote:Because every time you do something risky, the worst possible outcome happens, right? I am happy that she was lucky. Others might not be.


So then you do think that sophy is not a reasonable person for having done those things? Otherwise you're returning to the "it was only a bad idea if it goes wrong" position that Hippo posited.

tetromino wrote:Unless, of course, that alley is the only way she can get home, in which case, she has my sympathy.


What if it's just the most convenient, and she doesn't consider herself to be responsible for the actions of potential rapists?

Re prisons: It's still pretty widely known that there is a rape problem in prisons, and people who end up there are indeed responsible (assuming that they were not wrongly convicted). So their situation isn't much different from that of people who wear high heels, or whatever it is that you consider blameworthy nowadays.

Princess Marzipan wrote:I'm actually talking about one sober, one drunk. Where the sober person is of the belief that everything that's going on is totally cool by the other person. I'm not sure if this ever actually HAPPENS...I know it happens, but I don't know how many of those situations are considered rape by the potential victim.


I think you hit everything I might have added here as you went further along in your post. I assume you already know that the "you should really make sure she's not drunk so that you're not raping her" message needs to get much wider distribution than it does currently, and especially to people who haven't accidentally raped already. Unfortunately, one consequence of the whole rape culture thing is that a lot of people couldn't care less about spreading this sort of message; a lot of people just don't want to be responsible for making sure they aren't committing rape once even once they do hear about it.

michaelandjimi wrote:I would like to note, though, that you're being a huge dumbass if you have sex with a clearly off-her-face girl who has not expressed consent to sex before getting drunk.


I don't think that's the right type of ass. Hanlon's Razor be damned; a person who does that is an asshole.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:18 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I think you hit everything I might have added here as you went further along in your post. I assume you already know that the "you should really make sure she's not drunk so that you're not raping her" message needs to get much wider distribution than it does currently, and especially to people who haven't accidentally raped already. Unfortunately, one consequence of the whole rape culture thing is that a lot of people couldn't care less about spreading this sort of message; a lot of people just don't want to be responsible for making sure they aren't committing rape once even once they do hear about it.

But someone could protest that they aren't drunk, even if they are. It's a really murky puddle, and unfortunately our legal system absofuckinglutely refuses to admit that. Which is why we end up, I think, with such vehement backlash against rape victims. Their experience was awful, but in this niche situations we're discussing, the perpetrator wasn't themselves awful. They just made a mistake. And typically, mistakes aren't illegal, unless they result in an infringement upon another's rights, such as in criminal negligence or manslaughter. If there were a legal codification for 'mistake rape', then everybody can win instead of everybody losing. The victim sees justice, and the accidental perpetrator isn't held as some vicious slavering monster, but as a person who made a mistake that society has deemed requires restitution.

michaelandjimi wrote:I would like to note, though, that you're being a huge dumbass if you have sex with a clearly off-her-face girl who has not expressed consent to sex before getting drunk.

Huuuge difference between "drunk" and "halfway unfreakingconscious."
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

tetromino
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby tetromino » Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:29 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Okay, now we're getting somewhere! Here are the magical elements necessary for us to assign blame to you for being raped: You need to be drunk, wearing high-heels, and walking in a dark alleyway. Then we can blame you!

I am impressed. You misinterpret my post; I do not bother to reply. You call me out on not refuting your misinterpretation; so I explain every single of my words in exhaustive and deliberate detail; and for my efforts, I am ridiculed.

I have only myself to blame for continuing this silly conversation.

I think the GrammarBolshevik's point was that you described a behavior as 'stupid', and when sophyturtle stepped up to the plate and said 'yeah, hi, I do all of that', you instantly backed the fuck down/glossed over how it's totally different when they do it.

Sophy's post did not contain enough detail for me to be sure that she had participated in the scenarios that I had in mind. Looking at how my words were taken apart and misinterpreted by a number of other forumites, I had a lingering suspicion that she may have misunderstood the scenarios too.
If she had said "Last September, I got drunk and at 2 in the morning made a shortcut through this dark and narrow alley while wearing heels", I would have replied, "that was a stupid decision to make". But I am uncomfortable about accusing someone if I am not fully sure that they deserve it.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
tetromino wrote:Unless, of course, that alley is the only way she can get home, in which case, she has my sympathy.


What if it's just the most convenient, and she doesn't consider herself to be responsible for the actions of potential rapists?

Re prisons: It's still pretty widely known that there is a rape problem in prisons, and people who end up there are indeed responsible (assuming that they were not wrongly convicted). So their situation isn't much different from that of people who wear high heels, or whatever it is that you consider blameworthy nowadays.

OK, she does not consider herself responsible for the actions of potential rapists. Will her unwavering conviction protect her from the one hiding in the alley?

As for the prison case: you have a point. As I see it, the difference between the high heels case is one of time-to-payoff. In the alley case, you make a poor decision that may result in you becoming a victim 30 seconds from now. In the crime case, you may become a victim months or years later.

Is it reasonable to expect an average person to be good at assessing the payoffs for low-probability events that far ahead? If the answer is yes, then I would have to agree with you those prison rape victims who are justly convicted deserve some measure of blame for their predicament.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:03 am UTC

tetromino wrote:I am impressed. You misinterpret my post; I do not bother to reply. You call me out on not refuting your misinterpretation; so I explain every single of my words in exhaustive and deliberate detail; and for my efforts, I am ridiculed.
Next time, try turning your 'Bullshit' meter down to at least a 3. Either way, I have serious doubts about your authority in matters of risk assessment as far as rape is concerned.
tetromino wrote:But I am uncomfortable about accusing someone if I am not fully sure that they deserve it.
Herein lies part of the problem: Your assumption that people deserve things. You wore high-heels; you deserve to be blamed for being raped. It's not really much of a jump here to say: "You wore high-heels, you deserved to be raped". It's as much a game of shifting focus as the statement "You raped someone, you deserve to be killed".

People don't deserve to be raped or killed. What's important is that we prevent rape and killing from happening. You seem to think that by ridiculing certain rape victims for the decisions they've made, we'll reduce the number of rapes. I think that by ridiculing rape victims, you'll encourage rape victims to shut their mouths for fear of being ridiculed. Just a guess, here - I'm no authority on rape, but seeing how you considered the fact that no one around you had told you that they'd been sexually abused as clear evidence that no one around you had been sexually abused, I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say you're probably not a reliable authority on the subject either.

Frankly, I'd be more interested in what rape victims have to say about whether or not ridiculing rape-victims will be effective. And, wagering another guess here (I feel lucky!), I bet they're not going to say 'yes, ridiculing rape-victims is very effective, and totally doesn't encourage rape-victims at large to never open their mouths in the first place'.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:12 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Chainer
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:49 am UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Chainer » Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:11 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:But someone could protest that they aren't drunk, even if they are. It's a really murky puddle, and unfortunately our legal system absofuckinglutely refuses to admit that. Which is why we end up, I think, with such vehement backlash against rape victims. Their experience was awful, but in this niche situations we're discussing, the perpetrator wasn't themselves awful. They just made a mistake. And typically, mistakes aren't illegal, unless they result in an infringement upon another's rights, such as in criminal negligence or manslaughter. If there were a legal codification for 'mistake rape', then everybody can win instead of everybody losing. The victim sees justice, and the accidental perpetrator isn't held as some vicious slavering monster, but as a person who made a mistake that society has deemed requires restitution.

I agree with a great deal of what you said here, though I'm still a bit bothered by a few details.

Say a girl and a guy each have about 3-4 drinks at a party, which renders them legally drunk (above 0.08% BAC, in my state at least), and they hook up, and end up having sex. Now, it's easily possible that either party wouldn't have given consent had they been completely sober, but the sex happened anyway. If we say the guy "mistakenly" raped the girl, in order to avoid being sexist we also have to say the girl "mistakenly" raped the guy (assuming, of course, that there was no forcefulness from either party at any point in time). So are both parties at fault? Neither? What the hell do we do?

It becomes even more confusing when we consider that had either person been driving a car with the same level of intoxication, they would've been held responsible for making the choice to get into the car and drive, even though they were drunk while making that choice-- but at the same time, we're ruling that one is not responsible enough to give consent to have sex while drunk.

It just doesn't make sense to me to declare either party at fault for having consensual sex, intoxicated or not. Note that this is wildly different from scenarios where a guy might get a girl drunk with the specific intent of having sex with her, knowing that she would otherwise not consent. What I'm talking about is a scenario where both parties have similar levels of intoxication, and the sex happens as a consequence of alcohol lowering their inhibitions.

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby mochafairy » Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:53 am UTC

tetromino, I urge you to look at the site I actually quoted. It's not random. It's an organization working to prevent child rape and help those who have suffered child rape. If you look at the statistics section of the website, it sites other sources where they get their information. It has a lot of good material, and while depressing, it's a very educational read.

Thank you for the source. I have not completely read everything, but from what I have gathered, if you have a traumatic experience, you're more likely to develop health conditions? If we're specifically looking at the statistics of being raped or abused, we have to take a few things into account:
people volunteered for this survey. It was not random assignment, and therefore the statistics are skewed. the purpose of the survey was to look at the rate of medical conditions (as I understand it) amongst those with traumatic childhoods. this means that the actual rates of abuse will not accurately represent the general population
as you pointed out, the abuse would have taken place decades ago, considering the age of the victims and the time frame that was looked at. While I hope that rape is not more common than it used to be, we also have to consider the affects of society and familial pressures. People who were children in the mid 1900's might be more (or less. I can't accurately say which) likely to conceal abuse that they went through, even if it's entirely anonymous and confidential.

This thread and what it has dissolved into is taxing my patience and civility. send me a pm if there is anything I need to clarify, wish to respond to something I said, etc. or you can hunt me down on irc, if you know where to look. I'll be back in a few days when I've calmed down enough to not rip out someone's throat.
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby clintonius » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:06 am UTC

Sweet jesus. Three pages? I need to spend more time reading and less time stumbling drunk around unlit old trainyards.*

I'll unlock it when I've read it.

~CM

*May or may not have actually happened tonight.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby clintonius » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:14 pm UTC

I've had a couple of requests to open this discussion back up, and am doing so. Keep it civil.

~CM
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Random832 » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:49 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:
BlackSails wrote:This is only tangentially related to the thread, but it got me some flames in the recently closed thread.

Take this extremely common situation: Guy and girl are at a club. Girl gets drunk. Guy gets drunk. Girl and guy go somewhere and have sex. What crimes have been committed?
Insufficient data. You cannot know from this. Did they both go out to the club looking for a sex partner?


If they* did, wouldn't it be inadmissible anyway?

How drunk did they get and how did they get there? Did they both go to the place to have sex or did one want something else?

Simplifications do not work for this sort of thing, and creating factious situations to dissect is disingenuous.


*here, 'they' refers to whichever one accuses the other of rape.

User avatar
Lord Aurora
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:14 am UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Lord Aurora » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:55 pm UTC

clintonius wrote:I need to spend more time reading and less time stumbling drunk around unlit old trainyards.
Whose fault is it if clint had been hit by a train?
Decker wrote:Children! Children! There's no need to fight. You're ALL stupid.

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby iop » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:03 pm UTC

Lord Aurora wrote:
clintonius wrote:I need to spend more time reading and less time stumbling drunk around unlit old trainyards.
Whose fault is it if clint had been hit by a train?

It would have been Clintonius' fault, because a train is not expected to be able to stop at all times.

The question becomes much more interesting if you consider the case where a drunk Clintonius stumbles onto the street and gets run over by a car, since cars are supposed to be able to stop at all times. The driver who kills Clintonius would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but when it comes to determining the amount of damages he has to pay, the amount would be reduced due to Clintonius' reckless behavior.

Which, in terms of rape, brings up an interesting question: Is there any behavior leading up to a rape that should be considered reckless, and that thus would reduce the amount of damages one would receive in court (note that recklessnes on the side of the victim generally does not reduce the criminal sentence of the perpetrator)? Also, in a world where men and women are still treated differently, should there be different standards of recklessness for men and women?
Last edited by iop on Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lord Aurora
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:14 am UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Lord Aurora » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:09 pm UTC

iop wrote:
Lord Aurora wrote:
clintonius wrote:I need to spend more time reading and less time stumbling drunk around unlit old trainyards.
Whose fault is it if clint had been hit by a train?

It would have been Clintonius' fault, because a train is not expected to be able to stop at all times.

The question becomes much more interesting if you consider the case where a drunk Clintonius stumbles onto the street and gets run over by a car, since cars are supposed to be able to stop at all times. The driver who kills Clintonius would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but when it comes to determining the amount of damages he has to pay, the amount would be reduced due to Clintonius' reckless behavior.
And it gets MORE interesting when you consider what would happen if the car's brakes (verifiably) failed, and the driver had just been in to get maintenance.

(Please note: If you want to use this as an example of why VB is okay, you're just a moron. Murderers/rapists/victimizers in general do not have things like cars or trains or ice or brakes that make them more or less likely to victimize. Although, I am marginally amused by the concept of a Dicktrain. WOOOOO-WOOOOO! DICK TRAIN COMING THROUGH! WOOOO-WOOO!)
Decker wrote:Children! Children! There's no need to fight. You're ALL stupid.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Vaniver » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:16 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:Since they were both intoxicated, and assuming she didn't say no or indicate unwillingness and that he didn't have the intent of getting her drunk in order so that she would have sex with him, none at all. Basically, as far as I can tell from your situation, it was entirely consensual and the guy didn't have ill-intent.
Consensual drunken sex? The general consensus is that people cannot give consent while drunk, as far as I am aware.

I also think PM's call for a lesser variety of sexual offense is a good plan- punishments for sex offenders are often totally out of line with the least severe variety of sex offense. We shouldn't be treating a 22 year old who slept with a 17 year old like we treat a serial rapist.

Lord Aurora wrote:Murderers/rapists/victimizers in general do not have things like cars or trains or ice or brakes that make them more or less likely to victimize.
What about mental conditions?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby sophyturtle » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:25 pm UTC

If someone has a mental condition that puts them or others in danger then they should not be walking the streets sans medication.

People should be able to stop during sex if need be. The same way they should be able to stop swinging their arms if they might hit someone. That whole "my right to swing my fist ends right before your nose' thing, it applies to everyone.
OK, she does not consider herself responsible for the actions of potential rapists. Will her unwavering conviction protect her from the one hiding in the alley?
No, the law should protect her when she is in an alley. When the law fails to protect people, it is not the victim's fault. You can blame it on the attacker, society, and a poor justice system if you like, but not the victim.

Near my college the last year I was there someone just walking past an alley (of which there are hundreds of in Boston) around 3 pm was pulled into it and robbed. Clearly not the victim's fault in any way.

I have spent time in the company of people who have shot, stabbed, and robbed other people. These people did not do so to me because they gave me some bit of respect. They did not respect some stranger, and wanted money/revenge/whatever. The only difference was in the mind of the attacker. I am lucky that M hugs me when he sees me instead of seeing me as a potential target. But if he was fucked up and forgot who I was/did not recognize me after my hair cut/changed his mind about how he feels toward me I might be in danger. Entirely dependent on him, his thoughts, and his actions.

This is who crimes happen. Someone commits them. That person is at fault. One can limit the amount to which one draws their attention perhaps. One can try to avoid them. But failing to do these things does not change the fact that the criminal is to blame for the crime.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby iop » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:35 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:That whole "my right to swing my fist ends right before your nose' thing, it applies to everyone.

The recklessness question is: what if I take a step forward while you are swinging your fist, fully knowing that you may be too surprised to stop right before my nose?

As far as I understand the law, you'd always be guilty of assault and thus blamed for the crime, but the amount of damages I get may be lessened - indicating that my actions have been somehow facilitating or worsening your crime.

From how I understand Lord Aurora, there should be no possibility of recklessness when it comes to rape, and I admit that I cannot think of an example where there should be any.
Last edited by iop on Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Mactabilis
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:06 pm UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Mactabilis » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:37 pm UTC

My rather long winded take on victim blaming.

ex. 1
the wire says high voltage, you touch the wire. you are responsible for your death.

that ones easy.

ex. 2
she ran through the club nekkid and drunk. She got rapped.

we will come back to this one.

ex. 3
you smacked a lion in the face. the lion ate you. you are responsible for your death.

you knew the lion could eat you, you knew smacking it in the face was a bad idea. doesn't mean you deserved to die. but you did.

lets go back to the club girl. She knew some people are fucked in the head in this world, she knew running through a club topless was the equivalent to slapping a lion in the face. does that mean she deserved to get raped? no way. did she get raped as a consequence of her actions? yes. Its not her fault she got rapped, but she is partly responsible.

I guess what I'm trying to say is Lighting might strike you, your some what responsible for existing in a world where lighting strikes. but your way less responsible than some idiot who goes out side in the worse thunderstorm of the century with a long metal pole.

you might get raped, you are somewhat responsible for existing in a reality where rape happens, but way less responsible than someone who runs nekkid around a bunch of drunk guys with chemical imbalances and shady morals.

And its a sliding scale not black and white. if someone breaks into your house and rapes you, your responsible for lack of security, choice of neighborhood, or some other factors. Your responsibility in this act is far smaller, as there is far less you could reasonably control. if your raped at night in a park, well slightly more responsible, as you should have know not to put your self in that situation, etc etc etc.

I think the fault lies with the most responsible party. lets go back to Ex.1
Three responsible parties

1. the electric company for installing a power line
2. mother nature for breaking the power line
3. you for touching the power line

in this situation i feel like maybe 1% is the fault of the electric company. (for arbitrary reasons that don't matter for my point)
19% mother nature for snapping the line. 80% you for making the choice to grab the downed line. you are at fault for your death. thus the victim is to blame.

In the rape example however you may be as much as 49% responsible for being raped (if you ran around naked in front of convicted sex offenders scramming "rape me rape me") however its not your fault as its 51% the rapist.

Determining who is at fault is somewhat arbitrary, but necessary in order to rectify it in the future. So as long as the result of you getting raped isn't "well you should have bought a better lock dumbass", but rather "maybe we should try to create programs to diminish rape". Then there is no problem with saying well she was partly responsible for what happened to her but the rapist is the one we should punish.

Good victim blaming - he is a dumbass for grabbing a clearly marked high voltage line, no need to sue the electric company.

Bad Victim blaming - she is a dumb slut for running around naked in front of all those guys, no need to convict the guy of rape.



TLDR- Victim blaming isn't black and white. You are responsible for your actions, sometimes so responsible that you are to be blamed. Most times not.
Last edited by Mactabilis on Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:47 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:43 pm UTC

iop wrote:
sophyturtle wrote:That whole "my right to swing my fist ends right before your nose' thing, it applies to everyone.

The recklessness question is: what if I take a step forward while you are swinging your fist, fully knowing that you may be too surprised to stop right before my nose?


Actually, I think that would absolve the 'criminal' of any blame. This is a situation where the 'victim's' GOAL is to make the 'criminal' fuck up and harm them. That's not the fist swinger's fault if he was swinging responsibly before you knowingly stepped into his fist.

See: insurance fraud. If evidence points to the person you rear-ended having intentionally stopped short in front of you to minimize your reaction time, you're not at fault.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Vaniver » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:45 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:If someone has a mental condition that puts them or others in danger then they should not be walking the streets sans medication.
Continuing the analogy, I would call the medications brakes. If someone medicated for a condition that puts others in danger acts on that condition, who has culpability? Who should we censure?

sophyturtle wrote:No, the law should protect her when she is in an alley. When the law fails to protect people, it is not the victim's fault. You can blame it on the attacker, society, and a poor justice system if you like, but not the victim.
But, as per South v. Maryland, Bowers v. DeVito, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and other cases have stated, you have no right to police protection. The system can only prevent crimes by deterrence (and punishing precursor crimes- battery is generally preceded by assault), and if the police fail to respond adequately to a crime, they're not legally liable. This is one of the reason police chief / sheriff elections are beneficial and important.

So, legally at least, the police have no fault. We're then back to splitting it up between attacker and victim- and legally, the case for putting fault on the victim is questionable (but clearly exists for some crimes). Practically, though, I doubt people are happy with the claim "the police aren't in any way responsible for crimes that occur, or should be censured when crimes do occur"- and the same feelings often apply to the victims.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby sophyturtle » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:49 pm UTC

Mactabilis wrote:lets go back to the club girl. She knew some people are fucked in the head in this world, she knew running through a club topless was the equivalent to slapping a lion in the face. does that mean she deserved to get raped? no way. did she get raped as a consequence of her actions? yes. Its not her fault she got rapped, but she is partly responsible.
This is the part that is faulty. Since when have we associated drunken streaking with rape? Does it happen when guys streak? She was raped because someone stopped seeing her as a human being with rights to bodily autonomy.
Steps from her running round naked to her getting raped:
-she is running
-she stops running (possibly because someone stopped her)
-someone restrains her in some way
-violence occurs or is threatened, power is somehow asserted
-they remove (or force her to remove) the clothing on her lower body
-they violate her bodily autonomy, for some period of time

The only things she is responsible for is her running, and possibly the stopping of her running (if she stopped herself). That's it. The rest is someone else. And as far as I know people are allowed to fucking run if they want to.

Things to note:
-people who commit stranger rape often assault multiple people
-maybe I should not fucking swing my fist if there are other people around! Knife safety includes checking to ensure you cannot hurt someone accidentally.
-it is everyone's responsibility to follow the law. it is not the police's fault when someone breaks a law, it is the person's fault.

I guess my point people are responsible for their actions when they break the law, and when that law breaking hurts someone else it just makes it more true to me.
Last edited by sophyturtle on Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:51 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

Mactabilis
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:06 pm UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Mactabilis » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:51 pm UTC

Yes, but by changing her actions, would she not have gotten raped? if it was under her control to prevent it then she shares some fraction of the responsibility.

cathrl
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:58 am UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby cathrl » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:51 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:
OK, she does not consider herself responsible for the actions of potential rapists. Will her unwavering conviction protect her from the one hiding in the alley?
No, the law should protect her when she is in an alley. When the law fails to protect people, it is not the victim's fault. You can blame it on the attacker, society, and a poor justice system if you like, but not the victim.

Near my college the last year I was there someone just walking past an alley (of which there are hundreds of in Boston) around 3 pm was pulled into it and robbed. Clearly not the victim's fault in any way.

I have spent time in the company of people who have shot, stabbed, and robbed other people. These people did not do so to me because they gave me some bit of respect. They did not respect some stranger, and wanted money/revenge/whatever. The only difference was in the mind of the attacker. I am lucky that M hugs me when he sees me instead of seeing me as a potential target. But if he was fucked up and forgot who I was/did not recognize me after my hair cut/changed his mind about how he feels toward me I might be in danger. Entirely dependent on him, his thoughts, and his actions.

This is who crimes happen. Someone commits them. That person is at fault. One can limit the amount to which one draws their attention perhaps. One can try to avoid them. But failing to do these things does not change the fact that the criminal is to blame for the crime.


No, they don't. But half the problem here is that we're using the same word for two separate things. No, the victim of rape is never to blame. Not at all. Not in the slightest.

However, a person who makes a stupid choice can be at blame for that choice. If I run into the road without looking, straight under a bus? I am to blame.

That dark alley scenario? Someone who chooses that as their route home is to blame for making that choice. They are not to blame for getting raped there, no matter how drunk they are or what they were wearing. But, frankly, I don't see how that distinction will give them a whole lot of comfort. They were still raped, and they almost certainly wouldn't have been had they taken a taxi home. And we should be able to say that in public without being evil Victim Blamers.

The criminal is to blame for the crime - but doesn't it make sense to avoid becoming the victim in the first place, if you can? And aren't we allowed to say "this could have been avoided if..."? Of course the happy Utopian way of avoiding it is for rapists not to rape. In a non-ideal world, you can be the innocent victim or you can take steps not to be a victim. Neither with 100% certainty, of course - but you can push the probabilities about a fair way. I prefer to not be a victim, personally, so I push the probabilities as far in my favour as I possibly can. And yes, I sometimes point out in public how other people could have pushed the probabilities their way and didn't. That girl who was grabbed walking past an alley? In all probability there was nothing she could have done.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby sophyturtle » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:52 pm UTC

Secret about rapists: if they don't get to rape you, they will find someone else to rape.

You can make yourself as safe as you want, but someone else will be hurt if a criminal wants to hurt someone. It not being me does not make it better. We as a society need to stop producing criminals. Criminals need to stop committing crimes. Until then victims will continue to exits.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

Mactabilis
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:06 pm UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Mactabilis » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:00 pm UTC

and as I said before, your not to blame for being raped, even if you run naked in front of unsupervised convicted sex offenders screaming rape me rape me, however your actions led to you being raped. The answer here? try to diminish rape by creating programs that treat sex offenders, remove sex offenders from situations they will offend, and you know try to teach your kids that certain actions carry certain consequences that may be totally unfair.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:01 pm UTC

Lord Aurora wrote:
clintonius wrote:I need to spend more time reading and less time stumbling drunk around unlit old trainyards.
Whose fault is it if clint had been hit by a train?


Would clint be less stupid than a woman in a similar situation, because both could be hit by a train but the woman is much more likely to be raped?

tetromino wrote:Is it reasonable to expect an average person to be good at assessing the payoffs for low-probability events that far ahead? If the answer is yes, then I would have to agree with you those prison rape victims who are justly convicted deserve some measure of blame for their predicament.


So is your goal here to educate people so that they don't get into risky situations in the future, or just to call people stupid when they "deserve it"? Because, if it's the former, then whether an average person would be good at assessing possible future events isn't a factor.

@Chainer: I'm pretty sure the topic of double-drunk sex was discussed a little further back.

Mactabilis wrote:I guess what I'm trying to say is Lighting might strike you, your some what responsible for existing in a world where lighting strikes. but your way less responsible than some idiot who goes out side in the worse thunderstorm of the century with a long metal pole.


Except for Bruce Schneier (who, as we all know, went back in time and fathered himself), this is decidedly not the case.

The problem with your analogy is that jumping into a lion's cage, or going out in a thunderstorm, involves a deliberate choice to enter a situation that is automatically dangerous. When people are raped, however, the sole reason that danger exists is that a rapist — a sentient, responsible entity — is present. A woman walking around drunk in high heels at two in the morning* would not be in any danger of rape whatsoever without the actions of a rapist. A person jumping into a lion's cage is putting hirself at the mercy of elements that are not responsible human agents.

*Gods I hate having to resurrect these dumb VB criterion memes every time I give an example.

Vaniver wrote:So, legally at least, the police have no fault. We're then back to splitting it up between attacker and victim- and legally, the case for putting fault on the victim is questionable (but clearly exists for some crimes). Practically, though, I doubt people are happy with the claim "the police aren't in any way responsible for crimes that occur, or should be censured when crimes do occur"- and the same feelings often apply to the victims.


I don't think that sophy was speaking of legal blame. If that were the focus of this thread, it would only have needed to be about two posts long.

cathrl wrote:But, frankly, I don't see how that distinction will give them a whole lot of comfort. They were still raped, and they almost certainly wouldn't have been had they taken a taxi home. And we should be able to say that in public without being evil Victim Blamers.


Look at it the other way. They don't get comfort from knowing it wasn't their fault, but having people tell you that it was (even partly) your fault is incredibly fucking harmful.

cathrl wrote:And aren't we allowed to say "this could have been avoided if..."? Of course the happy Utopian way of avoiding it is for rapists not to rape.


Not Utopian. A lot of social changes would make rape a lot less common. Part of the problem in implementing these changes is that after every rape, we say "Gosh, she could have avoided this!" whenever there is the slightest excuse to do so, and when there is no excuse (as in the huge number of cases where the victims weren't exhibiting any of the supposed risky behaviors) we say "Gosh, even the people who give up 30% of their freedom of mobility take all the right precautions are at risk!" In neither case do we try to address the social factors that produce rapists, because people are intent (even to the extent of starting multi-page arguments over their justification to do so) on shifting the discussion to the victim.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Mactabilis
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:06 pm UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Mactabilis » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:16 pm UTC

Except for Saladin's Mom (who, as we all know, went back in time and fathered himself), this is decidedly not the case.

The problem with your analogy is that jumping into a lion's cage, or going out in a thunderstorm, involves a deliberate choice to enter a situation that is automatically dangerous. When people are raped, however, the sole reason that danger exists is that a rapist — a sentient, responsible entity — is present. A woman walking around drunk in high heels at two in the morning* would not be in any danger of rape whatsoever without the actions of a rapist. A person jumping into a lion's cage is putting hirself at the mercy of elements that are not responsible human agents.

*Gods I hate having to resurrect these dumb VB criterion memes every time I give an example.


Except that the city IS the lion cage, you know male or female that walking around at night in a city carries a higher risk than walking around the country during the day. weather it be rape, robbery or a drunk driver. Your actions are INCREASING your risk. actions you have control over. even if its unfair. its far safer to be a shut in who never goes outside and even that carries risks, life is risky!!!

Now I'm not saying the problem with rape is the skimpy outfits drunk ladies wear. But maybe (male of female) you should avoid that dark ally at 2:00 am.

The answer isn't all the ladies should be forced to wear burkas so that men arn't tempted to rape them, but if you want to avoid being raped there are things you can do. ( as a tie in to another post one of those thins is not going to prison. if you dont go to prison your chance of being prison raped drops to 0%)

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:38 pm UTC

Mactabilis wrote:Except that the city IS the lion cage, you know male or female that walking around at night in a city carries a higher risk than walking around the country during the day. weather it be rape, robbery or a drunk driver. Your actions are INCREASING your risk. actions you have control over. even if its unfair. its far safer to be a shut in who never goes outside and even that carries risks, life is risky!!!


So you can prevent most of the risk of being raped by giving up all of your freedom. This does not imply responsibility for having gone out and tried to live a normal life.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:39 pm UTC

Mactabilis wrote:Yes, but by changing her actions, would she not have gotten raped? if it was under her control to prevent it then she shares some fraction of the responsibility.

As was explained somewhere earlier in this thread, you're conflating 'cause' with 'blame.' Would she have gotten raped if she hadn't streaked down that alley? Well, not by THAT particular assailant. But maybe if she had streaked down a different alley, she would have been just fine. Or if she had streaked down the same alley fifteen minutes later. And maybe she would have been raped in that alley at that time no matter what she was wearing. And maybe if she'd had someone with her, the assailant would have disabled them first.

cathrl wrote:But, frankly, I don't see how that distinction will give them a whole lot of comfort. They were still raped, and they almost certainly wouldn't have been had they taken a taxi home. And we should be able to say that in public without being evil Victim Blamers.

Well what if the taxi driver rapes them? Hm?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Random832 » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:41 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:The general consensus is that people cannot give consent while drunk, as far as I am aware.


On the other hand, it's also that you're responsible for actions - that's why the guy can be convicted of rape in the "both are drunk" situation described, rather than also being considered a victim. (it's also, incidentally, how drunk driving can be considered a crime at all). It's something of a paradox

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:43 pm UTC

Can anyone cite a case where one person was convicted for rape when the sexual encounter involved two drunk people? (I'm actually curious, but I'm at work and have shit to do.)

(Y'know, now and again.)
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Osha
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:24 am UTC
Location: Boise, Idaho, USA

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Osha » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:44 pm UTC

thegrammarbolshevik said:
Hey, if we can do it for non-convicts, we can do it for people in prison even more, right? After all, they did stupid things to put themselves in that situation, right?

(The answer to those questions is a firm fucking "no," tetromino. Don't even try.)
Re prisons: It's still pretty widely known that there is a rape problem in prisons, and people who end up there are indeed responsible (assuming that they were not wrongly convicted). So their situation isn't much different from that of people who wear high heels, or whatever it is that you consider blameworthy nowadays.
Look at it the other way. They don't get comfort from knowing it wasn't their fault, but having people tell you that it was (even partly) your fault is incredibly fucking harmful.


I am having a hard time here reconciling your second quote with the other two here.
My brains too frazzled to cite a bunch of stuff, but see that pdf from my previous post. And keep in mind the whole justice system is racist, classist, transphobic, ableist, and correctional officers can often rape inmates with impunity and get merely a slap on the wrist.
Often people in prison really did have no choice, they might have been forced out onto the street, or trans people forced into sex work to pay for their transistion, etc. etc.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Random832 » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:46 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:Can anyone cite a case where one person was convicted for rape when the sexual encounter involved two drunk people? (I'm actually curious, but I'm at work and have shit to do.)


I don't think that is required to support the "you are responsible for your actions while drunk" - you don't consider it a paradox to be held responsible for an act you cannot consent to?

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Vaniver » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:47 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:Secret about rapists: if they don't get to rape you, they will find someone else to rape.
I was under the impression that a lot of rapists (pedophiles especially) are opportunists- they'll only go so far into making things happen (that's why they're sleeping with a 14 year old, anyway, not a pretty girl their age- the second is too much work). So, for opportunists, at least, the more difficult it is to find vulnerable people, the less rapes will occur.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I don't think that sophy was speaking of legal blame. If that were the focus of this thread, it would only have needed to be about two posts long.
Let me try to restate my point, then- legally, neither the victims not the police has blame for crimes that occur. But if we can imagine some way in which the police can be practically blamed for crimes that occur (perhaps they're putting too many officers in safe regions and too few officers in dangerous regions), then we can imagine some way in which the victims can be practically blamed for crimes that occur (perhaps they're leaving their cars running while eating lunch, making their cars easy to steal).

Other things obviously follow- neither the police nor victims can prevent all crimes, and the number of cases in which something could have been done by either is low- and often, even when a crime happens, the police or victim made the right risk-management decision beforehand. Moving police from the safe area to the dangerous area might stop three crimes in the dangerous area, but allow one to occur in the safe area.

Princess Marzipan wrote:Can anyone cite a case where one person was convicted for rape when the sexual encounter involved two drunk people? (I'm actually curious, but I'm at work and have shit to do.)
The few I have heard of are from dissatisfied victims- the man wasn't convicted because it was "he said she said" over consent. While it's obviously a harmful outcome for the victim, it strikes me as necessary (sorry, innocent until proven guilty is more important).
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Mactabilis
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:06 pm UTC

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby Mactabilis » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:51 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:So you can prevent most of the risk of being raped by giving up all of your freedom. This does not imply responsibility for having gone out and tried to live a normal life.


I want to avoid being prison raped. because of this i cant do some of the things i would like to like stealing cars and selling drugs. I could do these things but they increase my risk of someday being prison raped. even by not doing these things i may be prison raped.

Princess Marzipan wrote:As was explained somewhere earlier in this thread, you're conflating 'cause' with 'blame.' Would she have gotten raped if she hadn't streaked down that alley? Well, not by THAT particular assailant. But maybe if she had streaked down a different alley, she would have been just fine. Or if she had streaked down the same alley fifteen minutes later. And maybe she would have been raped in that alley at that time no matter what she was wearing. And maybe if she'd had someone with her, the assailant would have disabled them first.


yes but weather she was raped or not, her actions increased her chance of being raped. IF there was something she could have done differently that would have led to her not being raped, then she shares some minuscule part of the blame. if she was 100% going to be raped no matter what, then she shares no part of the blame.

saying that there is something you can do to change the outcome is saying you have some responsibility for the event.

telling ladies to go out in groups instead of alone is victim blaming, its also good advice.
Last edited by Mactabilis on Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:56 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:Can anyone cite a case where one person was convicted for rape when the sexual encounter involved two drunk people? (I'm actually curious, but I'm at work and have shit to do.)


IANAL, and I can't cite a specific case, but I assume that if you got somebody drunk with the intention to commit rape, and then got drunk yourself before going through with it, it would still be prosecutable.

Osha wrote:I am having a hard time here reconciling your second quote with the other two here.
My brains too frazzled to cite a bunch of stuff, but see that pdf from my previous post. And keep in mind the whole justice system is racist, classist, transphobic, ableist, and correctional officers can often rape inmates with impunity and get merely a slap on the wrist.
Often people in prison really did have no choice, they might have been forced out onto the street, or trans people forced into sex work to pay for their transistion, etc. etc.


I don't actually think that prisoners are responsible for being raped. I was just applying tetromino's logic to a situation where ze was less comfortable assigning blame.

Oh, and when I said "people who end up there are indeed responsible" I meant responsible for being in prison. And I recognize now that there are a lot of other reasons one could be in prison; I meant to refer specifically to people who just straight up commit crimes for bad reasons (like, say, rapists) who are then either a) as responsible for being raped as any other victim (which is fucked) or b) not responsible, because victim-blaming is always wrong.

Mactabilis wrote:I want to avoid being prison raped. because of this i cant do some of the things i would like to like stealing cars and selling drugs. I could do these things but they increase my risk of someday being prison raped. even by not doing these things i may be prison raped.


Because you can be prison raped whether you commit crimes or not, neither path can be said to cause prison rape.

Mactabilis wrote:yes but weather she was raped or not, her actions increased her chance of being raped. IF there was something she could have done differently that would have led to her not being raped, then she shares some minuscule part of the blame. if she was 100% going to be raped no matter what, then she shares no part of the blame.

saying that there is something you can do to change the outcome is saying you have some responsibility for the event.


The problem is that the woman in that situation has no way of knowing, beforehand, how she could have changed the outcome. If there is a dark, scary, but perfectly safe (due to the lack of a rapist) alley that would take her home, and she takes a taxi instead and gets raped by the driver, is she responsible?

Mactabilis wrote:telling ladies to go out in groups instead of alone is victim blaming


No.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: VB: The Thread Killer.

Postby mochafairy » Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:03 pm UTC

Random832 wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:Can anyone cite a case where one person was convicted for rape when the sexual encounter involved two drunk people? (I'm actually curious, but I'm at work and have shit to do.)


I don't think that is required to support the "you are responsible for your actions while drunk" - you don't consider it a paradox to be held responsible for an act you cannot consent to?


I think what we're looking for is precedent, as in what actually happens in these situations.

Can we also stop saying that victims are to blame? It keeps hitting me that we're saying that victims are responsible because we can blame them. I know that's not the intent (see my first post in this thread), but I think it will help cool down the discussion and make it easier for people, especially me, to read this thread without preparing the internet shot gun of fury after every sentence.
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests