The Student Room Group

Victim blaming in rape cases

A few highly publicised rape cases such as Steubenville & Ched Evans have made me realise that rape is the one thing where people blame the victim to no end, from what she was wearing, past sexual activity, what she was drinking.
It's gotten me thinking, if a tramp passed out on a park bench drunk and he was set on fire
No one blames him for being drunk, they blame the perpetrators for setting fire to the guy, If you're drunk and violently mugged no one blames you for being drunk, they blame the person who mugged you. So if I was drunk and someone forcibly penetrated me it would somehow become my fault because I was drunk? I agree we should take care of ourselves and not drink to excess, but if you're a victim of any other crime while drunk there seems to be minimal blame.

Why in 2014 is rape still pretty in much every case putting the blame on the victim?

Scroll to see replies

I think you're exxagerating the extent to which people victim blame it's not as ubiquitous as you're trying to have us believe.


I also think the reason for why people may victim blame a rape victim more than a mugging a victim because rape results from sex which is perpetuated by appearance and being drunk is univerally known to lower inhibitions.


Which brings me to my next point people do blame drunk mugging victims in fact this is why people advice us not take expensive belongings with us on nights out.
(edited 9 years ago)
Forgive me if im wrong , but in the Chevans case wasn't it reported she gave consent multiple time (despite being drunk and having impaired judgement ) . It's not like they grabbed her and threw her in a van , she had multiple oppurtunities to opt out of the process .

I don't support victim blaming at all , but I agree some rapes are worse then others.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 3
Original post by vickidc18
A few highly publicised rape cases such as Steubenville & Ched Evans have made me realise that rape is the one thing where people blame the victim to no end, from what she was wearing, past sexual activity, what she was drinking.
It's gotten me thinking, if a tramp passed out on a park bench drunk and he was set on fire
No one blames him for being drunk, they blame the perpetrators for setting fire to the guy, If you're drunk and violently mugged no one blames you for being drunk, they blame the person who mugged you. So if I was drunk and someone forcibly penetrated me it would somehow become my fault because I was drunk? I agree we should take care of ourselves and not drink to excess, but if you're a victim of any other crime while drunk there seems to be minimal blame.

Why in 2014 is rape still pretty in much every case putting the blame on the victim?


Firstly you're over-exaggerating, and secondly, you haven't read about the Ched Evans case at all.
If i got drunk and drove a car am i to blame?

If i got drunk and woke up next to some whale, did she rape me?

No. But if i was female and woke up next to some whale of a bloke and regretted it...
I don't know enough about the ched evans case but it has been reported that she consented, and there is footage of her arriving at the hotel arm in arm with the perpetrator (clearly walking not passed out drunk)? Not saying she wasn't raped but consensually having sex when drunk and then forgetting that you consented to it the next morning doesn't equal rape.
Original post by arson_fire
You could flip that round and say why, in 2014, is rape the only crime where it is socially unacceptable to suggest that people take any kind of precautions to prevent it occurring?

Fit a burgler alarm. Ok.
Lock your car. Ok.
Shield your pin at an atm. Ok.
Don`t leave valuables on display in your car. Ok.
Don`t get drunk and go to hotel rooms with guys you`ve just met. Patriarchal misogynist! Rape apologist!


Some feminists have it in their head that women should be able to do whatever they want, free of consequence and personal responsibility, and that to voice sensible objection to this makes you a woman-hating rapist.

And I agree - rape appears to be the only crime where offering sensible advice or criticism to victims or potential victims is wholly unacceptable. Again, it's to do with the more sacred nature of women's freedoms and the 'it's all your fault, not ours' mentality some have.
Reply 7
Original post by vickidc18
A few highly publicised rape cases such as Steubenville & Ched Evans have made me realise that rape is the one thing where people blame the victim to no end, from what she was wearing, past sexual activity, what she was drinking.
It's gotten me thinking, if a tramp passed out on a park bench drunk and he was set on fire
No one blames him for being drunk, they blame the perpetrators for setting fire to the guy, If you're drunk and violently mugged no one blames you for being drunk, they blame the person who mugged you. So if I was drunk and someone forcibly penetrated me it would somehow become my fault because I was drunk? I agree we should take care of ourselves and not drink to excess, but if you're a victim of any other crime while drunk there seems to be minimal blame.

Why in 2014 is rape still pretty in much every case putting the blame on the victim?


Boy girl. Hotel room. Booze drugs. Consensual Sex. Filthy urinated bed.

Man goes to jail for 2 years.

Hmmmmm. Is it not buyers remorse?

Ridiculous that they even prosecuted this. He should just be encouraged to grow up.

I vote miscarriage of justice.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by arson_fire
You could flip that round and say why, in 2014, is rape the only crime where it is socially unacceptable to suggest that people take any kind of precautions to prevent it occurring?

Fit a burgler alarm. Ok.
Lock your car. Ok.
Shield your pin at an atm. Ok.
Don`t leave valuables on display in your car. Ok.
Don`t get drunk and go to hotel rooms with guys you`ve just met. Patriarchal misogynist! Rape apologist!


I guess one could make the argument that being raped is more traumatic and psychologically damaging. If someone got murdered for instance, to then go out of the way to tell their parents that their son/daughter was culpable for it because they walked through a dangerous neighbourhood at night alone would be rather insensitive.

The other issue is that from what I understand, the majority of rapes are committed by people that the victim knows. So the majority of cases don't involve strangers but rather individuals that are known and possibly trusted. You would have to promote a state of perpetual paranoia if you had to refuse to trust every close person to you in case they may rape you.
Reply 9
The problem with the UK legal attitude to rape is that two adults who get drunk and have sex do not do so on an equal footing. Both could conceivably (in the eyes of the law, if not the general public) be drunk enough as to no be able to give consent, yet could still end up having sex. In this instance the male could be liable for rape, and the female could not. The same would be true of two men who had sex - the man who does the penetration could be liable for rape, and the man who was penetrated could not.
Most people would blame a person for being mugged, at least partially, if s/he had walked home through a known rough area, when alternative routes or a larger group to walk with were available.

The fact is that everyone knows that clubs and other alcohol-fuelled venues are places where many people come to look for a sexual partner. Everyone knows that drinking alcohol lowers your inhibitions. But the law does not seem to recognise that a man's inhibitions are lowered by alcohol (and hold him responsible for his actions when in this state) despite recognising that a woman's inhibitions are so lowered (and they remove her responsibility whilst in this state). Of course, a male rape victim may have his incapacity due to voluntary drinking recognised, and therefore not be held responsible for sexual activity in which he is involved, whilst the man who penetrates him may be equally unable to consent in terms of how much he has had to drink, but will still be held responsible for his actions.

Even if you take the example of a sober man having sex with a woman or man who is clearly too drunk to consent, the person is almost definitely responsible for becoming so drunk. They bear no responsibility for the rapist's actions, but they are responsible for being drunk. If the rape would not have occurred had they been sober, then most people would make the link and say that their intoxication leads to their partial responsibility for what happened to them. A drunk person doesn't want to be raped, nevertheless intoxication invites rape, if you take that to mean that a person has put him/herself in a situation where any sex will not be consensual.

Another problem is that many people would not consider the above sentence to be true (although I would argue that it is, in terms of the law) and many men would not think "this woman/man is drunk enough that she cannot consent" but would think "this woman/man is drunk and therefore cannot consent". Of course the exact point at which intoxication is sufficient as to render valid consent impossible is not easy to define, but rather than being cautious and questioning whether anyone obviously under the influence of alcohol is able to consent, many (not:all) men instead assume that the person is able to consent until (or even in spite of) overwhelming evidence to the contrary, such as an inability to walk, or unconsciousness.
Lol this is a forum that thinks false rape cries because of cheating guilt are an extremely common thing.


Victim blaming does need to stop. All 'preventing yourself from getting raped' is nonsense. OK fair enough don't leave yur drinks unattended and don't drink so much that you completely lose your inhibitions, but why do we never tell guys to not take advantage of super drunk girls or not tell them to stop getting so drunk they don't know what they're doing? That's the problem here. It's always the girls being told not to wear short dresses so the mens hands don't wander, never the man being told just to keep himself to himself and that a short dress doesn't mean she wants it.
Nobody victim blames that i have seen. "If you didn't do xyz maybe this wouldn't have happened£ or "given your behavior xyz how can yiou prove this happened" is NOT the same as "you were raped, it's your fault and you deserve it".

The whole concept of victim blaming is ludicrous.
Reply 12
Original post by tillytots
Lol this is a forum that thinks false rape cries because of cheating guilt are an extremely common thing.


Victim blaming does need to stop. All 'preventing yourself from getting raped' is nonsense. OK fair enough don't leave yur drinks unattended and don't drink so much that you completely lose your inhibitions, but why do we never tell guys to not take advantage of super drunk girls or not tell them to stop getting so drunk they don't know what they're doing? That's the problem here. It's always the girls being told not to wear short dresses so the mens hands don't wander, never the man being told just to keep himself to himself and that a short dress doesn't mean she wants it.


Apparently there are some cases of false rape cries due to this very thing but I highly doubt that it's the majority of cases.

I see where you're coming from-at risk of sounding like a rape apologist, in less inebriated scenarios what needs to be done to achieve this imo would dig quite deep into socio-sexual interactions and ask feminism to encourage women to make the first move on a man. Traditional rules of burden on men to initiate courtship still applies, as such guys are often going to end up coming onto . This doesn't excuse the violation of boundaries that next occurs, just a suggestion as to why men will often misinterpret things such as wearing a short skirt (or glancing over at him) as indirect sign of interest in general.

Put more simply I think guys come on to women when they shouldn't (and I don't think they should approach when they are THAT drunk tbh because of the likelihood of rape) partly because women are afraid to make first move [dat patriarchy innit]

Honestly I would have preferred to argue this in a less extreme scenario just as a general problem with the way people date :/

edit: also I would say both sexes should take responsibility as adults for how their actions especially when drinking
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by tillytots
Lol this is a forum that thinks false rape cries because of cheating guilt are an extremely common thing.


Not necessarily.

Victim blaming does need to stop.


It never started. Not as some kind of societal trend as people make out that it is.

All 'preventing yourself from getting raped' is nonsense. OK fair enough don't leave yur drinks unattended and don't drink so much that you completely lose your inhibitions,


That's more than enough to single you out as a victim blamer/rape apologist/whatever. If you really think that, you're arguing for the wrong side. Also, those two contradictory sentences btw.


but why do we never tell guys to not take advantage of super drunk girls or not tell them to stop getting so drunk they don't know what they're doing? That's the problem here.


We do. In fact, there's adverts telling people, wait no, just men not to rape, anti rape rhetoric is in every pieve of media. Rape is seen as worse than even murder, even geneocide. I mean, ffs in this so called "rape culture" where "victim blaming" is so common, that making jokes about the hollocaust is acceptable, mass rape of YOUNG BOYS catholic priests is acceptable, we reference the salting of the earth by the Romans in common speech, we'll reference people being "first against the wall" or "I'll murder you". Now, you say "I'll rape you, to a woman, not a man, and it's controversial. Just step back a second and see the double standard here, and you'll realise we are far, far away from a state of affairs where it is accurate to say female victims of rape is condoned in anyway shape or form.


It's always the girls being told not to wear short dresses so the mens hands don't wander, never the man being told just to keep himself to himself and that a short dress doesn't mean she wants it.


Problem is is that it often does. The accepted way to deal with such unwanted attention is to slap a man in the face, and embarrass him in front of the whole place. He won't be getting laid that night.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 14
Original post by Katie_p
The problem with the UK legal attitude to rape is that two adults who get drunk and have sex do not do so on an equal footing. Both could conceivably (in the eyes of the law, if not the general public) be drunk enough as to no be able to give consent, yet could still end up having sex. In this instance the male could be liable for rape, and the female could not. The same would be true of two men who had sex - the man who does the penetration could be liable for rape, and the man who was penetrated could not.
Most people would blame a person for being mugged, at least partially, if s/he had walked home through a known rough area, when alternative routes or a larger group to walk with were available.

The fact is that everyone knows that clubs and other alcohol-fuelled venues are places where many people come to look for a sexual partner. Everyone knows that drinking alcohol lowers your inhibitions. But the law does not seem to recognise that a man's inhibitions are lowered by alcohol (and hold him responsible for his actions when in this state) despite recognising that a woman's inhibitions are so lowered (and they remove her responsibility whilst in this state). Of course, a male rape victim may have his incapacity due to voluntary drinking recognised, and therefore not be held responsible for sexual activity in which he is involved, whilst the man who penetrates him may be equally unable to consent in terms of how much he has had to drink, but will still be held responsible for his actions.

Even if you take the example of a sober man having sex with a woman or man who is clearly too drunk to consent, the person is almost definitely responsible for becoming so drunk. They bear no responsibility for the rapist's actions, but they are responsible for being drunk. If the rape would not have occurred had they been sober, then most people would make the link and say that their intoxication leads to their partial responsibility for what happened to them. A drunk person doesn't want to be raped, nevertheless intoxication invites rape, if you take that to mean that a person has put him/herself in a situation where any sex will not be consensual.

Another problem is that many people would not consider the above sentence to be true (although I would argue that it is, in terms of the law) and many men would not think "this woman/man is drunk enough that she cannot consent" but would think "this woman/man is drunk and therefore cannot consent". Of course the exact point at which intoxication is sufficient as to render valid consent impossible is not easy to define, but rather than being cautious and questioning whether anyone obviously under the influence of alcohol is able to consent, many (not:all) men instead assume that the person is able to consent until (or even in spite of) overwhelming evidence to the contrary, such as an inability to walk, or unconsciousness.


so you're basically saying UK law blames men 100% and acquits women 100% for intoxication in rape cases? It's a tricky one because even as much as asking for partial responsibility on a drunken woman for her actions intoxicated (not for her being raped) can be construed as "she was asking for it" when that is NOT what you mean. Seems like the law itself appeals to gender stereotypes hmm
Original post by tillytots
Lol this is a forum that thinks false rape cries because of cheating guilt are an extremely common thing.


Victim blaming does need to stop. All 'preventing yourself from getting raped' is nonsense. OK fair enough don't leave yur drinks unattended and don't drink so much that you completely lose your inhibitions, but why do we never tell guys to not take advantage of super drunk girls or not tell them to stop getting so drunk they don't know what they're doing? That's the problem here. It's always the girls being told not to wear short dresses so the mens hands don't wander, never the man being told just to keep himself to himself and that a short dress doesn't mean she wants it.


Why is it that if a man has sex with a drunk women, he took advantage of her?

Why is it that if i get blind drunk and wake up next to someone with no recollection, the only person i blame is myself?

Getting drunk does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions.
Original post by vickidc18
A few highly publicised rape cases such as Steubenville & Ched Evans have made me realise that rape is the one thing where people blame the victim to no end, from what she was wearing, past sexual activity, what she was drinking.
It's gotten me thinking, if a tramp passed out on a park bench drunk and he was set on fire
No one blames him for being drunk, they blame the perpetrators for setting fire to the guy, If you're drunk and violently mugged no one blames you for being drunk, they blame the person who mugged you. So if I was drunk and someone forcibly penetrated me it would somehow become my fault because I was drunk? I agree we should take care of ourselves and not drink to excess, but if you're a victim of any other crime while drunk there seems to be minimal blame.

Why in 2014 is rape still pretty in much every case putting the blame on the victim?


Let me look at this argument in a different way.

If anybody dares say that women should stop drinking to the point where they lose all control over their actions, or that they should try to avoid dressing too provocatively, or stop leading guys on because they enjoy it, there are cries of victim blaming. Saying that women should take some precautions to keep themselves safe is completely unacceptable, because that's blaming them for anything that may happen.

But when you leave your house in the morning, do you lock the door? Do you close the windows? Yes you do, because you know that there are people out there who would steal from your house if you didn't.

When you are walking and get to a zebra crossing, do you look both ways before walking across? Yes you do, because while in theory you shouldn't have to you know that not everybody stops for them.

When you're driving and the traffic lights turn green, do you check the junction anyway before driving through? Yes you do, because you know that some people will jump a red light.

All situations where we take precautions to keep ourselves safe because we know that there are some people out there who ignore the law and would cause us harm if we didn't take these precautions.

How come then when it comes to rape even suggesting that women take any kind of precaution is viewed as totally unacceptable, when in damn near every single other aspect of our lives we take precautions for the sake of our safety.

Am I saying that rape is right? Of course I'm not. Am I saying that if a woman gets raped it can be said that it was her fault? No. What I am saying is that we unfortunately live in a society where people do commit rape, and while it would be lovely if we didn't, for now if you are somebody who is at risk from that crime then it is your responsibility to take precautions to reduce that risk. It's not victim blaming, it's common bloody sense.
Reply 17
Hi, that's true. Some part of this country had a trend in 'blaming victims.' 'victims don't get help.' That called political incorrectness. I'm a bit of mixed oriental race. When I do my research training on youth problem. I've got robbed or even attacked by youth gang few times. But in one town, police are really good job, chase and caught the gang at the same night and put them to jail but request my consent to punish them or not. I give them a chance. But another time. Another youth gang attack me or the stupid racist neighbour with her old parent (like pack of asbo gang etc.). The police in that town did not chase the gang or arrest them either. Just tell me go to hospital. (I'm in huddersfield.) I find this town is don't know what is right and wrong, lots of incidents had blame the victims. If the victims complain, the police will arrest u instead of the offenders. That's horrible enough. I knew a hud student got rape in the nearby pub at night 3 yrs ago, it's been on the news and student newspaper. The rapist don't caught. 'Blame the victims' i think only in some third world politic or coward behaviour do this thing. that's nothing wrong to get paid to catch offender. At lease will help the victim psychological relief. It really like a lottery postcode to live in better town or university. Some universities just know how to lie to make money...they think this is student responsible ...It's look like the politic need a clean up for the police force to do the right job not to waste public money on them by cutting public funding and the poors and increase tuition fee. Down grade system. :+(

During my research i had lots of bad experience but somehow there will some good charity organisation or go to church to pray my unhappiness. Sorry for the bad political system and victim need support not blame. Somehow u need to move on in lives and move out the unhappy place or countries to find happiness. Bless.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Riku
so you're basically saying UK law blames men 100% and acquits women 100% for intoxication in rape cases? It's a tricky one because even as much as asking for partial responsibility on a drunken woman for her actions intoxicated (not for her being raped) can be construed as "she was asking for it" when that is NOT what you mean. Seems like the law itself appeals to gender stereotypes hmm


Not 100% but there does seem to be a gender bias in the way the law is applied and there definitely is in the way we view these crimes. Women = innocent victims men = agressor as an almost default
Original post by Riku
Apparently there are some cases of false rape cries due to this very thing but I highly doubt that it's the majority of cases.

I see where you're coming from-at risk of sounding like a rape apologist, in less inebriated scenarios what needs to be done to achieve this imo would dig quite deep into socio-sexual interactions and ask feminism to encourage women to make the first move on a man. Traditional rules of burden on men to initiate courtship still applies, as such guys are often going to end up coming onto . This doesn't excuse the violation of boundaries that next occurs, just a suggestion as to why men will often misinterpret things such as wearing a short skirt (or glancing over at him) as indirect sign of interest in general.

Put more simply I think guys come on to women when they shouldn't (and I don't think they should approach when they are THAT drunk tbh because of the likelihood of rape) partly because women are afraid to make first move [dat patriarchy innit]

Honestly I would have preferred to argue this in a less extreme scenario just as a general problem with the way people date :/

edit: also I would say both sexes should take responsibility as adults for how their actions especially when drinking


I don't see how initiation or approaching girls is at all relevant here.

Even if a girl is drunk , just because a random man comes on to her it doesn't mean she is going to have drunken sex with him . Women can be trusted to make that judgement , even in an inebriated state ( even if I was blackout drunk , I wouldn't start making out with a man just because he approached me ) .

Drunken sex is always a two way thing , and is entirely different to rape

Quick Reply

Latest