The Difference Is...

[woodwardiocom]

Three parallel situations:

• "You didn't have a bike lock? No wonder it got stolen, you doofus."
  
• "You walked through that part of town at midnight waving around an expensive cell phone? You idiot, no wonder you got mugged!"
  
• "You were dressed like that when you were sexually assaulted? You kinda asked for it."

My social circles regard the first two as appropriate replies, and the third as absolutely not. I agree with that, but on analysis, am having trouble articulating the relevant distinction.

Edit: Many thanks for the answers thus far. They've helped.

Comments

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

All three are quite judgmental.

The third is purified bullshit. Rape doesn't happen because women dress a certain way. Furthermore, not dressing that way ("using a bike lock") makes no difference in rape rates and that's a dangerous meme you should evict from your mind.

Given that, the first two are "really" about something you do, and the third is about something you _are_, to wit, female, and can't not do.

Finally--and importantly--rape is a hugely different crime than petty theft. Equating the two even for hypothetical reasons is a mistake. Try 1 and 2 with "that's why you got locked up and tortured" and see if your opinion of the advice changes.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

rape is a hugely different crime than petty theft.

That's a very fair point. In my head I was presuming the mugging involved violence, and thus there was more of a continuum there, but I didn't actually type that, so...

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Rape's a more serious crime. The harm to the victim is greater. That doesn't mean that we should simply shut down all logic in horror when trying to figure out how to avoid the crime.

The obvious fashion accessory that deters or stops rape, of course ... ?

A weapon.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

Can you cite a study that proves that?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

No, I can't, and a moment's thought should make it obvious to you why such a study would be extremely difficult to perform (how do you tell when rapes were deterred by armed victims, and how do you get the statistics on that when the rape attempts may never have gotten past the point of the villain going "Crap! She's got a knife [taser, gun, H-bomb]! I'm outta here!").

Having said that, are you seriously arguing against the premise that rapists are more likely to pick on small, weak, or unarmed people than they are on big, strong, or armed people? If this were true, then rapists would be utterly-unlike most violent criminals -- and indeed, most known human beings!

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

Darn, I hoped you had actual data.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

How would one go about gathering data on this topic? Actual rapes tend to be reported, and hence enter the crime statistics, but rapes aborted either because the intended victim drew a weapon, or because the would-be rapist noticed she was armed and hence backed off before even making the attempt are invisible in any crime statistics.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

Insisting your theory can't be tested decreases your credibility every time you say it.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I didn't say that it can't be tested, just that it's difficult to test. And you haven't yet explained what you believe, and why.

Do you agree or not that going armed in general makes someone less likely to be overcome by violent criminals? If so, then why would rape be any exception to this rule? Are rapists somehow more brave and persistent than, say, muggers?

Statistics do show that successful violent crimes are in general less common against armed victims. Would you like me to find some of those statistics?

I think you're playing a game here: I find it difficult to imagine that you really believe that armament is useless against violent criminals.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

I'm declining to debate in the absence of facts, and declining to theorize in fields I'm not expert in. (My degree is in computer science, not sociology.) I haven't voiced any opinion here on weapons qua deterrent, so please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm really not sure why you're badgering me.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry that you consider responding to your original post and comments "badgering." When I make a post, I hope for comments. And I don't consider rational replies to points being made to be some form of harassment.

I have observed in my life that bullies -- and violent criminals are but bullies writ large -- attack those they consider weak, not those they consider strong. Hence my default assumption is that violent criminals are less likely to persist in attacking someone whom they discover to be armed, even if the weapon is not actually used upon them. I could be wrong, but you haven't given me any arguments against this theory, other than "you don't have statistics to support it."

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

The juxtaposition of your two paragraphs is kinda funny.

I'm not obliged to give you "arguments against", because:

A) I don't have the background to make a factually-backed argument; I'd just be spouting uninformed opinions.
B) I'm not arguing with you in the first place. I declined to argue, see above.

Anyhow, I did some digging to see if there were any actual studies of the question at hand. The ones that came to a pro-gun conclusion were hosted on pro-gun websites, and the anti-gun ones were on flamingly liberal websites, so I took both with a huge grain of salt. It'd be nice to find something less biased.