Rape vs Theft Double Standard

[californiagrown]

Good fucking lord. You are equating physical possessions with rape. That's your problem. You go "Hey, a crime is a crime." when that's not fucking true. If it was, then lets compare, murder with illegally downloading movies. They're both crimes!

Also, stealing things could be thought of in a thief's head as a victimless crime. Stealing from a house when there is no one home. Breaking into a car when there's no one around. They probably justify it by saying the victim has insurance. Whereas to rape someone, you literally have them in your hands. Inflicting pain and destroying someone's life.

Then you have the nerve to say that its the same. And if one can be blamed for having their shit stolen, one can be blamed for being fucking raped.

OP remind me to NEVER go to a party with you.

So a homeowner who get burglarized is not a victim?

You think in some cases victim blaming is okay?

 

[Turner.]

Not just robbery, that was the vehicle with which to start the discussion. Its about all victim blaming, and the point at which it becomes okay, or not.

Is it ever okay? Is the victim ever responsible for their victimization? Even when they knowingly put themselves in an extraordinarily dangerous situation?

Because victim blaming seems to be condoned in some situations, and forbidden in others.

Ok, then I will answer you the same way that several others have in this thread: Is someone who's been pickpocketed to blame if he makes a show of taking out his wallet in a public place? Yeah, maybe. Probably even. But that's another story. That has nothing to do with rape.

In the case of rape, victim blaming is forbidden. This is due to the nature of rape as a physical and psychological assault on a person's being; it is one of the most traumatic experiences we can conceive of. We know as a society that rape is wrong. Victims of rape, by definition, did not consent to the acts committed against them. Thus, they are free of blame.

You raise a semi-lucid point in questioning how we view victims of crime, but not really. All you're trying to do is debate victim-blaming in rape. You can't tell me you care enough about how society portrays the victims of other crimes to have opened up this discussion in the first place, I won't believe you.

 

[californiagrown]

Ok, then I will answer you the same way that several others have in this thread: Is someone who's been pickpocketed to blame if he makes a show of taking out his wallet in a public place? Yeah, maybe. Probably even. But that's another story. That has nothing to do with rape.

In the case of rape, victim blaming is forbidden. This is due to the nature of rape as a physical and psychological assault on a person's being; it is one of the most traumatic experiences we can conceive of. We know as a society that rape is wrong. Victims of rape, by definition, did not consent to the acts committed against them. Thus, they are free of blame.

You raise a semi-lucid point in questioning how we view victims of crime, but not really. All you're trying to do is debate victim-blaming in rape. You can't tell me you care enough about how society portrays the victims of other crimes to have opened up this discussion in the first place, I won't believe you.

Because it took oh so much effort to type a few words. Lol.

The guy who got pickpocketed didn't consent to the crime, and didn't deserve for it to happen. But he is at fault you say? Why?

 

[Turkelton]

Because it took oh so much effort to type a few words. Lol.

The guy who got pickpocketed didn't consent to the crime, and didn't deserve for it to happen. But he is at fault you say? Why?

I agree with OP and this idea. Why should rape be blameless if other crimes aren't? People get blamed for getting killed over drug deals or getting killed for assaulting someone, people get blamed for being mugged in bad areas. But if someone gets raped because they hang out with undesirables, it's seen as unblameable and "victim blaming" if you question why they were in that situation.

If someone is drunk with another drunk person and has consensual sex and that is seen as the woman is raped (because feminism wants to put women on a pedestal AND treat them like children), then if you're drunk and get in a taxi it is forced kidnapping.

 

[kenevil]

The guy who got pickpocketed didn't consent to the crime, and didn't deserve for it to happen. But he is at fault you say? Why?

Man, they're two different fucking things that are not at all comparable. There is nothing to "blame" the victim for in a rape case. Nothing.

 

[-emile-]

OP remind me to NEVER go to a party with you.

yeh OP is such a rapist.

 

[californiagrown]

Man, they're two different fucking things that are not at all comparable. There is nothing to "blame" the victim for in a rape case. Nothing.

But there is in a pickpocket case? Was the victim asking for it?

 

[miroz]

So a homeowner who get burglarized is not a victim?

You think in some cases victim blaming is okay?

I think two points need to be made here. I typed some of this out yesterday but I had just woken up so it probably wasn't very clear.

The first is that no matter what the crime, it is never the victim's fault. If it were the victim's fault, it wouldn't be a crime. A victim might have put him or herself in a place where the likelihood of a crime being committed to them is higher, but that doesn't make it their fault. Joe has the right to walk down the street with hundred dollar bills taped to his jacket, but that doesn't give anyone the right to take them. Similarly, people can take precautions to prevent crimes, like not wearing hundred dollar bills on their jacket or like putting your wallet in your pants' front pocket at the airport. The fact that someone doesn't take those precautions doesn't make the occurrence of a crime against them "their fault." While common sense does come into play, people have the right to be stupid and/or do what they want without fear of malicious action by others.

So, in my opinion, the victim is never 'technically' to blame. It was the actions of another that caused the crime, and the victim's actions (or inactions) regarding preventing the crime or decreasing the probability that a crime were to be committed are irrelevant.

The second is that because victim blaming - regardless of whether it is right or wrong to do so - is a societal construct, it adheres to societal rules. Thus, it depends on the nature of the crime and the way those crimes are perceived. Even though both crimes have victims, rape and theft are not the same. The 'common sense' victim blaming argument is unacceptable with respect to rape because rape is the ultimate invasion of personal privacy and security - you can't have more taken from you than that without dying. The difference between crimes and their effects in the eyes of the general populous makes victim blaming more acceptable for different crimes (even though, as I'd argue, victim blaming is typically wrong to begin with).

Hopefully that made some sense.

 

[californiagrown]

I think two points need to be made here. I typed some of this out yesterday but I had just woken up so it probably wasn't very clear.

The first is that no matter what the crime, it is never the victim's fault. If it were the victim's fault, it wouldn't be a crime. A victim might have put him or herself in a place where the likelihood of a crime being committed to them is higher, but that doesn't make it their fault. Joe has the right to walk down the street with hundred dollar bills taped to his jacket, but that doesn't give anyone the right to take them. Similarly, people can take precautions to prevent crimes, like not wearing hundred dollar bills on their jacket or like putting your wallet in your pants' front pocket at the airport. The fact that someone doesn't take those precautions doesn't make the occurrence of a crime against them "their fault." While common sense does come into play, people have the right to be stupid and/or do what they want without fear of malicious action by others.

So, in my opinion, the victim is never 'technically' to blame. It was the actions of another that caused the crime, and the victim's actions (or inactions) regarding preventing the crime or decreasing the probability that a crime were to be committed are irrelevant.

The second is that because victim blaming - regardless of whether it is right or wrong to do so - is a societal construct, it adheres to societal rules. Thus, it depends on the nature of the crime and the way those crimes are perceived. Even though both crimes have victims, rape and theft are not the same. The 'common sense' victim blaming argument is unacceptable with respect to rape because rape is the ultimate invasion of personal privacy and security - you can't have more taken from you than that without dying. The difference between crimes and their effects in the eyes of the general populous makes victim blaming more acceptable for different crimes (even though, as I'd argue, victim blaming is typically wrong to begin with).

Hopefully that made some sense.

Great post. Its unfortunate that such a double standard does exist.

 

[MicroMix]

I think two points need to be made here. I typed some of this out yesterday but I had just woken up so it probably wasn't very clear.

The first is that no matter what the crime, it is never the victim's fault. If it were the victim's fault, it wouldn't be a crime. A victim might have put him or herself in a place where the likelihood of a crime being committed to them is higher, but that doesn't make it their fault. Joe has the right to walk down the street with hundred dollar bills taped to his jacket, but that doesn't give anyone the right to take them. Similarly, people can take precautions to prevent crimes, like not wearing hundred dollar bills on their jacket or like putting your wallet in your pants' front pocket at the airport. The fact that someone doesn't take those precautions doesn't make the occurrence of a crime against them "their fault." While common sense does come into play, people have the right to be stupid and/or do what they want without fear of malicious action by others.

So, in my opinion, the victim is never 'technically' to blame. It was the actions of another that caused the crime, and the victim's actions (or inactions) regarding preventing the crime or decreasing the probability that a crime were to be committed are irrelevant.

The second is that because victim blaming - regardless of whether it is right or wrong to do so - is a societal construct, it adheres to societal rules. Thus, it depends on the nature of the crime and the way those crimes are perceived. Even though both crimes have victims, rape and theft are not the same. The 'common sense' victim blaming argument is unacceptable with respect to rape because rape is the ultimate invasion of personal privacy and security - you can't have more taken from you than that without dying. The difference between crimes and their effects in the eyes of the general populous makes victim blaming more acceptable for different crimes (even though, as I'd argue, victim blaming is typically wrong to begin with).

Hopefully that made some sense.

Ya'll motherfuckers need to read this because this guy is speaking the truth. Are there things people can do to prevent themselves from being mugged? Absolutely. Can girls take preventative measures to reduce their chances of being raped? Of course. However prevention is ultimately the responsibility of the would-be offender, if the victim didn't take a certain precaution its not their fault.

I believe girls should be told things like "Don't leave your drink alone", "Drink within your limits", "Never party alone" etc... All of these things would potentially reduce the chances of a rape occurring and are not victim blaming, but they cannot reduce the chance of rape to 0. If a rape does occur it is entirely the fault of the offender.

It is messed that we blame victims of certain crimes and not others, but it really comes down to a severity of the crime, the more severe the more sympathy given toward a victim.

 

[safety.third]

You are one dumb motherfucker if you can't see the difference between a malicious act that preys upon someone else, and an accident that unintentionally hurts some one.

and you can get fucked, the intent has nothing to do with it. there being a potentially preventable occurrence, comparable consequences, and a double standard for "blame" were the points. the original question revolved around the victim, not the person who perpetrated the crime. and if you describe a drunk driver hitting someone as just "an accident that unintentionally hurts some one," then your shit is insanely skewed.

 

[louie.mirags]

If someone is drunk with another drunk person and has consensual sex and that is seen as the woman is raped (because feminism wants to put women on a pedestal AND treat them like children), then if you're drunk and get in a taxi it is forced kidnapping.

If that feminism idea is true, then people who are behind the wheel drunk and kill a school bus full of kids shouldn't be responsible either. The driver was drunk.

 

[deleted5]

"But if you do go to a frat house and you end up drinking too much you're putting yourself in a dangerous situation. I'm not saying what's done to her is going to be right because its not. But come on we all know what goes on there"

So, that isn't you taking the blame off the rapist and putting it on the victim?

wow way to take one sentence out of context. Yes it is very sad that we need to educate woman that they shouldn't get that drunk at a frat house, because there are definitely dangerous risks. The statistics are very scary for being date raped at a frat. By saying we all know what goes on at a frat house, and that date rape is a huge problem in college. Does not mean that I think its okay, I don't know how you got that.

 

[deleted5]

If that feminism idea is true, then people who are behind the wheel drunk and kill a school bus full of kids shouldn't be responsible either. The driver was drunk.

By American law women can't actually rape men by having sex. Rape is defined as un consensual penetration which women can't do.

 

[daOyster]

I mean they could penetrate a man with a strap-on if that was there thing. Pretty sure that would be considered rape by your definition.

 

[deleted5]

I mean they could penetrate a man with a strap-on if that was there thing. Pretty sure that would be considered rape by your definition.

that's why I said by having sex obviously you can shove something into a guys butt and that's rape

 

[El.Guapo]

Like if you knew a GUY who walked through a bad neighborhood at night wearing "fancy clOthes" which is an objective statement, and he got robbed you'd say he's a dumbass for doing that and he provoked the robber.

 

[louie.mirags]

By American law women can't actually rape men by having sex. Rape is defined as un consensual penetration which women can't do.

na you misunderstood I am not talking about a women raping a man. I meant if a man has sex with a drunk women and the man gets charged with rape because the drunk chick couldn't consent (since she was wasted). Then, why would a drunk driver be charged if he was too drunk to know better than to drive? If the drunk person is responsible for driving, then a drunk chick is responsible for having sex if she wasn't saying no. See what I mean? It is off subject. I was just responding to something from a post I quoted.

 

[El.Guapo]

na you misunderstood I am not talking about a women raping a man. I meant if a man has sex with a drunk women and the man gets charged with rape because the drunk chick couldn't consent (since she was wasted). Then, why would a drunk driver be charged if he was too drunk to know better than to drive? If the drunk person is responsible for driving, then a drunk chick is responsible for having sex if she wasn't saying no. See what I mean? It is off subject. I was just responding to something from a post I quoted.

Because the drunk driver has a choIce not to drive. If a chick is passed out drunk and gets raped it's not her fault that the guy decided to do that. She didn't choose to

 

[louie.mirags]

Because the drunk driver has a choIce not to drive. If a chick is passed out drunk and gets raped it's not her fault that the guy decided to do that. She didn't choose to

na not passed out drunk. Some chicks try saying that as long as they were wasted then they can't consent to sex. So, that would mean drivers would be too drunk to not know to not drive

 

[superpowerman]

This thread is effing ludicrous, it's just a clusterfuck of people trying to win the argument by putting words in peoples mouths, ignoring some points while exaggerating others... Yall should run for office.

I think everyone on this thread is pretty much anti-rape, I also think everyone understands that rape and theft are different crimes and that one is much worse than the other. I haven't seen extremism on either side of the argument so everyone just take a chill pill, you're arguing for peanuts worth of difference of opinion.

While I'm no expert on the subject, I think, and probably many people who get labeled as victim blamers think, that rape is something that you definitely do not want to happen to you, so you should take whatever measures are called for to avoid it.

Yes there is an huge unfair risk gap in between sexes, but posting on a fucking forum is not going to change that.

Fuck rapists.

 

[Kooky_Lukey]

Because the drunk driver has a choIce not to drive. If a chick is passed out drunk and gets raped it's not her fault that the guy decided to do that. She didn't choose to

The chick had a choice to get black out drunk. Your argument is invalid.

 

[El.Guapo]

The chick had a choice to get black out drunk. Your argument is invalid.

So if you pass out on a couch drunk and you get butt raped you wouldn't blame the guy who put his duck in your butt while you were unconscious?

 

[louie.mirags]

So if you pass out on a couch drunk and you get butt raped you wouldn't blame the guy who put his duck in your butt while you were unconscious?

you're missing the point. Reread the last few comments