The argument that has been put forth is analogous to saying that anyone who leaves a window open or unlocked is inviting people to come into their house and take what they want.

We would not say to these houseowners, 'don't whine when some idiot takes the message seriously and doesn't have the will power to restrain himself'.

Perhaps the incident could have been avoided if they had shut the window, but we would never use that to shift the blame away from the thief.

The real question, then, is why do we feel the need to justify the actions of a rapist?

Angela, I am hesitant to respond to this because there is a risk of looking like I am "defending the rapist" - I am not doing that.

I grew up on a farm, we never used to lock the house. Crime was very rare in the area and it was though that if someone wanted to get into the house they would be able to do so anyway so probably better to avoid the busted door or window. The suburb I live in now does have a pretty low crime rate but enough risk that I choose to lock doors and windows most of the time. I don't leave car keys in my car in the driveway, leave car windows down at the shopping center or leave valuables lying around outside when I am not near them.

I could probably get away with leaving stuff unlocked more regularly. Occasionally I have come home and discovered the front door unlocked.

I would prefer to be able to live without locked doors, with windows down in the car on a hot day but I choose not to do so because I don't want the pain of being robbed. I resent that the actions of others make living with locks a better option than living without.

I would like harsher penalties for those who force the need for locks on the rest of us. In the mean time I adjust my behaviour to suit my estimate of the risk vs the consequences. If the risks appear lower then I take less care with security, if the risks appear higher then I take more care. The crime is someone elses, the responsibility to try and manage my risk taking is mine.

Angela
how about READing what I said. Defend/Justify the actions of a rapist ?.. hell NO ! But explaining certain social phenomena YES !
The window incident reminds me of when I left the roller door of my factory unlocked and one day went to use my compressor only to find that it, along with a considerable number of other tools were NOT there !... who's fault ? MINE, because I KNOW there are opportunistic thieves out there, and I didn't take appropriate action,but who is guilty of the crime ? The thief! I felt very violated by that because I was not insured as well.

Your comment about 'why do we have to justify the actions of a rapist' only show how incredibly unculcated is this idea that when people tell it like it is, they are immediately defending rapists or sexual assaulters. That outcome was a result of biased and unclear thinking. Have another go.

David,

Despite an increasing awareness of the problem of sexual violence, there is still reluctance for date rape to be considered criminal or even unacceptable behavior. I think this is what Angela has argued very clearly.

It’s the acceptance of what are inherently deviant social norms and actions as 'normal' [explained as inevitable] transactions in human relationships that’s the problem. Rape is not inevitable [read naturalistic], its a calculated and planned crime against victims.

I have black skin, does this make it ok for others to racially vilify me because I have not shown enough responsibility ie,'by ensuring that I don’t appear to be black'? Not from my experience.

Similarly, let’s not forget that many women who have not dressed 'provocatively' have also been violently raped.

And I think crimes of violence on the basis of someones appearance are completely different to crimes of theft.

I'll have a go-go at this one. Considering that people apparently go along to nudist camps and let it all hang out (the lack of dressing provocatively?, one doesn't hear stories about wild sex and assaults left right and centre. Which means that some people are quite okay with nudity and don't find it a CFM thingy. Dress codes for women are subliminal for men and us women, as a previous poster pointed out quite rightly, don't necessarily dress up/down for men. We may quite rightly feel we have nice legs or boobs and display them because a) gee they make me look/feel good and b) some guy might be attracted enough to get his face out of his beer and come talk to me, but if he ends up a tosser that just wants to keep looking at them all night, he's not for me. As the female of the species, we probably and subconsciously want to attract, but at the same time we are pretty concerned about being in control. Re fashion playing its role, makeup and dress up for women have been there and i don't think there's anything wrong with that, it's FUN! Plastic surgery to make yourself feel good about yourself is a bit of a worry. And if New Idea started promoting nose bags as a fashion accessory then I would know it was time to climb into a burka. Some women (especially young girls) get the fashion thing so wrong, (I did, but blame it on the 80s) but it's not about you guys that are looking, it's about exploring your attractiveness and growing up. (and we mostly grow up in front of you guys, rather than a convent these days, and trust that you know what it is perhaps?) For the guys that are drooling over a young woman's low cut top in a pub, she's probably more conscious of her bra showing rather than are the guys getting a good look!

Hi Jane, I'll attempt to address your comments now.

Ok, as for female autonomy, agreed, in some senses it exists, but is limited. To be truthful, even male autonomy is a bit dodgy when you think about it. We are all interconnected, and related by power relatioships, which arise from the survival instinct.

The idea that females enjoy autonomy is in the legal sense true, but in the realistic sense, it will be more or less depending on which society one lives in. We are all autonomous within the restrictions of our own society.
Let me try to explain my position more clearly for you. I hold that in the real world, while anyone, male or female 'can' do pretty much what they like, there are serious consequences for doing some things.
For the female, its more difficult, because while a man can usually go where he wants without too much worry, a female cannot, due to her difference in strength from we guys. I don't for a moment suggest that any man SHOULD behave as I outlined that they 'can' in my other post, but the point I was making, is that they 'can' if they choose.

The law is only helpful when there is a chance of the perpetrator of some misconduct sensing a strong chance of being caught. For reasons such as this, I suggest that a womans autonomy to 'go anywhere at any time' is legally true but practically worrisome. I say she is far better off having a man with her if she is going somewhere at night in an out of the way area.

I strongly recommend a read of the book of Ruth in the old testament, if for no other reason than to see some valuable cultural and social insights, and even to get a bit of a 'romance hit' :) Of particular interest in the light of my outrageous post, is the position of young foreign females in Israelite society, and the attitude of young men at that time. I seriously doubt that 'men' have changed much since then.