The different ways that different types of rape victims are treated is another huge issue.

[redqueen]

The far less common type of rape, the type perpetrated by strangers in a violent attack, is the kind which most in rape culture have no problem rallying behind. These women are viewed as innocent. As 'good' girls who deserve the benefit of the doubt. Who deserve advocacy.

The overwhelming majority of rapes, though, are not this type. They are committed by friends, partners, co-workers, dates.

The victims of these rapes are judged as responsible for their own victimization. They are portrayed as having brought these crimes upon themselves.

They drank too much.

They trusted someone they shouldn't have.

They had sex with him before.

They flirted a lot or wore sexy clothing.

Of course, NONE of these behaviors indicates an open invitation for sex. However, due to the way society views women, these excuses are trotted out routinely in an attempt to blame victims, excuse rapists, and send the message to other rapists that they are at low risk.

It is important to recognize that rape is rape.

[LisaLynne]

1. Very true.

It's as though some people think that knowing a person gives them more rights to your body or something. No, each person has rights over their own body. I don't know why there is such a focus on the victim in rape cases. Sure, in things like robbery, once in a while someone will say, "Oh, they didn't lock their doors" or "Oh, they didn't do this or that", but it's just so nasty and persistant with rape victims. Why do we have so much trouble putting the responsibility for the crime on the person who committed the crime?

[redqueen]

4. Your post reminded me of something...

http://womanofsteele.tumblr.com/post/3811556833/if-robbery-victims-were-treated-like-rape-victims-the

If Robbery Victims Were Treated Like Rape Victims: “The Legal Bias Against Rape Victims (The Rape of Mr. Smith)”
The full article, by Connie K. Borkenhagen, appeared in the American Bar Association Journal in April, 1975.

In the following situation, a holdup victim is asked questions by a lawyer.

Laywer: “Mr. Smith, you were held up at gunpoint on the corner of First and Main?”
Mr. Smith: “Yes”
Laywer: “Did you struggle with the robber?”
Mr. Smith: “No.”
Laywer: “Why not?”
Mr. Smith: “He was armed.”
Laywer: “Then you made a conscious decision to comply with his demands rather than resist?”
Mr. Smith: “Yes.”
Laywer: “Did you scream? Cry out?”
Mr. Smith: “No, I was afraid.”
Laywer: “I see. Have you ever been held up before?”
Mr. Smith: “No.”
Laywer: “Have you ever GIVEN money away?”
Mr. Smith: “Yes, of course.”
Laywer: “And you did so willingly?”
Mr. Smith: “What are you getting at?”
Laywer: “Well, let’s put it like this, Mr. Smith. You’ve given money away in the past. In fact, you have quite a reputation for philanthropy. How can we be sure that you weren’t CONTRIVING to have your money taken from you by force?”

...

Again, this was published in 1975. And we are still fighting the same victim blaming nonsense.

[LisaLynne]

7. Yeah, that's exactly it.

And yep, we're still in the same place. Ugh.

[leftstreet]

2. +1 And legislation reflects this

If you punch your neighbor in the face it's called aggravated assault

Punch your spouse and its 'domestic violence'



The mindset that dominates legislation is astounding and almost always indicates an avenue for blaming the victim

'date rape'
'intimate partner violence'



DURec

[niyad]

3. k and r

[PeaceNikki]

5. Agreed. I posted a victim blaming thread last weekend.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022091142

[redqueen]

6. Glad you posted that here.

I saw it on facebook too. Things like this need much more visibility in order to change it.