Ok so I work in a Jail. I have to come into contact with people who are infected with blood borne illnesses. I would say upwards of 50% of offenders have HIV, Hepatitis, or some sort of illness I could contract. I'm around exposed to bodily fluids all the time, inmates fight and leave blood everywhere, inmates throw bodily fluids at staff, they could have a small cut and use a piece of clothing to bandage it, there are really endless ways a person in my situation could have an exposure to a serious illness.
As such, I have taken every vaccination and I use every percaussion I can in order to protect myself from being exposed. Most jails even have a 'cocktail' that exposed people can take if needed as well. Some people here are saying that "talking about reducing risk factors takes away from the culpability of the perpetrators of the crime' well, does this apply to my situation? If an inmate assaults me and he has hepatitis, and I contract it, would I have the moral authority to say, "I didn't need to get vaccinated for hepatitis, I should be allowed to work without the risk of being exposed to it."
Yeah I suppose I could, but it doesn't change the reality that I need to do everything I can to protect myself. Of course the victim doesn't deserve to be blamed, but there is nothing wrong with taking precautions, it's the smart thing to do. A woman should be allowed to wear 'provocative' clothing and be able to go out and live her life, but maybe putting herself in a situation like going to a house party full of shady men, by herself, and getting black out drunk would be a bad decision on her part.
Also the two notions of doing what you can to protect yourself, and doing what we can to stop men from sexually assaulting women are not mutually exclusive. As a society we should be educating people on how to mitigate the risk of being a victim of a sexual assault, and at the same time stopping men from sexually assaulting women. Nothing wrong with doing both.
|