I stand corrected. In the post-Oprah world almost anything that happens to anyone for any reason that is at all bad is entirely the fault of Someone Else, and the Victim had absolutely NO part in any way in the entire circumstance. Someone Else it to blame for anything bad that happens in your life and you in no way ever have any part in it.

I don't live in Camden. People where I live sometimes go to Camden to buy drugs. If I get shot (randomly, while I am there) or I get raped do I not have more culpability than the nightshift worker who has to live there?

I have not addressed the Case in the Original Post at all and I am not going to make any statement about that. I am responding to the "all or nothing " nature of some of the posts that follow.

This post was edited by palimpsest on Wed, Mar 20, 13 at 7:20

I think there is a difference between engaging in risky behaviors and accepting responsibility for those risks, vs. blaming the victim for the crime done by the perp.

If Joe lends his car to Tom who causes an accident, Tom may want to blame Joe...if you didn't lend me the car, this never would've happened, or it's Joe's fault as it was Joe's car.... but the fault and responsibility clearly lies with Tom. And if Tom engaged in negligent or criminal behavior with the car, that would all be on Tom. Joe, however, assumed the risk of such an occurrence when he chose to lend Tom the car. Joe didn't "ask for it" but increased his risk of such an event by choosing to lend the car. He also has a responsibility to himself to mitigate the risks....the car should be in good working order, properly tagged and insured and he should make sure Tom is an experienced good driver with a license. Or he has the option to avoid the risk entirely by saying no.

i just cannot fathom how one could even compare a woman walking home from work being attacked on the street by a stranger (except that we would assume she would be aware of the risks and take some precautions...) with a 16 yo girl choosing to go to a rowdy drinking party with friends and choosing to drink herself to blackout............

that would be similar to comparing a sober, law abiding driver being killed by a drunk driver to a drunk passenger getting into a car with a drunk driver and being killed....are they both victims and statistics?? of course, but can they really be compared equally?? absolutely not.

Busybee, because it complicates the prevailing notion that there is a strict dichotomy of Good vs Evil, Criminal and Victim, Guilty and Innocent, Black and White, the Oppressor (usually a white male) and the Oppressed (someone who is not a white male), the Entitled Rich and the Noble Poor...whatever the platform happens to be.

The fact that I included No Culpability on the part of the victim has been completely ignored by everyone who responded afterward. No Means Zero. But I can't agree that it is Always Zero.

A criminal has broken the law. That is not a gray area.

Do tell.

But we aren't talking about the same thing.

Has anybody said anything about diminished responsibility on the part of the rapists here? I haven't.

And if you think the justice system in the US is black and white and not gray, you are sadly mistaken.

I don't even know what your post means.

Your words above were:
"the prevailing notion that there is a strict dichotomy of Good vs Evil, Criminal and Victim, Guilty and Innocent, Black and White, the Oppressor (usually a white male) and the Oppressed (someone who is not a white male), the Entitled Rich and the Noble Poor...whatever the platform happens to be."

Rape is against the law. It is black and white. And that is what we're talking about. I'm not mistaken about anything.

So is underage drinking should we arrest the victim in this case?

You obviously have no clue the brutality and gravity of rape.

Those boys are animals. Their behavior afterwards underscored it. Excuse them (to any degree) all you like, but you are simply wrong.

You don't know how to read for comprehension. I have not excused them to any degree in anything I've said. I said they do not have diminished responsibility. They have been proven guilty.

And answer the question. If the law is so black and white: the victim broke the law. Should she be arrested for underage drinking. Do not take into account what happened to her. She broke the law, it's black and white. Arrest her or not?

Thank you Olychick, what a fantastic post.

We must not hold a victim of rape culpable because the prevailing attitude that she somehow "deserved it" is just too engrained in our society. Simple as that.

This post was edited by kellyeng on Wed, Mar 20, 13 at 10:58

And I have "no clue about the gravity or brutality of rape" exactly Why? Because I am male? Because males cannot be raped? Because males aren't victims? Is that another one of the black and white dichotomies?

Don't assume what I do or do not know the gravity of, simply because I disagree on the level of complexity of interaction that results in a crime.

What is being argued here is that there is no place in a rape case to look at culpability of the victim because the rapist committed a criminal act. No matter what the victim did or did not do, the act is still fully criminal. In the eyes of the law, the victim's behavior is irrelevant. The "level of complexity of interaction that results in a crime" is irrelevant.

If you move out of the criminal arena to health care, if I fail to have regular mammograms, I may or may not develop breast cancer. If I develop breast cancer and subsequently die because it was not found, am I culpable?

In the case you cite you certainly contribute your part in the responsibility in the failure to get a diagnosis, yes. It's certainly not a physician's fault if you never see one --healthcare is not a passive process to be shoved off on the healthcare provider as a sole responsibility, as much as society tries to do THAT as well.

No one thinks my analogy works?

She chose to engage in risky behavior and like it or not assumed the risk that bad things could happen to her regardless of if she recognized those risks or assessed them correctly including death through alcohol poisoning. By getting that drunk did she "ask" to be raped? Of course not. But by getting that drunk, she shirked her responsibility to take care of herself and put herself in a position where becoming a victim to a multitude of crimes was more likely. Was the fact that she was so drunk an excuse for the boys to victimize her? Of course not. The responsibility is fully theirs for their behavior. But had she chosen differently, might the outcome have been different? Yes.

"You don't know how to read for comprehension. "

You have expressed time and again here that you think a victim of rape is not necessarily free of culpability, not so black and white, all or nothing. That is a sliding scale. On behalf of the perp. I don't think anyone is misinterpretting that. Two examples in your own words.

"Rape, like any violent crime may involve some culpability upon the part of the victim, from No culpability to a fair amount."

"Rape should not be The violent crime where the victim is alleviated in All culpability of contributory behavior"

That is not the same as saying the victim was asking for it. It's not a sliding scale of guilt on the part of the boys.

And answer the question. The victim committed a crime, underage drinking. Should she be charged, yes or no? Black or white

Also substantiate your opinion that I have "no clue" regarding rape.

I think there is a difference between engaging in risky behaviors and accepting responsibility for those risks, vs. blaming the victim for the crime done by the perp.

Annie, the flaw in your statement (IMO) is that the incident is a zero sum game of culpability. If the victim accepts responsibility for taking the risk, then the rapist's culpability is reduced. And in my mind, it is never the victim's fault, not even 1% of fault.

Rapists want to believe the woman asked for it.

Well many here seem to agree on what it sounds like. You are making excuses for rapists, depending. If it looks like a duck...

I'm not going to get into one of your convoluted arguments. They may very well charge all the party goers with underage drinking.

"Also substantiate your opinion that I have "no clue" regarding rape."

You Obviously have no clue. I don't need to elaborate, nor do I care to, Obviously. And you are not a woman. Maybe someone else will take that one up for you.

An elderly man wakes up to find an intruder in his house. The intruder shoots him.

A man travels to a well-known drug intersection to buy drugs, and this happens without incident. On the way out of the neighborhood, he is shot in the cross-fire of a non-related incident.

The situation in which the victims are in are completely identical as far as responsibililty for being in the situation they are in. Correct?

----
A woman wakes up to find an intruder in her house. He rapes her.

A prostitute is raped and beaten by a client who does not pay her.

Their situation in which the victims are in are completely identical as far as their responsibility for the situation they are in. Correct?

And don't get on me for mentioning prostitution. I am not comparing anyone to a prostitute.I feel that a prostitute can be raped if she is unwilling and not in control of the situation. And my feeling is that until they arrest the Customers instead of the workers, it is going to be a perpetual problem, unless they want to make it legal and regulate it.

Men can't be raped because they are not women, is that what you are saying? Lets talk to some people at Penn State and in legal action against the Catholic Church about that one. What a sexist opinion.

It's not convoluted just because you refuse to see things as anything but simple black or white --it's complex, but its not convoluted.

This post was edited by palimpsest on Wed, Mar 20, 13 at 12:58

I find culpable to be a poorly chosen to word to describe the victim. We educate our daughters and sons that nothing makes rape okay. However, we must also educate our daughters and sons to make wise decisions. One of the major talking points in our household with my 11 year old daughter and 15 year old son is that nothing good comes of these type of parties and you should absolutely avoid them. The other part of the conversation is that you have to be aware of the world you live in and make wise decisions accordingly, including not putting yourself in a position where you can be taken advantage of, physically, financially, whatever.

"Men can't be raped because they are not women, is that what you are saying? Lets talk to some people at Penn State and in legal action against the Catholic Church about that one. What a sexist opinion."

What I Said was You do not grasp the brutality or gravity of the crime of rape against women. That's what we are talking about here. And nothing you have said leads me to believe you do. But, but, but ...

Did anyone here condone what happened with the Catholic Church? I don't think anyone said anything to that effect. So then, you are also saying some of those boys might have been responsible for what happened to them, for having aroused their priests, being alone with them or something?

"It's not convoluted just because you refuse to see things as anything but simple black or white --it's complex, but its not convoluted."

Just because some of us don't agree with your stance that women who are raped are often to some degree culpable, doesn't mean we don't understand what you're saying or have limited comprehension. For some good reason the US government sees it the same way. Zero tolerance.

"In the eyes of the law, the victim's behavior is irrelevant. The "level of complexity of interaction that results in a crime" is irrelevant."

I am not talking about condoning anything or ameliorating any guilt. I brought up PSU and the Catholic Church because you implied a male has no right to have an opinion about this, and it is a crime only against females.

Totally extrapolated and nothing to do with what I said. But you are right, you read into it.

You're entitled to your opinion and no one will change it. But you did choose to post a "blame the rape victim" stance in a primarily female forum. Not something that would go without protest! I'm sure you know. You didn't change my mind either.

Usually rape Is in reference to females and Is what we were talking about here. Of course anyone can be sexually violated by a predator. Even babies are.

This post was edited by snookums2 on Wed, Mar 20, 13 at 15:11

wow.......

Speaking only for myself, I said nothing about women being the only victims of rape. I was talking about the situation in this case where you were insinuating the woman had culpability because of "contributing" behavior.

I stand by my statement "Women have been blamed forever for tempting men to victimize us by our choices. Would a man who drank too much worry about being raped and revictimized by the events of this case? For the greatest majority of them, no. A smaller segment of male population is at risk because of homophobia, but in general, men can do what the hell they want with zero consequences."

And I should clarify that I meant specifically that the vast majority of men can drink themselves into oblivion without much risk of being gang raped and having it posted all over the internet.

And, for the record, I have no problem with anyone being charged with underage drinking, including the perps.

I agree with tishtosh and disagree with graywings. This is not a zero-sum game for a number of reasons....

Let me try with another less emotional example than rape. Tiffany's can choose to leave their doors open and the lights on and the jewelry out and say they have every right to do that as it is 100% the fault of the burglar if the store gets robbed. It is absolutely true that it is 100% the fault of the burglar if the store gets robbed. The burglar may try to claim that it's Tiffany's fault for making their jewelry so tempting, but that simply wouldn't be true. The responsibility lies with the perp.

But it is also sensible for Tiffany's to undertake various actions and precautions to improve the safety of their stock and their employees and reduce the risk of being burglarized. Even if they undertake those actions, there is no guarantee that they won't be burglarized. And regardless of what security measures they do or don't undertake, they are not criminally liable if their store gets ripped off....that liability is solely with the perp.

However, it would be foolish for them to not be educated about how they might be ripped off and to learn about the latest in security, about the steps they can and should take to protect themselves as much as possible from that event, because they will be the ones who suffer the consequences of failing to protect themselves...they will suffer the loss.

I think it would be wrong and neglectful for parents not to educate their children as to the risks of engaging in any number of activities that put them in harm's way....not because they are guilty or responsible for the event...but because they will suffer the consequences. You teach your child to look both ways before crossing the street. If they get run over, it will 100% be the fault of the driver and they will be civilly and criminally responsible, not the child. However it is the child and the parents who suffer the consequences with injury and/or death. So better to take responsibility for keeping your children safe, educate them on the risks and minimize the likelihood that they will wind up in harm's way.

I think that what many women react to, esp when it comes to rape and violence against women, is that the system for decades did not agree with that assessment and placed some/most/all of the responsibility on the victim rather than on the perp and the perps walked away free to do it again. It's taken a number of decades of womens' efforts to get the system to begin to treat crimes against women in the same way that they treat other crimes and women don't want to see that lost....and that's why there is such a strong reaction to any suggestion that the girl herself could've made choices that would have kept her safer.

I also think it's unfair to suggest that a man is less qualified to address this issue. Not true. I don't have first hand experience with rape, and I suspect many of us here don't, but we know enough to recognize it for the heinous crime it is.

Annie, the word in dispute here is culpability. IMO, the victim of rape is not culpable.

I read Pals statement right after it was first posted and was upset, but decided to calm down and ponder before posting. I really just don't understand the logic or perspective of the comments. Victims of rape regardless of the situation are NEVER culpable. Like men, women have the same rights to drink too much or to be out alone after dark and should not be held accountable if they are raped because they choose to do so. Granted this is a teenager who shouldn't have been drinking to begin with, however she should have had the right to feel she was safe from rape or public ridicule. I completely agree with Graywings, the only person responsible for a rape is the rapist.

Everyone keeps throwing out analogy after analogy but none are really anything that equally compares apples to apples. Maybe there is gray in many if the examples given but not when it comes to rape. NO ONE ever has the right to violate another and culpability has no place in the equation when it comes to the victim. To say that anyone who disagrees has a post Oprah mentality where someone wants to blame someone else and not accept their fair share of responsibility is offensive and reflective of a typical male point of view. Yes there are a lot of people who would rather blame the other guy for his or her troubles but again, that is a different topic and has nothing to do with rape and culpability.

I agree with graywings and lukki. People may make unwise or foolish decisions, but that does not make them culpable for their own rape or violation. No way, no how. The very idea infuriates me. Oh, and, at the risk of being snarky, Pal, I do " read for comprehension" as do most posters here and those personal comments drag down your arguments. You may also want to reread your posts and edit out the contradictions.

Yes graywings and I'm trying to parse that into the two separate elements which I believe better reflects the reality of the situation as I think that will help clarify the argument...or at least for me, it does.

I am trying to see your side, Pal.

I will agree that what the girl did was STUPID. It was. She never, at 16, should have been drinking. Never. That was ridiculous. It was foolish of her-- plain dumb-- to have put herself in that situation. I will agree 100% with that. I hope my kids never do it, but I can't say they won't.

However, we are looking only at the word "culpable." In Spanish, this word is used in daily language-- "mi cupla." My fault. In your case of being shot in a bad part of town, should the court take that into account? "Well, normally we would give 10 years for this kind of crime, but since the victim was out at 1 a.m. and buying drugs, we're going to cut it down to 5, because the victim should not have been out there. It was his own $%! fault." 5 y.o. gets shot in a drive-by. Well, her dad was in a gang, so it was his fault.

Don't you think we are walking into dangerous territory with this line of thinking? I am all for personal responsibility, but I think we need to COLLECTIVELY take responsibility for this. When we allow or even encourage acts of violence to take place, we are all culpable.

But as Elie Wiesel said, if everyone is guilty, then no one is guilty.

My 17 year old DD, 21 year old DS and DH and I were all discussing this, as I hope many families have been. The one positive thing I guess for it being plastered all over the news is that families are having difficult, important conversations.

DD expressed a bit of shock that this made national news, considering that she knows many, many girls at her high school who get very drunk on a regular basis. "Yes," I told her. "But the girl wasn't on trial for being drunk. You know many girls who act like this every weekend. How many boys do you know who would do what those boys did?" She decided she doesn't know any.

Yes, too many kids drink, too many drink excessively, athletes often get a pass, and girls are at greater risk for bodily harm than boys all the time. All of this is true. But I don't believe it is true that most boys would act the way those on trial did. It was horrible, egregious, criminal behavior, and the girl bears zero responsibility. If we want to take the stigma of shame out of rape, we have to stop thinking the victim has any part in it. A hundred girls could be in my house in that same condition, and they would all be 100% safe from assault by my husband or son. I'm sure most people here would say the same thing. That isn't naive or pollyanna-ish. It is the truth. When a girl isn't safe in that situation, it's because unfortunately she has found herself in the proximity of socially deviant males, who need to be punished for their crimes. It is not because she was drunk. Let's start putting the blame ONLY where it belongs. At the feet of the perpetrators.

Annie, I think it is "only the guilty are guilty."

Similar, but not quite the same. Also, it is in reference to something that happened, and is over-- the Holocaust. Future generations don't need to feel guilty, because they didn't commit the atrocities and weren't even around when the horrors took place.

I just looked up how often rape occurs. For people over the age of 12, it happens every 2 minutes. While we discuss this, a rape is taking place. This is why we need to collectively take responsibility. And, responsibility does not denote guilt automatically. To me, that is somewhat passive. It is about action; being proactive. It can be anything, including speaking up as we are here, to stop the idea that a rape victim is even 1% at fault.

Here is my thoughts. In civil law cases, there is something called "assumption of the risk," which basically means that you cannot sue if you get hurt doing something inherently risky.

When a teenager or anyone gets that intoxicated, they assume certain risks. They assume the risk of alcohol poisoning, they assume the risk of drunk driving consequences if they get into a car with someone drunk, etc. If these things happen, it is their fault and the teen is to blame because they have assumed the risk.

However, assumption of the risk doesn't mean that you do something bad and you assume every possible risk under the sun and whatever happens to you is your own fault. The girl did not assume the risk of being raped by drinking, because being raped does not inherently follow from drinking too much and isn't even a likely consequence of drinking too much (at least not in any civilized society).

Of course, had she not made the choices she made, she wouldn't have been in the position she was in. However, her bad choices do not give someone else a license to rape her and don't reduce the responsibility of the boys for their actions in any way.

To be fair, though, I don't think Pal was blaming the victim at all but instead was saying the victim made some choices that increased the chances of something (not necessarily rape, but something) bad happening to her. I don't think anyone can dispute that.

I also agree with bestyears that there was something very wrong with those boys and also with this girl's friends who did nothing to stop this! This is not how normal, moral people should ever react.

However, I do not think the boys were the only ones to blame either. The coaches and everyone else in that town that allowed them to think this type of thing was OK are to blame for this almost as much as the boys who actually committed the crime. The enablers were just accomplices before and after the fact and the boys were a product of their environment 100 percent.

it really, really bothers me when i read things like, 'Like men, women have the same rights to drink too much or to be out alone after dark and should not be held accountable if they are raped because they choose to do so.'

only the man can be blamed for the 'act' of the rape, obviously.
but, it really irks me to cast women as the powerless victim... powerless to the boy or man who chooses to rape her. to imply that they are powerless is a disservice to women and girls, imo.
we're not talking about pigheaded statements that used to be made years ago about perhaps a girl walking down the street in short shorts or a midriff top-that she was 'asking to be raped', etc... yes, that's ridiculous. but, it is equally ridiculous to say women should have the 'right' to drink too much and be out late alone...
i so wish we lived in a world where everyone is safe and respected each other and all bad guys (and girls) always went to jail forever before any crime was ever commited. but, we don't. women (and men) should try to take responsibility for their safety!!! (which is entirely different than a woman taking blame for the rape!!)
when we drink so much that we have no idea what we or others are doing anymore, we're setting ourselves up for some type of possible trouble, whether it be rape, or death, or photos, or injury, etc... if we walk alone down a dark street at night, something bad might happen... whether it be rape or death or injury or theft (yes, even if we took the self defense class at the Y!) ... if we choose to be home with wide open windows or doors, something bad may happen, whether it be rape or death or theft, etc.
if we can't say risky behavior may affect safety, i just don't get it!! if we can't say stupid mistakes we made compromised our dignity or safety, how can we ever learn??

busy- of course we should take personal responsibility for keeping ourselves and our loved ones safe. Many years ago, I learned, the hard way, but not a tragic way, that the best defense is to keep yourself out of harm's way. I believe that mightily. BUT, again, I could go to the ATM late at night and be safe around 95% of my town's citizens. If one of the deviant 5% was in the vicinity, I probably wouldn't be safe. I don't go to the ATM late at night because I know the odds and am not comfortable taking even a 5% risk with my safety. However, it is purely the responsibility of the deviants who rob people at ATM's when such action takes places. The victim made a poor judgement in being there at a late hour. But the perpetrator made the choice to take the deviant action.

If a girl dresses provocatively and is a bit impaired, and the boys in the room with her DON'T take advantage of that, does she get credit for that? Of course not, it is their own strong moral code, good behavior etc. that is responsible. The argument has to be the same when the results are different...

I refuse to believe we live in a society where average men are walking around on the verge of rape. That they are so obsessed with sex that they just can't help themselves when a scantily clad girl crosses their path. To believe that is so is demeaning and unfair to good men.

This post was edited by bestyears on Thu, Mar 21, 13 at 8:11

Thanks anele, that was a misattribution. I believe I first heard the statement in a book by a nazi hunter...maybe Simon Wiesenthal...and thus my confusion, but searching the net, it seems it is an old Italian saying, though I wasn't able to find a specific reference to the source: Tutti colpevoli, nessuno colpevole.

Beagles' analysis is more in line with my own thinking, though I think that links between alcohol and rape are higher than suggested and it should be considered a substantial risk by teens who drink. See this web site.

...approximately 50 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted, and 27 percent have experienced rape or attempted rape; in contrast, 25 percent of college men have committed sexual assault, and 8 percent have committed rape or attempted rape...approximately one-half of all sexual assaults are committed by men who have been drinking alcohol....approximately one-half of all sexual assault victims report that they were drinking alcohol at the time of the assault.

Certainly when you binge drink and are that drunk, you are more vulnerable to all kinds of bad things ranging the gamut from acting stupid to death.

Busybee, while far less frequent, women are capable of committing rape....a man's body can react involuntarily even if he has not given his consent, and of course women, like men, can use objects.

Here is a link that might be useful: More stats on rape and alcohol

I think this behavior partially the result of rearing a generation of narcissists. When every child is special, above average, an A student, gifted, talented, ad nauseum, it gives them license to think they are better than everyone else, above the law (or moral code) and that they can take what they want because they deserve it. They have been treated their entire lives as if they deserve only the best. How else do they think they could get away with something like this, broadcast it, and not suffer any implications?

I think we've raised a generation with a higher percentage of narcissistic, self-absorbed humans strangely lacking in empathy than in previous generations.

good lord, i agree pal.....

and, annie... i obviously was refering to penial penetration... or i assumed it was obvious... i know i assume way too much way too often... i assumed that most of us knew that sexual assault can be done many horrible ways ... by men and women, girls and boys, against men, women, children, animals, etc,etc...

How you got that take on my post Busybee3 is beyond me, but whatever, we're obviously not talking about the same thing.

This post was edited by lukkiirish on Fri, Mar 22, 13 at 8:54

Completely agree w/ Pal.

Personal responsibility has become a bad word, everyone has a massive sense of entitlement and everything is the fault of someone else.

I agree totally with that statement as well, I just don't think it is applicable when it comes to the victim of rape.

Personal responsibility has become a bad word, everyone has a massive sense of entitlement and everything is the fault of someone else.

Blah, blah, blah. OMG, you sound like a bunch of old farts. I have a more optimistic view of the younger generation.

"Blah, blah, blah. OMG, you sound like a bunch of old farts. I have a more optimistic view of the younger generation." I agree.

The first thing I've read in this thread that made me actually want to post.

Come on people...the whole generation of kids aren't losers. What a rotten generalization.

I said a higher percentage than usual, I wasn't indicting the entire generation.

And it's the overly indulgent parent that raises this minority of kids that bugs me more than the kids themselves.

Again, statements taken at "all-or-nothing" when is that is not how they were stated.

This post was edited by palimpsest on Fri, Mar 22, 13 at 11:07

And now, perhaps, we should start a discussion on drinking. At what age, how much, when, what drinks....I'm with Colette on this one. She wrote that as a young girl, she (like other French children), regularly drank wine. Of course, it was highly watered down, to the point of being completely innocuous.

The point, however, was that drinking alcohol was an integral part of family meals. No mystique to it, and no special status as the thing you finally got to have when you became an adult. Or, as is so often the case here in the U.S., the thing you sneak and binge on as a teen.

This has nothing to do with anyone's guilt or responsibility in the case. It's a completely separate topic, so I don't expect to see anyone twisting my words on it or attempting to infer meaning that isn't there. OK? :)

I simply think Americans' attitudes toward drinking might make for an interesting discussion.

I am pretty sure the girl who was raped will, in some form, blame herself for the rest of her life. She won't stand on the rooftops and scream that she was to blame, but sadly, she will likely always feel like she was.

So, don't worry-- she will feel "personally responsible" forever.

Classic female response to things.