I know it is a representative story in that this is the response it elicits and the same response follows narratives of completed assaults. People look for what I could have done differently. Well meaning or not, the responsibility is passed to me where it doesn’t belong.

As for causes and effects, fair enough maybe everything does have its causes, but why single out the open window? Why not the million other factors? It’s a rhetorical move that looks suspiciously like blame, especially when set agaisnt all the other “causes” that might have been named.

And yeah, I’m bitter about missing out on game show quiz nerd stardom. Doesn’t it show?

However, that doesn’t prove that all criminal behaviour is rational. Just that incentives matter (at least some of the time). Therefore, changing incentives can change the outcome.

I take your point about where most rapes occur. I have no disagreement with you there.

I also agree with you that societies approach to preventing rape should focuss on the offender, not the victim.

The end.

My second comment was a belated response. The environmental theory of crime suggests that it’s largely a matter of removing incentives - the idea being that committing a crime is a rational decision. Hence crime prevention programmes which will make opportunistic theft more difficult. However, there’s an underlying ontology which presumes that certain people are predisposed towards crime.

I think it’s a bit simplistic in terms of explaining both the motivation and emotional context for crime and also only brushes the surface in terms of what leads to or prevents specific acts at certain times and in certain places.

My point regarding the large % of perps being known to the victims is that the crime is embedded within a particular relationship, and is normally the culmination of a period of abuse or degradation over time.

If what we’re concerned about is opportunistic rape, then we need to make that clear - because the myth is that most rapes happen to women at random in dark places, etc, by people they don’t know.

However, sensible approaches to the prevention of that sort of rape should focus not on the victim (or possible victim) but on the offender (or possible offender) - ie responsible service of alcohol, safe access to public transport, good lighting in public places, and also community responsibility individually and collectively for the safety of others.

I hope I’ve made myself clearer. Probably won’t be able to respond to any further comments for a bit - work beckons!

A good (the best?) solution is to increase the cost of rape so much that any other incentive changes are overwhelmed by the dissincentive against rape. Perhaps this can be achieved through white ribbons. I favour greater rights of self-defence and better policing.

The evidence on the effect of incentives on crime is overwhelming (though less so for the marginal dissincentive of the dealth penalty — but that’s a whole different story).

Of course. I never implied otherwise. That’s why I specifically said “Then you‚Äôll need to decide which way the causation goes”.

I get the feeling people aren’t considering what I write. They are just looking for reasons to say I’m wrong.

Kim: And rapists, as we’ve already noted, tend to be family members or friends, and by definition are on the inside of the window in most cases.

I think people are taking the “window” example a little too literally. But anyway:

1) even if people are inside the window, they still may respond to changed incentives;

2) even if most rapes are done by family/friends, they still may resopnd to changed incentives; and

3) some rapes aren’t by family/friends, so the existence of those incentives are still relevant.

No, there is cause-and-effect if you think that any man might change their behaviour based on the incentives in front of them.

I obviously need to stress again that cause-and-effect does not imply blame.

Perhaps it is also pointing out the obvious — that some outcomes are caused by lots of causes. A simple example: if you meet a person for coffee, was that meeting caused by

a) you going to the coffee shop
b) your friend going to the coffee shop
c) the coffee shop being open, etc etc

Kate: In the end, it’s not up to the woman to stop the rape: it’s up to the rapist who commits the rape. It’s his choice. It’s his action.

I agree, and this is not inconsistent with what I’m saying.

Kate: If there must be a cause and effect, it is that the rapist is the cause.

There is always a cause and effect. I didn’t invent that rule… and I would often like to break it. Damn Isaac Newton!

And the decision of the rapist is clearly one of the causes of rape. Further (and now I am making a moral & legal judgement) the rapist is also to blame.

And rapists, as we’ve already noted, tend to be family members or friends, and by definition are on the inside of the window in most cases.

You’re may be right, but I wouldn’t be suprised if people with unlocked houses did suffer a higher level of bugglary, home invasion and everything that goes with that.

I think you’ll find that there is a correlation between some female behaviour and getting raped. Then you’ll need to decide which way the causation goes, which should be easy be observing the order of behaviour (ie whether the rape came before or after the behaviour).

None of this is ideological or moral. It’s just a statement of boring old maths.

Naomi: The rape can only occur because the rapist decided to invade someone’s property and do it, same as theft can only occur if the thief chances the door to see if it’s unlocked.

I agree, but none of this is inconsistent with what I’m saying. Just because rape is wrong doesn’t mean we can’t explore the causes. Similarly, just because terrorism/theft/murder etc is wrong doesn’t mean we shouldn’t explore the causes. Sometimes this “root cause” approach is dismissed as defending the action. In response I suggest that knowledge is always better than ignorance.

Naomi: If we accept that rape is wrong - which we apparently all do, left or right - then the person who has to accept responsibility is the perpetrator, not the victim.

The perp definitely has to accept the blame. That says nothing about whether the actions of the victim changed the liklihood of the outcome. It is precisely the ambiguous use of the word “responsibility” that causes these debates.

Naomi: I believe that we do this blaming thing because if we can tell ourselves that the sufferer somehow brought it on themselves, we can be more confident that such an appalling thing will never happen to us.

I agree. Humans don’t like to not have a reason. That’s why we invented God.

Naomi: So instead of saying ‘you shouldn‚Äôt leave your window open, rapists will come in‚Äô the best response is actually ‘that sucks, I‚Äôm really sorry that happened to you.‚Äô

I haven’t told anybody to shut their windows. When my friends have gone through similar ordeals I do what friends are supposed to. I listen.

Naomi: (John Howard should do that too - and yes, I have asked him)

I thought you said that it can be annoying to give people obvious advice… ;p

I’m not sure whether you’re being serious or if this is a parody. In case you are serious — no, rape is not reducible to women causing men to rape them. Nothing I have said would lead a reasonable person to that conclusion.

dk.au: Men‚Äôs default ‘natural‚Äô position is that of a rapist?

I don’t believe that men’s default natural position is that of a rapist. However, I believe that some people (including men) do commit rape.

Likewise I don’t believe that a muslim’s default is to be a terrorist. But I understand that some people (including muslims) are terrorists.

With all due respect — these are stupid questions. The answers were already obvious, unless you are trying to misunderstand me. Unfortuantely, I believe that is common among people (from all philosophical backgrouns) as it helps them dismiss their ideological enemy. Sigh.

DD: This makes no sense John Humphreys. If people have a right to drink, they have a right to drink safely equally.

I agree. I can’t see what doesn’t make sense.

DD: As to living alone and walking naked, boy, how old are you?

I’m 27. The living alone was an example given by the previous person (you didn’t ask their age) and walking naked was to show that I think you have the right to do anything (with what you own), even if it is very suggestive.

In the end, it’s not up to the woman to stop the rape: it’s up to the rapist who commits the rape. It’s his choice. It’s his action.

If there must be a cause and effect, it is that the rapist is the cause.

So rape is reducible to women causing men to rape them? Men’s default ‘natural’ position is that of a rapist? We’ve covered this in the other thread John. Pretending any (social) cause is neutral and a-political is naive at best.

You need to state your position more thoroughly and clearly if you want to be taken seriously.

I think you should be free to get as drunk as men, live alone, walk the streets naked if you like. But be aware that you are responsible for your actions and that certain actions happen to be related to certain outcomes (cause and effect).

This makes no sense John Humphreys. If people have a right to drink, they have a right to drink safely equally. As to living alone and walking naked, boy, how old are you?
I’ve got a *special* place for those who exploit drunks and tell them that it’s their fault.

I believe much of the discussion started because some of the left object to some on the right saying that they share responsibility for rape. The left said “the right is blaming the victim”.

The right responded (quite legitimately) that women do, self-evidently, have control over factors that will change the liklihood of being raped.

The right it attributing responsibility. The left thinks the right is attributing blame. These are different things. Responsibility is just about cause and effect and need not hold any moral judgement. This misunderstanding is effectively at the core of nearly all of this debate (except perhaps some depraved pro-rape people or some stupid anti-cause-and-effect people). Damn semantics. Damn it to hell!

You ask why the right defends itself. The answer is because they see the left misunderstanding them and want to set the record straight. I think you’ll find that most discussion of rape didn’t start with a blog posts about IR reform.

Further, while some people give advice… most people on the right are simply observing a cause-and-effect relationship. That doesn’t need to imply advice.

For example, I observe that women who avoid dating macho men get hit less often. Others may observe that different behaviour/clothes/drug use leads to different probabilities of sexual assault. That doesn’t imply blame, nor does it imply the need to change. Personally, I hope women do not take on the burqua just to avoid harassment.

I think you should be free to get as drunk as men, live alone, walk the streets naked if you like. But be aware that you are responsible for your actions and that certain actions happen to be related to certain outcomes (cause and effect).

You may have heard that before… but that message is quite confused because of the language misunderstanding. Your point (that men shouldn’t rape women) isn’t confused. Everybody already knows that, and there is no controversy there.

Unfortuantely, some people go further. They attack the right for “blaming the victim” and appear to attribute collective guilt. On the first point they misunderstand the right. On the second point I think the right largely misunderstands the left.

The left aren’t saying “all men are responsible for the actions of men”… they are simply trying to highlight a problem and are using what is (in my opinion) clumsy and unnecessarily divisive language. But their underlying point is not wrong.

Also — there is a real problem of men being treated unfairly (physical abuse, emotional abuse, accused of rape etc) and sometimes men feel that these problems aren’t taken seriously. That feeling doesn’t mix well with perceived accusations of collective guilt and accusations of moral inferiority.

Your suggested warnings to men would be appropriate in the context of a similar set of complaints. Indeed — these sorts of warnings are already common in many instances.

But is it really so difficult to understand why it is unwelcome and unhelpful in the posts here?

Firstly, you are acting as if we women haven’t had a lifetime of being told these things. Trust us - we know that some things put us at higher risk. We are not children.

Secondly, it is irritating to have discussions of how terrible rape or domestic violence are derailed by such obvious “advice”. Because most of it is not advice to “lock your doors”. It is more akin to “advice” that you shouldn’t buy nice things or you risk them being stolen.

Stop telling women not to flirt. Stop telling them to dress “appropriately”. Stop telling them they can’t get as drunk as men, live alone, walk the streets unchaperoned.

We’ve heard it all before, and we would like to change the focus to telling men that it’s not fair that women have their liberties curtailed.

Why don’t we start warning men that there’s a chance that they could be falsely accused of rape, so they shouldn’t be stupid enough to put themselves into a position where it could happen.

Men: don’t go to strange women’s houses. Make sure you have someone to look out for you. Don’t get too drunk that you can’t remember every minute detail of the evening in case you are cross examined in a court. Don’t act loutish then be surprised when someone assumes you are asking to be falsely accused of rape…