So in the discussion of where the blame lies, when the discussion turns towards risk mitigation I liken that to people who go snowmobiling in the mountains without knowing what they're doing. They're putting themselves in significant harms way and when they find themselves in trouble it's their own damn fault. In that case, though, the mountain isn't to blame, because the mountain isn't doing anything wrong, it's just there, and the risk is solely placed at the feet of the rookie snowmobilers.
The rapist is not a blameless entity, nor is it simply a natural risk that should be treated with caution. The rapist is a malicious person that knows exactly what they're doing wrong, and should not be accepted in any way shape or form. By placing any blame, even a shred, on the victim you are removing even a shred of blame from the attacker, which by my books means you are placing even a little bit of legitimacy on them. That means, to me, that you are accepting there are rapists, and that there's nothing you can really do about them, because they just are.
That, to me, is just crazy. Yes, women should be careful, but when something goes wrong I don't see how you can even consider accepting the disgusting acts of the rapist even a little bit. And that's what you do when you consider laying even the smallest shred of blame on the victim.
tl;dr, the blame game is a net-zero sum, and placing any blame on the victim removes it from the attacker. And that's insane.
That's how it works out in my head, at least.
|