I've got a question

I'm struggling with something right now, and instead of asking about the real issue, I'm going to use an analogy. For lack of a better analogy, I'll use this and hopefully you'll get the idea.
If a man date rapes a woman, he's guilty of rape. If that woman took her clothes off and danced provocatively around him, making suggestive comments, and then he date raped her, he's still guilty of rape. But if you were judging this situation, would you put any of the responsibility on the woman for what happened, and if so, how much? Sorry for using this particular example. I really couldn't think of anything else at the moment, although I'm sure there are infinite scenarios that would also have worked. I don't want this to turn into an argument or anything. I'm just soliciting opinions on this. So please try to just give your opinion and leave it at that. Thanks.

Without knowing the details, I read it like this- She was pretty much asking for it in the second scenario- I'm not sure if it counts as date rape in this case. Poor decisions, yes.... but date rape? I guess i'd have to know more specifics.

In reply to mndsm:

Well assume that despite her antics, she didn't want to have sex with the guy.

Did she make this clear to the guy?

She is still zero responsible by law, and perhaps a lot responsible by ethics. How's that?

I wouldn't put any blame on the woman for any kind of "teasing"...once she's unconscious or makes it clear the guy should stop, that's it, doesn't matter if she was nude on the bed rubbing her lady parts and saying "come get me stud" 10 seconds before.

Where I find it really hard to not start placing blame, is when the woman walks right into an incredibly bad situation. Like going to a frat party with no other women and accepting unknown drinks from the guys (real thing that happened to a girl at my best friend's college). It's like walking through the most unlit part of the worst part of town decked out with jewellery...sure it's not your fault that someone robbed you, it's the robber's fault. But...why the hell did you do that?

When in doubt, stick to what's legal. Using your analogy, if there wasn't a clear understanding in the beginning of the dance I'd get up and walk. So to speak.

While she was stupid to put herself in that situation, she legally shares none of the blame.

I guess the generality, without further details kind of answer is: Rape is Rape.

Whether she's a lap dancer working her way through college or he's a shoe salesman with a foot fetish and attacks her in the store, no means no.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot. A woman was attacked, dragged into an alley, guy beat the crap out of her and was going to rape her. She was overpowered, no way to escape; she decides this is going to happen no matter what. She tells the attacker this, and as long as it's going to happed, please put this condom on so I don't die of something awful.

He did.

Was that consent?

The courts said no.

No means no.

Yeah, there is that. Given the parameters, even though she probably SHOULD be held liable, if she made it clear no sex was to be had, dude is in the wrong. She was more or less a stripper in this situation.

I hear those lap dance places have a protector/bouncer very close by. He wasn't?

GameboyRMH wrote: I wouldn't put any blame on the woman for any kind of "teasing"...once she's unconscious or makes it clear the guy should stop, that's it, doesn't matter if she was nude on the bed rubbing her lady parts and saying "come get me stud" 10 seconds before. Where I find it really hard to not start placing blame, is when the woman walks right into an incredibly bad situation. Like going to a frat party with no other women and accepting unknown drinks from the guys (real thing that happened to a girl at my best friend's college). It's like walking through the most unlit part of the worst part of town decked out with jewellery...sure it's not your fault that someone robbed you, it's the robber's fault. But...why the hell did you do that?

I'm not disagreeing, but I don't see the difference in the two examples you give.

One necessarily involves putting yourself in a dangerous environment and bad situation and the other doesn't.

If "a horny guy's presence" is a dangerous environment and bad situation, that guy is a rapist.

Datsun1500 wrote: She is guilty of putting herself in a bad situation, but not enough to justify the outcome. If you are walking down the street with $500 in cash in your hand, and someone takes it and runs away, you are still a victim of theft. If the cops came and said "you kind of deserved it, since you were waving it around" would you accept that answer?

Yep.

Okay, thanks for all the responses. Let's look at this a different way, just for the sake of discussion, not that I agree or disagree with anyone here.
What if the woman had acted differently, and because of that the rape never occurred? Is the analogy I gave in the beginning still as clear cut as some of you have suggested it is?
Of course the rapist is guilty of rape no matter what. But if the actions of the woman determine the outcome, does she share any responsibility?

I defer to others on legality.

In terms of moral responsibility, the man has committed a wrong in both cases. I think that's pretty clear. In the first scenario, it seems that the woman is truly a victim and shares no moral culpability. In the second case, the woman is guilty of tempting/goading others into wrongdoing and imprudence. In terms of virtue moral theory, she's being immodest, to put it lightly. John Paul II would probably say something along the lines of her presenting herself as an object to be used rather than a person to be loved. There are some quite choice words in the Bible about causing others to sin. Frankly, if she's waving around her naughty bits, she's doing wrong whether the man acts on it or not.

Makes no difference IMO. It's 100% on the guy to control himself.

tuna55 wrote: She is still zero responsible by law, and perhaps a lot responsible by ethics. How's that?

This.

bravenrace wrote: But if the actions of the woman determine the outcome, does she share any responsibility?

Morally? Yes. Legally? No.

bravenrace wrote: Okay, thanks for all the responses. Let's look at this a different way, just for the sake of discussion, not that I agree or disagree with anyone here. What if the woman had acted differently, and because of that the rape never occurred? Is the analogy I gave in the beginning still as clear cut as some of you have suggested it is? Of course the rapist is guilty of rape no matter what. But if the actions of the woman determine the outcome, does she share any responsibility?

I guess the question becomes, did she make it clear she had no intentions of doing the guy? Says something like "I'm not gonna berkeley ya crosseyed, but here's a show" or does she just start making comments like "I want your junk" and "you know you want this" etc. Seems unfair to me that she led him on. To use the 500$ analogy- she waved her 500 bucks around. She's kind of a dumbass for showing it to the guy- knowing damn well he wants, it, and putting herself in a situation where he can take it. Granted, what the guy did is still wrong, but she damn sure could have prevented it.

If the woman did not act suggestively towards the man, and that utterly prevented the situation, then it all becomes a moot point. I see tons of women all the time, and I don't really harbor any feelings of wanting to get them on me. Ok, most of them. Some of them.... well you've seen the GGA thread. It really IS a situational deal. Strippers shake their naughty bits all the time, and unless the guy is an extreme creepstorm, he doesn't walk in expecting the whole enchilada. He walks in, gives her money, she shakes her tits, he goes home and rubs one out or wiggles on his wife.

In reply to Datsun1500:

Hey, I'm the question asker, not the question answerer!!!

scardeal wrote: I defer to others on legality. In terms of moral responsibility, the man has committed a wrong in both cases. I think that's pretty clear. In the first scenario, it seems that the woman is truly a victim and shares no moral culpability. In the second case, the woman is guilty of tempting/goading others into wrongdoing and imprudence. In terms of virtue moral theory, she's being immodest, to put it lightly. John Paul II would probably say something along the lines of her presenting herself as an object to be used rather than a person to be loved. There are some quite choice words in the Bible about causing others to sin. Frankly, if she's waving around her naughty bits, she's doing wrong whether the man acts on it or not.

Well put. I couldn't have said it better myself.

In reply to Datsun1500:

I knew somebody would break the rule...

Datsun1500 wrote: Wrong according to your beliefs, not everyones beliefs. Bible guys see her as "tempting others into sin" while others see her as having fun. Either way, legally, it's all on the guy.

He asked for our opinions. So I gave it. Considering the OPs wording, I don't think it's actually about that exact situation. The real situation might not be related to sexuality at all. The generalized question seems to be, "if someone puts themselves in a situation to be likely to be victimized, how does that affect the culpability of the victim and the perpetrator?" And the answer to that is twofold: The perpetrator is still wrong. The victim is guilty of imprudence at best. The victim's "making it easy" or "asking for it" does not excuse the perp in the least. However, the victim still does wrong to himself.

In general, a person is obligated to avoid situations where he might be hurt unless he is knowingly doing so to try to achieve some greater good, eg defending someone, standing up for truth (a la Martin Luther King), etc.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Datsun1500: I knew somebody would break the rule...

Constitution!

Allah!

Hitler!!

Jesus!

Anal sex!